4 ms·
That's what Ray Dalio says in "Principles". It's terrifying.
by david927 6y ago
That's what Ray Dalio says in "Principles". It's terrifying.
- kridsdale1 6y agoSolid book.
- retzkek 6y agoAlso: "The Fourth Turning" by Strauss and Howe (1997). From the synopsis: > Modern history moves in cycles, each one lasting about the length of a long human life, each composed of four eras—or "turnings"—that last about twenty years and that always arrive in the same order. In The Fourth Turning, the authors illustrate these cycles using a brilliant analysis of the post-World War II period. > First comes a High, a period of confident expansion as a new order takes root after the old has been swept away. Next comes an Awakening, a time of spiritual exploration and rebellion against the now-established order. Then comes an Unraveling, an increasingly troubled era in which individualism triumphs over crumbling institutions. Last comes a Crisis—the Fourth Turning—when society passes through a great and perilous gate in history. Together, the four turnings comprise history's seasonal rhythm of growth, maturation, entropy, and rebirth
- hnick 6y agoIs this presented as a global truth or something specific to anglo/euro society?
- retzkek 6y agoIt's very Anglo-American focused, and draws primarily on American and European history.
- blackrock 6y agoLOL. This is like economic astrology.
- randomsearch 6y agoDon't really agree but do think human lifespans are important. I don't think it's a coincidence that Brexit has happened after those who remember WWII have mostly died. Living memory is really important in avoiding the same mistakes, it seems. People forget why institutions exist. Similarly, the financial sector has been spiralling out of control for decades, beginning roughly when most living memory of 1929 had passed. Conclusion: historians should be given more of a key role in society?
- redisman 6y agoSeems like some fairly flimsy reasoning. If you squint hard enough I'm sure most centuries have somewhat similar cycles. What makes anyone think we would repeat the 20th century when the starting state is completely different? Why not the 18th for example?
- david927 6y agoI think you should read the book and get back to me. He makes quite a solid argument. And it's not about the century but more about long-term cycles.