This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jack Upland (talk | contribs) at 10:02, 4 July 2017 (→"Criticism of long cycles" is badly written). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:02, 4 July 2017 by Jack Upland (talk | contribs) (→"Criticism of long cycles" is badly written)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 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. |
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)
"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)