Talk:Kondratiev wave/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fix link

i am new to wikipedia, but there is an article about Nikolai Kondratiev, so the link to "Nikolai Kondratieff" should be fixed.

Paradigm

According to the "paradigm" given, the Age of Steel etc only lasted 33 yrs. How is this accounted for???--Jack Upland 09:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it isn't!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The "age" of some technology does not mean that the technology became unimportant at the end of that period; instead it was displaced as a "leading industry".Phmoreno (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, my point is the length of the waves seems to vary. Which goes to the heart of the problems with the theory, and for the purposes of this article the lack of explanation for its basis. The evidence for the K-wave must be the periodicity of long term economic development. But where is this evidence?--Jack Upland (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, the Kondratiev cycle idea has been most readily accepted by Marxists. Perhaps they can answer the question of why it's considered useful. Perhaps as one of the larger "crises" of capitalism that is to be feared more than the ordinary recessionary ("crisis") periods are?136.181.195.29 (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal?

It seems to me that this theory is pseudoscience. I'd vote that the article be removed or at least have a big warning label slapped on it. It is to economics what Bigfoot is to biology. NONE of this has been peer reviewed!

It's in my economics dictonary. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia has an article on Bigfoot.--Jack Upland 04:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite right as well. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It's anyway a bizarre request. The problem is that some sketchy theories are piggy-backing on the K-wave theoy, and the way Wiki works, it's nigh impossible to remove the references to that, incl. references, but of course ALL of the basic and extended Kondratieff stuff has been "peer reviewed" in the sense that there are not only hundreds of articles and books that have gone through peer review that are dealing with the issue, but actually some top, ISI-listed journals are dealing primarily or with an emphasis with cycles and economics based on them. The publications, e.g., by Freeman and Perez are in top places. Clossius 04:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The function of this article is to explain what the theory is, and this includes giving the reader some indication of the general discourse attached to it, including 'sketchy' theories. I think the article does that rather well without being overlong.--Jack Upland 06:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

KEEP This article clearly introduces to the reader the theory. To assert that it mumbo-jumbo misses the point -all economics is mumbo-jumbo and is beset with fashionable theories at least every decade. Keep this article. Lentisco 02:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely KEEP as per your argument, but from a life scientist's standpoint of empiricism, I cannot wonder whether the whole thing is just an artifact of selective interpretation of data. Since economics is a science after all (though possibly with a more dubious reputation for veracity than other social sciences), there should be critique of K-wave theory, and this should be added. As of now, the article sounds as if the concept is the real deal - and to the initiated, the crude sine-wave graph alone shows it isn't. Living systems do not have sine wave periodicities, only dead matter does. ;-) Dysmorodrepanis 20:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Economics is NOT a science. Social science is not really science as it never posits theories that are falsifiable. Economics is a social science which attempts to explain and predict human behavior primarily utilizing philosophy and statistics where possible. As this article is decidedly "long term" in scope, it cannot possibly rely upon statistical data as such data is almost entirely post-war in origin. It can however be grounded in history, where such cycles are fair notable since written history began thousands of years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.69.210 (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That is the problem. Now we just need a source which points that out - or else we'll be accused of original research!--Jack Upland 22:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather amusing to say that the long cycles are to economy what bigfoot is to biology. In fact, the hypothesis that attributes the observed "long wave" oscillations to random factors does not pass significance tests. I here defy everyone who believes the opposite to prove it with the right statistical tools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.226.164 (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an established branch of economics that studies long term or Kondratiev cycles. A related branch is new economic history. It is of historical importance and not for predicting the stock market. Some market analysts who know little about the actual economic cycles use supposed Kondratiev wave theory for predictions. There is little in the economic literature to suggest that Kondratiev waves are a timing tool. Kondratiev waves simply label long economic cycles with their leading technologies. This is a very interesting field and it's unfortunate that more economists do not follow it. Perhaps that is because economists generally are not engineers.Phmoreno (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Manuel Delanda

The following was added to the article.

Others, such as Manuel Delanda find Kondratiev waves as examples of oscillatory social behavior as relevant in considerations of emergence, abstract machines, and artificial life.

