Mark Jones wrote:
> As
> for K-waves in general, Trotsky's criticism of Kondratiev was right (altho
> clearly there are some periodicities involved with infrastructure investment
> for example, as I mentioned earlier in connection with Kuznets). Trotsky
> said:
>
> >>One can reject in advance the attempts by Professor Kondratiev to assign
> to the epochs that he calls long cycles the same “strict rhythm” that is
> observed in short [business] cycles. This attempt is a clearly mistaken
> generalization based on a formal analogy. The periodicity of short cycles is
> conditioned by the internal dynamic of capitalist forces, which manifests
> itself whenever and wherever there is a market. As for these long
> (fifty-year) intervals that Professor Kondratiev hastily proposes also to
> call cycles, their character and duration is determined not by the internal
> play of capitalist forces, but by the external conditions in which
> capitalist development occurs. The absorption by capitalism of new countries
> and continents, the discovery of new natural resources, and, in addition,
> significant factors of a “superstructural” order, such as wars and
> revolutions, determine the character and alteration of expansive,
> stagnating, or declining epochs in capitalist development.<<
>
I'm an agnostic on Kondratiev waves, but will note that what's missing from
Trotsky's picture (at least as quoted) is changes in production technology. Most
recent long wave work starts with these. See for instance Chris Freeman and Luc
Soete, The Economics of Technological Change.
Fred
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
