Jim is right that the empirical evidence for K-waves is stronger in prices than in output, especially in the nineteenth century.
I would also note that Kondratiev was executed, not sent to Siberia (or maybe he was sent there to be executed).
Guilty of "formalism," egads! Barkley Rosser On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:54:51 -0700 James Devine <jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu> wrote:
> At 01:37 PM 8/18/98 -0400, Carl Remick wrote:
> >Re Mark Jones': "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."
> >
> >As I recall, Nikolai Kondratrieff got sent to Siberia for the heresy of
> >saying these waves were recurrent, rather than approaching a climax.
> >Never been able to understand the animus economists in general show
> >toward the K-wave (e.g., Alan Blinder: "K-wave theory smacks of
> >economic determinism and borders on mysticism."). Certainly seems to be
> >enough evidence of the toll taken by generational forgetfulness to
> >support the K-wave as a rough rule of thumb.
>
> One thing is that the best evidence for the existence of K-waves concerns
> prices, not output or employment. Another is that the posited mechanism for
> causing repetitive waves is theoreticaly weak. Yet another is that the
> different theorists posit different dates for the phases of the waves (so
> that some see a K-wave recovery at the same time that others see a
> collapse). There are also significant differences among the K-waves. And
> there are alternative explanations....
>
> K-waves are more of a matter of faith (or if you will, an assumption) than
> they are a serious theory.
>
> Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu &
> http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html
>
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu