> It is a perfectly rational phenomenon that history depends on generational cycles.

Then why isn't it taught in mainstream history courses?

> If generations are "arbitrary constructs" then I take it you do not think "boomer" means anything?

Not really, no. To begin with, you'll never find a full agreement on when that generation (or any other) begins and ends.

> this "all these cycle-meisters (a subset of woo-meisters or just plain frauds) always say that the crisis is near. Always. Their magical cycle theories never predict a distant crisis" is pure, unfounded name-calling.

Actually, it's a place where you could rebut me with solid evidence that disproves my statement, if you actually had such evidence.

Instead, how about this: What predictions did Strauss and Howe make that have actually come true?

Burden of proof applies here- you can't tell him that something is true then refuse to provide evidence for it. Should be pretty simple to give a few examples, no?