CURT: IS 2025 THE RIGHT TIMEFRAME FOR THE NEXT BULL MARKET?
—“Based on Glenn Neelys analysis a new big bull market cycle can only start 20 years after the 2000 stock market high. His newest forecast sees the start of new bull big market after 2025 – the big shift should have happend by then following his forecast. It does fit with the timeframes you were talking about?”–
I work with overlapping cycles following Kondratiev, Quigley, Strauss-Howe, and Turchin, plus sensitivity to Austrian business cycles, and demographic projections. Without that full compliment of analysis, we tend to assuem regularity to data, rather than that populations follow basic cycles of innovation, adaptation, exhaustion, stress, reaction, and that these cycles are dependent first on energy capture and conversion, and second on population, and only third on everything else, as information and opportunity work their way through the population.
I understood in 92, when I started working on this problem. I started predictions in 2004, and so far I’ve been pretty accurate in everything other than both china’s expansion, and american civil conflict moving outward. I’d assumed that we would see action after 2017-2020, but it started to look like 2030 which was everyone else’s prediction. China and Russia’s recognition of their demographic collapse, Trump’s correct assessment of geostrategic changes, his election in 2016, the visceral reaction by the neo-marxist-pomo-woke globalists, and then Covid in 2019, with unnecessary lockdowns trashing the economies accelerated everything. So it’s 2022 now, and between the conservative predictions of others (2030) and mine (2020) It looks like (by accident) I’m going to be the winner of the prediction race by a hair 😉 .
Given that the human forgetting curve (3min, 3wks, 3mths, 3yrs, 9yrs) is what it is, depending upon how fast global events unfold (they will accelerate time frames),I would expect that we will see this recession turn into a depression (2022-2025+) and that we will come out of it in 2026-2030. The problem being that if we go to war (which appears inevitable) then this can accelerate or delay reorganization.
We are currently reindustrializing faster than we ever have before, but we have strategic supply chains at risk, and we have produced standoff weapons for standoff wars, with high tech and few soldiers, when that appears to have been a mistake.
So there is a relationship between reindustrialization of the economy and reindustrialization of the military-industrial complex. And the left is still pretending there is some chance of underclass rule (leftist, top credentialism, and bottom against middle meritocracy), when that era has long passed. And we are on a borderline civil war.
An international conflict will likely suppress that civil war. Without that international conflict we will see a civil war. If we have a civil war the world will go into international conflict regardless of what we do. So, that’s the problem: war is good for us because we only tend to reorganize after a war.
That’s a long way of saying a technical analysis of market movements is pretty useless (stupid) for other than ordinary market cycles during times of regularity. In times of change, economic outcomes are only predictable at grand scales. So the rate of change is inversely proportional to the utility (predictability) of market data. Because as Mandelbrot said, market data is just a reflection of fed policy working its way through the economy, combined with rare technological innovation, constant gossip and unchangeable animal spirits.