> We have a pretty small sample on which to base projections, don't we? The
> deflations of the late 19th century, which were accompanied by strong real
> growth, were different from that of the 1930s, a time of total collapse.
> You don't believe in K-waves, do you Mark?
We have a sample of 2 such events. The first one led to World War 1, the second to its reprise. That's good enough for me.
And no, I think K-waves are bullshit, and I've read the literature. I feel an unusual - for me - urge to qualify that, by saying that I accept that there obviously are cycles of infrastructural investment, innovation and diffusion. But reading too much out of those tea-leaves is quackery akin to Nostradamus and no-one EVER produced a valid political prophecy or programme based on applying K-wave theory; the Net K-wave discussion group, BTW, contains less evidence of cerebration than the Egypt room at the British Museum (you can use that if you like, it's rather good, isn't it?).
Another thing: K-Wave theory assumes that time's arrow does not apply to capitalism and things go on for ever, like the mock-waves in a provincial rep production of Madame Butterfly. But capitalism had a beginning and it will have an end.
I assume from the hint of desperation in your question that for once you're worried I might be right.
Love and kisses
Mark PS And we all know what happened to Kondratieff... PPS There was strong real growth in many industrial countries during the 1930s, too.