Talk:Grand supercycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do love pseudoscience. 18.252.5.157 17:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see how the 2000's can possibly be a K Winter. Kondratiev's own work showed a Winter beginning 1914-20. That would normally have ended around 1945, but most theorists would agree that it lasted until 1949, with a new Spring commencing in that year. Given the shortest time period for the K-Wave of 40 years that would mean a new Spring Phase beginning in 1989, and an Autumn Phase beginning in 1999, with the Winter beginning in 2009. With the longest time period for the wave of 60 years, then the new Spring Phase should have begin in 2009, but that would mean the Winter Phase should have begun in 1994, and now be almost over. Given any time period between the shortest 40 year and longest 60 year span of the cycle it is impossible to arrive at a Winter Phase beginning in 2000 or thereabouts.

In fact, a Spring Phase beginning in 1949 and last around 25 years until the mid 70's does appear to conform with the post war boom period, and the collapse of that boom into the slump of the 1970's, and protracted rcessions of the 1980's and early 90's. Trying to connect this to periods of Stock Market performance is a corruption of Kondratiev's work which was to do with cycles in the real eocnomy not in the fictional economy of Stock Markets.

ArthurBough 13:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elliott Wave section edits

This section read as a diatribe against Elliott Wave. Forecasts by Elliott Wave analysts are consistently referred to without citation. Although one well known Elliottician has called for a major bear market, far from all of them have. Relying on such notoriety as a basis for bashing an idea adds little value.

I am not quite sure how the author comes up with the idea that a "vast majority" do not believe EW to be correct (academics yes, everybody else, is pure speculation).

The discussion of changing wave counts is spurious. Counts related to very long term ideas, such as a Grand Super Cycle, will not change often at all. Shorter-term counts might, as one finds more information clarifying the current market position. I am not sure how that would invalidate Elliott. If an analyst keeps changing his/her counts, then he/she might not be doing a great job, but that is a problem with the analyst, not the Elliott Wave Principle.

Further, pure speculation that the Fed is or is not illegally buying stock futures is a particularly poor way of trying to argue that EW works or not. As the Bank of England learned when it was trying to keep the pound in the old EMS, the markets have more money than a Central Bank does. EW is meant to only work on open and free markets. If people apply it to managed markets, then they might not get very good results. That does not invalidate Elliott.

To be honest, I do not think there is a great need for the Elliott Wave section at all. Definition of grand supercycle from the Elliott Wave perspective belongs in that article. It can be linked from here, but the idea does not really rise to a true separate Wiki. Sposer 20:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience and Pseudohistory

These categories have been removed elsewhere, and I honestly do not believe they belong here either. That is an opinion. For reasoning, please see the Elliott Wave page. However, I am not going to start an edit war. To me, very long waves, be they Elliott or Kondratrieff, are much harder to prove or disprove. As part of Elliott, or Kondratrieff, they may very well be, and according to the theories, are absolutely correct, but we will not have enough data for thousands of years, if ever, to prove or disprove them. If other editors have an issue, now is the time to bring it up. I think this is a poor categorization, but will not fight it. Sposer 00:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Considering request for deletion

I do not think this page stands on its own. Does Kondratrieff call its long-term wave a grand super cycle? If so, please somebody speak up. Elliott does, but I do not think this article can stand on its own. Rather, if we build up the Elliott article to discuss the longer-term terminology, or some part of it, should be in that article. Finally, I do not see how an encyclopedia article is a place for a discussion of the current trend in the market. Any thoughts here? If nobody comes back in a reasonable period, I will put in an AFD request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 01:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)