| Revision as of 15:02, 22 June 2017 editGliderMaven (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,503 edits →top: class C← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:56, 28 February 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,540 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Kondratiev wave/Archive 1) (bot | ||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| | ||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Economics|importance=Mid}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Finance & Investment|importance=Mid}} | |||
| ⚫ | }} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| | algo = old(900d) | | algo = old(900d) | ||
| Line 8: | Line 12: | ||
| | minthreadsleft = 4 | | minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Banner Shell |1= | |||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Economics |
||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject |
||
| ⚫ | }} | ||
| {{Archives}} | |||
| == "Criticism of long cycles" is badly written == | |||
| == Nice but not quite true == | |||
| The last section of "Criticism of long cycles" is just gibberish. I recommend to delete the paragraph.09:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)] (]) | |||
| ⚫ | :I agree. It seems to be an incoherent defence of long cycles. I've deleted it.--] (]) 10:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC) | ||
| The basic theory is true, but it has some errors. Here are my 2 cents to correct them: | |||
| 2022 edit - There is an arbitrary sentence at the bottom of this section - "Joseph Schumpeter, a professor at Harvard University, was among the key advocates of the existence of Kondratiev wave." | |||
| *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, ... | |||
| This is not relevant to this section, and it's irrelevance could bring the reader to false implications. Such as - "Oh Joseph Schumpeter must be a professor now discredited, and thus it standards as a point of criticism for K-Waves, given he was a proponent, and now is discredited, given it is listed within the criticism section".... Or "Joseph Schumpeter was a key advocate, but must have also had his criticisms, given this is listed within the criticism section" | |||
| Predictions: | |||
| *2nd half 21th century: "Health" (aka treatment of all diseases), biotechnology, genetic design, war robots | |||
| '''I am assuming the sentence is meant to be taken as a possible rebuttal to a given criticism or criticism in general, however the section is not such developed to facilitate specific rebuttals.''' | |||
| --] (]) 15:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| -Also needs referencing, and more importantly specifics/relevancy of the advocations Joseph S bestowed upon K-Wave Theory, or rather it's specific points of rebuttal to a given criticism. | |||
| == Reference by Paul Mason in ] - any value? == | |||
| Deleting sentence - "Joseph Schumpeter, a professor at Harvard University, was among the key advocates of the existence of Kondratiev wave." <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| 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? ] (]) 15:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: | |||
| * ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-03-28T07:59:43.717127 | Birthrates higher in Spring Economies; where Opportunity is high.jpg --> | |||
| Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 07:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Standardised topic self-referencing, changes mid article == | |||
| =="Economic Controls within the Cycle"== | |||
| The article should continue referencing the topic as K-Waves, or Kondratiev Waves. Instead Long-Waves becomes used. | |||
| 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? --] (]) 22:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Apart from the first sentence, it is unclear whether Kondratiev Waves and Long-Waves are the same thing, or if Long-Waves are a sub-topic within the main topic/thesis that is Kondratiev Waves. | |||
| == Fringe Theory == | |||
| Example of significance: | |||
| 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. ] (]) 15:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
| - Narrator : "Criticism of Long-Waves:" | |||
| - Observer's internal monologue: "Oh, there's no criticism section of Kondratiev Waves, only his thesis sub-topic that is 'Long-waves'... Everything but long waves is uncontested." | |||
| Topic heading 'Criticism of Long-Waves' should be changed to 'Criticism of Kondratiev Waves', or Kondratiev Wave Theory. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :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 ] and long cycles in the literature. Prominent economist ], 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. ] is describing a Kondratiev cycle in '']'' when he mentions the "original cluster" of innovations of the Industrial Revolution becoming exhausted, only to be replaced by new technologies of the ]. "Paradigm" is a term discussed in ]'s work on long cycles. ] (]) 21:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Some content should move to Kuznets swing == | |||
| ::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.--] (]) 01:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Several of the sections in the "Explanations of the cycle" section seem to not be long cycles and so should be moved to the Kuznets swing page. In particular, the 'land speculation' and 'debt deflation' sections. ] (]) 15:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have 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 by someone calling himself Edtilley4. This definitely needs a looking at! | |||
| :::] (]) 17:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:56, 28 February 2024
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 900 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
"Criticism of long cycles" is badly written
The last section of "Criticism of long cycles" is just gibberish. I recommend to delete the paragraph.09:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)193.196.11.188 (talk)
- I agree. It seems to be an incoherent defence of long cycles. I've deleted it.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
2022 edit - There is an arbitrary sentence at the bottom of this section - "Joseph Schumpeter, a professor at Harvard University, was among the key advocates of the existence of Kondratiev wave."
This is not relevant to this section, and it's irrelevance could bring the reader to false implications. Such as - "Oh Joseph Schumpeter must be a professor now discredited, and thus it standards as a point of criticism for K-Waves, given he was a proponent, and now is discredited, given it is listed within the criticism section".... Or "Joseph Schumpeter was a key advocate, but must have also had his criticisms, given this is listed within the criticism section"
I am assuming the sentence is meant to be taken as a possible rebuttal to a given criticism or criticism in general, however the section is not such developed to facilitate specific rebuttals.
-Also needs referencing, and more importantly specifics/relevancy of the advocations Joseph S bestowed upon K-Wave Theory, or rather it's specific points of rebuttal to a given criticism.
Deleting sentence - "Joseph Schumpeter, a professor at Harvard University, was among the key advocates of the existence of Kondratiev wave." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:986C:1300:2873:8BBA:3A5:97B4 (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Standardised topic self-referencing, changes mid article
The article should continue referencing the topic as K-Waves, or Kondratiev Waves. Instead Long-Waves becomes used.
Apart from the first sentence, it is unclear whether Kondratiev Waves and Long-Waves are the same thing, or if Long-Waves are a sub-topic within the main topic/thesis that is Kondratiev Waves.
Example of significance: - Narrator : "Criticism of Long-Waves:" - Observer's internal monologue: "Oh, there's no criticism section of Kondratiev Waves, only his thesis sub-topic that is 'Long-waves'... Everything but long waves is uncontested."
Topic heading 'Criticism of Long-Waves' should be changed to 'Criticism of Kondratiev Waves', or Kondratiev Wave Theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:986C:1300:2873:8BBA:3A5:97B4 (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Some content should move to Kuznets swing
Several of the sections in the "Explanations of the cycle" section seem to not be long cycles and so should be moved to the Kuznets swing page. In particular, the 'land speculation' and 'debt deflation' sections. Fresheneesz (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Categories: