Talk:Kondratiev wave

"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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Birthrates higher in Spring Economies; where Opportunity is high.jpg

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)