I don't know what this means. I think it needs a fuller explanation before it is included.--Jack Upland 06:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell are the views of the "Austrian school" given here? Sure, its a response, but in the absence of any mainstream or non austrian response being listed, it seems to be simply plugging the austrian school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.21.24 (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Kondratiev or Kondratieff?

I see the article uses both names - Kondratiev and Kondratieff, however, most of books refer to Kondratieff. I think it should be consistent throughout the article as well as the article about Kondratiev. Solar Apex (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about this too much, there is one proper way to spell it "Кондратьев". But the problem with translation to the Latin alphabet happens with EVERY Russian word. We should use one Latinized version or the other, not both, but there is little to decide between them. I prefer Kondratiev however, because Kondratieff is the way the French do it. Smallbones (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Was it not Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky who proposed the Long-wave economic idea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Tugan-Baranovsky 62.49.4.186 (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misread the article. T-B tutored K who proposed the idea.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

kondratiev winter phase of 2008

Who and when was this page updated? In it we find that the next "winter" was suposse to happen late 2008, and it did.

Since the passage links to an article on the GFC it clearly was written post 2008. One of the problems with the theory is that it generally only predicts things after the event.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What the...?

The K-Wave is supposedly related to "physical variables such as ...homicides, and one-mile-run records"????--Jack Upland (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

We really need to get rid of all the citations of obscure theorists and their esoteric uses of the K-Wave, much of which reads like gobbledegook (see above), and get a few paragraphs which provide a decent overview of the topic and the general trends in application.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What is a Saturation Point?

Can someone please explain what a Saturation Point is - it is used as a column heading in the table for the sequence of Kondrtiev Waves, but nowhere is it explicitly explained. Thanks. --67.169.100.237 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The saturation point represents approach to 100% diffusion of an innovation; however, there is a noticable slowdown in the growth rate around 80%. Saturation often means approaching rather than 100%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmoreno (talk • contribs) 01:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In reality it is not possible to know what the upper limit or 100% diffusion of a technology will be; however, using curve fitting and the logistic function gives a reasonable estimate in a significant number of cases. One starts by looking at natural limits, such as the number of vehicles per licensed driver. One would expect saturation at 1:1; however the number reached something like 1.16:1 because some people own multiple vehicles, plus rental fleets and business vehicles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmoreno (talk • contribs) 22:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Modern Capitalist Economy

This opening statement "regular, sinusoidal-like cycles in the modern (capitalist) world economy." seems to imply that the cycles are germane only to market economies. Did they not appear in socialist economies, was there a lag in their appearance in socialist economies, or did socialist economies (China under Mao, Cuba, DPRK) perform so poorly that the trend in them was down from the moment of successful revolution? Perhaps "capitalist" should be deleted.Gaintes (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Command economies generally do not experience boom-and-bust cycles. When they perform badly it has nothing in common with capitalist depressions. Nor do their economic surges have anything in common with capitalist booms. There is a general absence of speculation, market mania, and investor panic. Moreover no command economy has lasted long enough to be studied by the K-Wave method.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The sixth wave

I would like to add some information on the sixth Kondratiev wave but I'm treading very carefully because it's the subject of a book I have co-authored. I believe that we have a significant contribution to add to the debate but I obviously want to do this without being too promotional. I would appreciate any suggestions on how to phrase our contribution so it doesn't get removed as advertising.

This text is what I am proposing to add in (feedback/comments gratefully received).

"It has been proposed that the sixth Kondratiev wave is now in its infancy, and will be defined by a move towards resource efficiency. The innovations that are now emerging, and will come to dominate in this wave, include technologies such as landfill mining, green chemistry, renewable energy, crowd-sourcing. The wave will also be marked by institutional changes such as a shift to service-based rather than product-based industry, decoupling of resource-consumption from economic growth and the comprehensive pricing of ecosystem services and waste."

Thanks BNogrady (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Please start with a statement on conflict of interest after reading WP:COI. I just note that the reference above is to www.sixthwave.org and that it is titled "Welcome to The Sixth Wave

a book by James Bradfield Moody and Bianca Nogrady" Smallbones (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones. Having looked at that page on COI, perhaps the best way for me to approach this is to declare the following: I am co-author of a book titled The Sixth Wave (Random House Australia), which advances the theory that the sixth Kondratiev wave will be based on resource efficiency. I would like to contribute to the page on long waves but without violating Wikipedia's principles. As such, I volunteer the following information as a summary of the arguments put forward in the book, and hope that an editor of this page will find this information pertinent and relevant to the page.

