Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:59, 28 March 2021

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Finance & Investment Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 900 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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)

"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)

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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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; Misplaced Pages is the source of 20%? of my research and reciprocation is important. Misplaced Pages 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)

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:

• Birthrates higher in Spring Economies; where Opportunity is high.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Economics articles
• Mid-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• C-Class Finance & Investment articles
• Mid-importance Finance & Investment articles
• WikiProject Finance & Investment articles