Talk:Kondratiev wave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)