""It has been proposed that the sixth Kondratiev wave is now in its infancy, and will be defined by a move towards resource efficiency. The innovations that are now emerging, and will come to dominate in this wave, include technologies such as landfill mining, green chemistry, renewable energy, crowd-sourcing. The wave will also be marked by institutional changes such as a shift to service-based rather than product-based industry, decoupling of resource-consumption from economic growth and the comprehensive pricing of ecosystem services and waste." BNogrady (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

on 1.1 Spectral analysis confirms long cycles (and shorter ones)

In Silverberg, Gerald (2000). Breaking the Waves: A Poisson Regression Approach to Schumpeterian Clustering of Basic Innovations. Maastricht: MERIT. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

(It might be more convincing to use the peer-reviewed version of the above cited paper by Silverberg & Verspagen: Silverberg, Gerald; Verspagen, Bart (2003). "Breaking the waves: a Poisson regression approach to Schumpeterian clustering of basic innovations". Cambridge journal of economics. 27 (5): 671–693.) Zwarteloper (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

a review of application of spectral methods are given. And they are shown to be problematic. So Russian works cited in paragraph are most probably written with a lack of knowledge of previous work in the field.

Looks like at least it worths to mention that spectral analysis was applied in many previous works, there were a lot debates and still they are considered problematic for the task of identification of waves as they produce 'wave artefacts' on plain data. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this sounds like analysing a plate of spaghetti. The theories are (a) not capable of predicting anything in advance and (b) not capable of providing a coherent argument based on past past economic data. But if you look at a plate of spaghetti long enough you can see any pattern you want...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

After having studied Kondratiev waves and economic and technological history, I believe that while technology undoubtedly shapes economic cycles, the way it does so is not in any kind of regular periodic manner and it is very hard to mark the beginning and ends of cycles.Phmoreno (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Undone edits by user: Ibn khaldun 84

The following was moved do discussion because it was not in encyclopedic style and had few citations. Also, citations were not in proper format.

Other modern Modifications of Kondratieff theory

The contest of Political Long Cycles vs. Economic Long Cycles

The theory of long cycles tend to generate much debate during periods of so-called "recessions", while during the long periods of growth decreases instead the intensity of the debate. Since the 1970s and above 1980s, the discussions increased quite hugely, when they were relatively faded between 1945 and 1970. It is questionable whether the period since 1967 (Meadows Report), or 1971 (end of gold convertibility of the dollar) or 1973 (oil shocks) is a long recession. The US economy has experienced strong productivity gains and a period of economic growth in length as yet unknown, from the years 1980s. As for Asia, this continent started to take off ever since. But Europe has actually experienced the problems of mass unemployment and slower growth since the 1970s. Yet the theory of long cycles then experienced an upturn, but in all over directions than before. These long cycles would be not economic, but also political. It is not only cycles of political views, but cycles involving the world via their geopolitical dimension. And Modelski (1983) and Goldstein (1988) are interpreting and completing the Kondratiev results. In parallel with Kondratiev economic long waves, exist in parallel hegemonic cycles. Hegemonic cycle lasts two successive Kondratiev cycles (120 years) by Modelski, or between two and three cycles (150 years) by Goldstein.

