Talk:Kondratiev wave

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)

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)

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)

--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)