You've probably heard of K-Waves, regular periods of growth and decline that a capitalistic economy undergoes.
Another once is about to occur just as conditions are becoming favorable for the global proletariat again. You should seize every advantage and opportunity and advantage available, but my prediction is, the proletariat aren't likely to fully revolt in the West at least during the depression phase. The prime opportunity will be in the late 2030' or early 2040''s, especially with birthrates and global immigration set to collapse unless significant happens.
Is this trying to predict boom and bust cycles in a capitalist system? How do they accurately predict the waves exactly? I'm looking at the image and it just seems like arbitrary dates are chosen.
The point being that charting the lifecycle of a national economy in terms of booms and busts and GDP and economic growth doesn't really tell you how real people in actual society are doing, normal people who aren't financiers or stockholders but just regular working people.
the 1990s had biology innovations along with computer stuff, Theranos exists for a reason
>>2520659>normal people who aren't stockholders but just regular working people401k = military industrial complex investments
>>2520612Why is it suddenly crunched past 1950? According to the K-waves we line up perfectly for the IT wave which has its zenith at around 2026.
I only care about K-Pop.
Shaikh treats this question far more rigorously
>>2520759it's almost like this is bullshit
>>2520748>401k401ks are like nothing. The US stock market is owned by billionaire investors, the 1%, not by working class slobs with their dinky retirement savings. Whenever economists and business journalists and neoliberal politicians talk about "the booming economy" in the United States, whenever they are saying that the economy is doing very well, it's during periods when wealth inequality is on the rise, i.e. a tiny percentage of the population is doing very well and making enormous profits, everyone else is staying poor or getting poorer. You even see it in America's historical terminology - we call the 1920s "The Roaring Twenties" as if the economy was doing great at the time and things were really improving, when in reality the country was careening towards disaster and only a handful of rich cunts in top hats were experiencing any "roaring".
If revolution was possible it would have happened, history ended in 1918
You can tell how much of a bullshit science economics really is by these kinds of retarded predictive models and arbitrary metrics economists always come up with that never align with reality at all.
I'm pretty sure we're on the downturn of the IT kondratiev wave, AI simply isn't transformative enough, the periods are obviously inexact but wallerstein has it right: the downturn of a k-wave corresponds to the point at which the imperial core loses the monopoly of a nascent industry. you can see the reaction against indians corresponds to this loss because IT jobs have migrated outside of the imperial core and big tech has opened offices all around the world. This is also why there's an urgency to "win" the AI race, and why datacenters have been built throughout the imperial core despite being highly contaminant to local communities. they're hoarding it in the imperial core to keep salaries in AI high. this would correspond with a k-wave on the upside (note that this doesn't mean a condition "favorable to the global proletariat", rather conditions favorable to workers in the imperial core working this exact industry that has been temporarily monopolized), but we're also seeing Trump desperately trying to draw new monopolies through tariffs because there's little faith in AI as a geopolitical advantage. Part of the reason is that the west failed to enforce a monopoly around AI, China has the capabilities to develop AI too, but also because, like I said, it's not transformative enough to develop into its own industry.