Neo-Schumpeterian Approaches vs. World System Approaches

In fact, in Europe itself, the theory of hegemonic long cycles initiated notably by Modelski and Goldstein, has long had less success in starting a debate in Universities, than the theories about economic long cycles lasting approximately 50 years. The real debate has often opposed rather - since the 1970s and especially 1980s - neo-Schumpeterian on one hand, with advocates of the theory of the World System on the other hand. It is true though that the World System Approach accepts more the idea of a possible existence of political long cycles. Among the neo-Schumpeterian, Kleinknecht conducted audits of the econometric theory of Kondratiev, country by country, and concludes we can consider this theory as widely tested empirically. On the other hand, proponents of the theory of the World System note that this theory does not oppose only developed countries on one hand, developing countries on the other side. It is also showed, in developed countries themselves, the presence of growing inequalities in income and endowment factors, between neighboring regions: through the establishment of systems for the construction of suitable qualifications, the long cycle and the global system naturally spread inequalities locally, according to the international division of labor. Gerhard Mensch's works can be proved to be in part as a link between these theories. On the one hand he argues for a neo-Schumpeterian explanation of the long cycles of innovation. On the other hand, since it explains that innovations through credit systems adapted to recognize the global evolution, may exist in periods of expansion like in recession periods, it justifies the fact that innovations can be supported by the public sector, for example in a recession and to increase the average skill level.

Methodological Enquiries

Assume that the findings made in the early days of the theory of economic long cycles (early twentieth century and even a little before) show points of support to build statistical systems, that are conceived in order to verify the theory. What are these points of support? On the one hand, the various economic sectors vehicle some productivity differentials. Thanks to the knowledge of these differentials... we could understand how the credit spreads from a sector of the economy to another to feed growth. But if we reason, not taking into account the sectoral point of view, but rather from a national perspective, we will not have that subtelty. It is this subtelty that allows the construction of econometric systems to resolve the question. If we can understand the phenomenon of growth only nationally is one possibility; there economy and law are used to walk closely together. But it must go global to move towards the solution in terms of the method how to conceptually integrate the global innovation? Should it be, to hope to achieve, and solve, again... a question of method! Indeed, early theories of long cycles rather studied the issue of price changes for each country, and also in some respects suggested modest ways to incorporate the issue of quantity or income. Now if we come to the world issue... in fact, globally, it appears almost impossible to directly compare prices, but it does not address directly the question of quantity, it depends on the concept of global output rather qualitatively (rather than the aggregate production in its quantitative expression). However, it is difficult in a single sentence to say exactly which product brings the world economy?!... As economic agents should anyway make decisions in real time, one can probably assume that the monetary system - far more than the real economy - is supposed to absorb the fluctuations of all kinds of economy, to insure the global economy... Statistically, if one were to reconstruct a method to examine a theory of long cycles, not suited to the post-war Bretton Woods period, but that of globalization, how? How to ensure the economic and social changes to take into account both the general appearance of the economy, at national or regional (EU, USA, etc.) levels - where the right and the economy would not tend to enter into frequent contradiction -, and in industries where productivity differentials expressed that generate significant foreclosure effects, and very often trigger income inequalities between countries and regions. To achieve this, while taking into account the expectations, we need a third term. We can consider that this third term might be the social system and social change worldwide. Now the real problem of method is that in a very financialized economy, the social term is perhaps not the final horizon for policymakers, but only an underlying point serving the collective evolution, which they would use as a conceptual guarantee to build new contracts so as to generate further profits. Systems should be established allowing statistical regression using social media as statistical regression itself, while solving, though, at any time, the problem of method: how to adjust the overall look of the economy (where the law and economics are not bound into conflict), and the appearance of sectors, organizations and private strategies that tend to create always conflicts of interest.

A Francophone Approach to Long Cycles

In fact, the French school has long since developed an original approach. Halfway between the economic system and political system, there is the monetary system. That is why the long cycles can be considered in fact as long monetary cycles each time involving some new key-currency. In particular Marjolin, Imbert, Dupriez, Jourdon have developed, suggested, illustrated such a possible approach.

Contemporary K-wave Stage and Equation

Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedia like. That means priority goes to academic or trade journals and books. We can't include everyone's paper. It is acceptable to briefly mention a published paper, which should then be put in the footnotes. Also, we have a section for "other researchers" where these can go.Phmoreno (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The following was removed:

Contemporary K-wave Stage and EquationDong congcong(2006),An Introduction to World Economic Long Wave-Crises and Depressions: from Study to Anticipation

Early in 2006,a Chinese scholar named dong congcong,had written the paper,and as is considered in this paper, none of the ever existing long wave theories can totally describe or correctly explain the chronic fluctuating characters of the capitalist world economy system since the year 1857. Based on Karl Marx's greatest work Capital and combined with considerable quantities of historical materials such as all kinds of writings about economic long wave both at home and abroad, the paper analyzes four inherently identical waves, tries to draw a fluctuating graph of the world economy with the wavelength supposed to be 50 years, and then forecasts the future of the world. Here is the summary. Wave One:1857/58-1907/08 Wave Two:1907/08-1957/58 Wave Three:1957/58-2007/08 Wave Four:2007/08-2057/58 And the phase:07/57,16/66,24/74,32/82,40/90,50/00. And the equation:FC-R(t)≈-cos(2л(t-1857)/50) And the forecasts:In the next 50 years,2007,2016,2024,2032,2040,2050 and 2057 may be the key points.

Editing Needed Urgently

This article is now way too long and seems to have degenerated into a grab bag of opinions, speculations, and theories by anyone and everyone, some only vaguely relevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it needs to be shortened. I'd like to see someone who is familiar with or interested in learning the subject get involved. I spent more than my share of time working on this and it's now someone else's turn.Phmoreno (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I just cleaned up his bio but don't have energy to clean this one up but will keep in mind. "Capital Account" on RT (TV network) did a special on it today that was quite good and reminded me of past interest in the topic - not to mention some of the flakier stuff that can get attached to it. CarolMooreDC 02:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to delete everything that isn't specifically about K-waves. Information about the economic cycle as such doesn't belong here. --Jack Upland (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The criticism section could use some citations as well. As it stands it is rather vague. Keh428 (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Credit cycle theory

A major edit removed all of the credit cycle theory. That section needed editing but it is an essential part of the theory and should not have been removed. The worst depressions have been associated with the aftermaths of peak credit.Phmoreno (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesn't have anything specifically to do with K-waves. In fact the credit cycle theory seems to be an alternative to K-wave theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Demographic theory

Is that actually related to the idea of a Kondratiev wave or is it just some other 'long wave' theory? If the latter, it needs to go into some kind of a "See Also", not article text. Volunteer Marek 03:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Quit breaking it apart

According to some of the references, Kondratiev cycle, long economic cycle and other terms are used interchangeably. This article was a place to keep them all together under the title of "Kondartiev" because that is the best known name. Also, modern writers such as Perez who continue to keep the long cycle tradition alive by adding modern updates, such as credit cycle. Demographics as a factor date back to the 1920s and were mentioned by Al Hansen in the 1930s as being a contributing cause of the Great Depression.

By breaking the article apart and deleting all the work that was done all is being lost from Wikipedia. It at least should have been re-titled "long economic cycles" or something like that so it could have been kept, even though it would have been harder to find in a search.

When someone else reads the modern works and rediscovers all the removed parts they can try to restore them. I read the background material before I started keeping the detailed notes that I now do, so it is too difficult for me to defend this article. I have moved along to other work. Phmoreno (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Kondratiev waves are a very specific type of cycles. The article is on Kondratiev waves not "long cycles" in general. If there are sources which compare Kondratiev waves with other kinds of long cycle theories then that should be included. But if not, then that's WP:SYNTH and should be removed from article text to the "See Also" section.Volunteer Marek 14:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You can recover anything deleted from the article from the history page. But a Wikipedia article is not a noticeboard for everyone to post up anything that is vaguely relevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to move Kondratiev wave to Long economic cycles

