I realize Kondratieff is kind of a "kooky" subject, but, I can't recall anything in English that I have seen where Kondratieff (himself) mentions technological change as a factor in his long waves. I gave the stuff that I retrieved from American economic journals to an economist/utility analyst in New England a few years ago so I can't refer to it now to refresh my memory.
Also, I find it interesting that back in the 1930's that Arthur Burns took an interest in Kondratieff.
Sincerely, Tom L.
Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
> I'm not sure I want to get into a full blown debate
> over Kondratiev as this has been done ad nauseum on pen-l
> and some other places in the past (see appropriate
> archives). I would simply note the following:
> 1) Most professional economists don't believe in
> K-waves. But then most professional economists don't
> believe in business cycles of any shorter period
> oscillations either.
> 2) There are several competing theories of
> explanation, but the leading one, favored by Kondratiev
> himself, involves major technological innovations and
> adaptations.
> 3) The theory fits with the "golden age" upswing after
> WW II being followed by a long bad period after. Of course
> the periodicity does not have to be regular (and Richard
> Goodwin presented a model of chaotic K-waves in JEBO in
> 1986, ooooooh!), but this would suggest that we are in the
> early stages of the next upswing, possibly driven by
> computer technology and the awareness of this being the
> underlying force behind the recent several years of
> otherwise off-the-wall stock market price increases.
> 5) K-waves are long waves and do not rule out shorter
> term recessions during their upswings. Thus, we may at the
> front end of a K-wave upswing, but I am fully expecting a
> pretty major recession in the fairly near future. Indeed,
> it has already started in S.E. Asia and elsewhere. The
> rising trade deficit of the US says it's probably coming
> here too, in the not too distant future.
> Barkley Rosser
> On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:12:38 -0400 Tom Lehman
> <uswa12 at lorainccc.edu> wrote:
>
> > Dear Doug and the Left Business Observers,
> >
> > In the early 90's there was a lot of talk about Kondratieff and his long wave
> > theories in the financial news and on the old FNN cable station in particular.
> > You know how it goes people get on tv and blah,blah,blah. So I decided to do a
> > little research and find out what Kondratieff had written from the perspective
> > of what was available in English at that time. I figured most of the people on
> > tv were probably big bullshitters and were parroting second hand or third hand
> > information from dubious sources.
> >
> > Interestingly enough, only about 50 or 60 pages of Kondratieff have ever been
> > translated into English and some of these are synopsis of longer articles by
> > Kondratieff or partial translations of longer articles. Mostly from the mid
> > 1920's.
> >
> > There is very little in the way of data tables, in the above, and some of the
> > data concerns the history of land rents in France. The math appears to be
> > trigonometric functions, possibly hinting at Fourier transforms. Les or
> > Enrique, please note, this would be up your alley. This is speculation on my
> > part and not to be taken too seriously.
> >
> > The writings of Kondratieff that I gathered are from established American
> > economic journals and could be retrieved.
> >
> > From other sources. I have read that Kondratieff was able to make enemies of
> > both Trotsky and Stalin; I find this very funny. The guy must of had somthing
> > on the ball.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Tom
> >
> >
> >
> > James Devine 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