Kondratiev has been dead for a long time now, but his idea of long cycles continues to be written about and updated with modern history. Most of the writers define Kondratieve as the 40-60 year cycle, but attribute different causes. Various recent writers have written about long cycles and they almost always mention Kondratiev and Schumpeter, but they keep introducing modern interpretations, so it is very difficult to say what is or is not Kondratiev theory anymore. So if we are not going to allow credit cycle, demographic cycle, etc. in this article, then maybe it would be better to rename this article Long economic cycles hand have a Kondratiev section.Phmoreno (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Kondratiev waves are distinct enough to merit an article of their own. It might make sense to have a different article on Long Economic Cycles or Long Economic Waves, so I'm wary that it will turn into one big pile of OR.Volunteer Marek 01:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any references to support your opinion?Phmoreno (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, that Kondratiev waves are distinct from non-Kondtratiev waves? How about the fact that Kondratiev waves are named after some guy, and the other waves either aren't, or are named after some different guys. Does that work?Volunteer Marek 03:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The term Kondratiev wave now has popular usage, and a more general meaning, outside of the economics profession, but even within economics, people are attributing more to it than just technology cycles. I will be re-reading "As Time Goes By", a modern work on long cycles, and may get a clearer idea from that, but I have a few other things to read first.Phmoreno (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Because the term K-wave is commonly used we need an article that explains what it is. We do not need that article loaded up with information about similar things. What this article was moving towards was a synthesis of wildly different opinions and observations falsely presented as a unified theory. Let's take the examples you give: the credit cycle and the demographic cycle. The credit cycle is not a long wave. It is clearly short-term (around 10 years) and can be measured by the movements of interest rates etc. There is a separate page on the credit cycle. And demographic changes are separate from economic cycles in most theories. Does anyone link the credit cycle to demographics? Very few. But putting them together makes it look like the K-wave theory connects all of this...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The credit cycle that was discussed previously in this article was the long term one, with a peak in the 1930s and again at the present time. Regardless, the financial crashes following the ends of the long waves are credit cycle phenomenon that have been described as part of the Kondratiev cycle. The historically important ones were following the canal era, the railroad era and the electrification-automobile-mass production era of the 1920s. Demographic trends, such as Alvin Hansen cited as a cause of the Great Depression, are not in fact be "cycles" but what we now call demographic transition,Phmoreno (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

At any rate, the idea of a Kondratiev wave is distinct and has its own literature, hence it should have its own, focused, article. I don't know if the term Kondratiev wave has entered popular usage (define "popular" - I'm willing to bet that a random person on a street will have no idea about it) but I see no evidence for that assertion. I guess it's possible that over the last few years, as the financial crisis has made economist dust off various old theories, economic reporting may have mentioned it here or there, and maybe even confused it with other waves. Even if that was the case (again, I see no evidence for that), I don't think that justifies needlessly mixing things up in this article. As Jack points out above, there are other articles for the other waves.Volunteer Marek 14:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

But was Alvin Hansen a theorist of K-waves? I don't think so. Most, if not all, downturns in capitalism involve credit crises, but these crises are necessarily short-term. The argument of K-wave theory (and related theories) is that these crises reflected deeper, long-term developments. This kind of approach seems to be an attempt to synthesise all theories of economic downturns.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The real question is: which modern writers should be called "Kondratiev" theorists when writing about long cycles?Phmoreno (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If they do not use the term, and if no source uses the term in reference to them, then they shouldn't be called K-wave theorists or included in this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice but not quite true

The basic theory is true, but it has some errors. Here are my 2 cents to correct them:

• 2nd half 19th century: railway, steal, automatic guns
• 1th half 20th century: electrical, engineering, automobiles, war aircraft
• 2nd half 20th century (starting ~1940): particle physics, chemistry, petrochemicals, civil aircraft, atomar technology & bombs
• 1th half 21th century (starting ~1980): microchips, information & communication technology, drone weapons, ...

Predictions:

• 2nd half 21th century: "Health" (aka treatment of all diseases), biotechnology, genetic design, war robots

--89.187.142.72 (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference by Paul Mason in PostCapitalism: A Guide to our Future - any value?

I think it might be helpful to put a reference to Paul Mason's 2015 book - I was thinking to put it in the Modern modification or see also sections, with my bias being the former. Any thoughts? Kjbavaro (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Since he discusses K-waves that would be appropriate — modern modification.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

"Economic Controls within the Cycle"

This subsection reads like an advertisement for Edward Tilley's book and uses his own jargon that to my knowledge is not common knowledge in economics. Should it be removed on notability grounds? --128.164.227.83 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Fringe Theory

This article seems to be describing a fringe theory, and not written from a neutral viewpoint. There are multiple problems with the article (See "Economic Controls within the Cycle", "Paradigm", "Removal", etc. below). The article also seems to rely disproportionately on the work of Edward Tilley, which does not seem to be noteworthy or widely accepted. As a result, I am adding the "Fringe Theory" template to the page. TaylorJO (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The article needs work, but the "Fringe theory" tag is unwarranted. It is a minority view, which does not make it "fringe". There is considerable mention of Kondratiev and long cycles in the literature. Prominent economist Joseph Schumpeter, who was interested in Kondratiev's work and is known for the term "creative destruction", saw these long cycles as the result of technological transformation. David Landes is describing a Kondratiev cycle in The Unbound Prometheus when he mentions the "original cluster" of innovations of the Industrial Revolution becoming exhausted, only to be replaced by new technologies of the Second Industrial Revolution. "Paradigm" is a term discussed in Carlota Perez's work on long cycles. Phmoreno (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the tag is warranted. It is a fringe theory, rejected by most economists and economic historians, and by most Marxists. There are a few prominent people interested in it, but that doesn't stop it being fringe. Schumpeter was an eccentric, and Austrian economist who converted to Marxism. I and others have been fighting a long-term rearguard action to stop the article being colonised by a raft of theories from the dark side of the moon.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added some criticism to the lead - an abridged version of later text. I think that is enough to remove the "fringe" tag. However, I think we still need to improve the "Criticism of long cycles" section.

I was thinking the bit about Edward Tilley seems too accepting of his particular views... then I discovered that the text was added by someone calling himself Edtilley4. This definitely needs a looking at!

Yaris678 (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kondratiev wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68z5VsD7L?url=http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/03S2_CMarchetti_Cyclotymic.pdf to http://www.agci.org/dB/PDFs/03S2_CMarchetti_Cyclotymic.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of content corrections and references

Edward Tilley has written six 550-page, well-cited research thesis that confirm the validity of Kondratiev waves - in thirty occurrences back to 1763 BCE (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11383374/The-biggest-debt-write-offs-in-the-history-of-the-world.html). A dozen references provided by Mr. Tilley have been stricken from this record, save his graphic on birthrates, as have references to frequently recurring mature capitalisms throughout Wikipedia.

See similar changes at Depression (economics) and Late Capitalism to confirm that a political? agenda might be afoot and trying to rewrite legitimate economic events and research at Wikipedia here. Several inappropriate comments about "socialism" would seem to explain the motives of individuals responsible.

Misunderstanding how to manage maturing monetary cycles contributed to World Wars I & II. This is important subject matter to understand and explain well.

I will follow up with librarians to ensure that this does not happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edtilley4 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I am responding to your comments both here and at my Talk page. (1) The contributions you made in 2017 are retrievable via the "View history" tab. No edit is destroyed. (2) According to WP:COI guidelines you should not be editing Wikipedia to promote your own theories and publications. (3) According to WP:NPOV, we should take a neutral tone when describing the issues. (4) This is an encyclopedia, contributions should be coherent and comprehensible. (5) Any editor has a right to edit or delete your contributions. If you are unhappy with this, you should post on a blog etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for timely response here Jack Upland (talk) 1) Thanks for this, I haven't invested the time to become proficient in wiki's CMS; 2) Kondratiev's monetary system cycle Business Cycle (misnamed here at wikipedia; business is just an actor in this use case example) theories are - his own, and shared by Professor Thompson (who carried Kondratiev's waves back to 930 AD China), Hammurabi's (Code of 1763 BCE- see Jubilee - biblical, Constantine I's Jubilee (biblical), and documented by many other notable leaders in history, philosophy, and contemporary mathematics and economics too. My "research" of monetary system cycles, documented observation scientifically - so use of the words "own theories" here is inappropriate. Without publications, you have opinions only. Since everyone has an opinion, weightings must be assigned to dissenting points of view - but neither viewpoint need to be dismissed where cited observation permits it becoming part of the discussion. Even clearly presented fact can take a little time to time to absorb - E=mc2 Mass–energy equivalence sat on a shelf for 20-years; Nicolaus Copernicus; etc. 3) Agreed - and authors should be afforded the opportunity to know that others have found their diction to be less than neutral; every possible reading of their content is not always obvious to a writer . 4) Same as 3. 5) I create blog pages and theses as well; Wikipedia is the source of 20%? of my research and reciprocation is important. Wikipedia has incredible value to humanity when it's correct and complete. The disclaimer that "anything can be deleted" is both necessary legally - and it invites political agendas, bullying, and loud voices (the mob) to ignore actual science.

Thanks Jack! I will invest the time to learn your system - and revisit my wording as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edtilley4 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)