Ventana software support forum

Posted: **Wed Jul 23, 2003 8:08 am**

Im reading Michael Hammers Agenda, in which he makes the claim we
have moved to a customer oriented market because we have much more
supply than demand, thus putting the customer in control.

Looking at that statement and other somewhat casual observations of
the (US, at least) economy, should a reasonable person think we are
now in the down side of a long wave? That the tough economic times
weve seen for the past few years will need years to work through, as
levels adjust? That simple, short-term economic fixes wont work as
they may have in the past? That the concerns weve heard about
deflation should be seen in a longer context of an entire cycle, not
as an isolated event to be overcome? Is there a commonly accepted
date for the start of this decline?

If so, do you see that talked about in the media? I only found two
links in Google News for Kondratieff:
http://www.jsonline.com/bym/invest/jun03/151298.asp and
http://www.ameinfo.com/news/Detailed/25771.html.

Any comments, especially from those of you who have done much
long-wave modeling? If we are in such a phase, any strategic societal
suggestions?

Bill
From: Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
--
Bill Harris 3217 102nd Place SE
Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA
http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541

Posted: **Thu Jul 24, 2003 8:53 am**

I think you are asking a very important question. I think there is a bit of
chicken and egg aspect to the answer that is highly perceptual though and
should be recognized up front.

I would tend to suggest that productivity is the primary driver combined
with corporate globalization, delocalization (of manufacturing), and
megaindustrialization. Untangling these is tricky for they are highly
interdependent and interconnected.

We are arriving at a point where manufactured goods are as inexpensive as
they can get w/o further automation (we have already moved the jobs to the
lowest cost sites). And the quality of Indian and Chinese goods is
internationally competitive on the whole.

To call it consumer control seems artificial. It is the "greed" of
manufacturers who seek advantage that lead to the global reorg. The
consumer is certainly part of the formula, but to say he is in control
seems way overstated. In many respects we still have little choice but to
take what we can get.

There are IMO many signs that consumption must peak (at least in the
western world) and that the western quality of life is likely to be
impacted negatively. I am very comfortable with the forcast of declining
quality of life and a "back to the basics" trend. Not sure I would want to
credit it to Kondratieff, but...

Look forward to the discussion this begets!
Jay
From: Jay Forrest <jay@jayforrest.com>

Posted: **Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:10 am**

Jay Forrest wrote:

> I think you are asking a very important question. I think there is a bit of
> chicken and egg aspect to the answer that is highly perceptual though and
> should be recognized up front.

Some time ago, we had a discussion about elevator speeches.

Maybe your comment leads to another elevator speech for SD folk: "We
help you find the answer to the Is it the chicken or the egg?
problem. The answer is that youll never solve your problem as long as
you keep looking just at the chicken or the egg."

> I would tend to suggest that productivity is the primary driver combined
> with corporate globalization, delocalization (of manufacturing), and

>From the stories I read, delocalization applies to more than
manufacturing these days (e.g., engineering, customer support,
consulting). The interesting thing in a dialog like this is that our
global nature reminds us its not that jobs are going from _us_ to
_them_ but more like jobs are going from _some_ of us to _others_ of
us.

If the rest of the idea holds water, though, it may be a short-term
effect until the dynamics that lead to oversupply diffuse to the rest of
the globe.

> To call it consumer control seems artificial. It is the "greed" of
> manufacturers who seek advantage that lead to the global reorg. The
> consumer is certainly part of the formula, but to say he is in control
> seems way overstated. In many respects we still have little choice but to
> take what we can get.

Just curious: is it better seen as greed, or is it more of an addiction
phenomenon? That is, companies have created mental models that rely on
ongoing growth for success, and that leads to doing whatever it takes to
keep a particular _rate_ high (or at least positive).

That may lead to people getting more than they need and can support
(i.e., higher stocks of assets owned by consumers), so consumers have
two choices: borrow money to continue to acquire things, or stop buying
unless they get something they _really_ want. Companies (which are
simply us people in different roles, right?) fear the lack of growth and
thus do whatever they can to restimulate consumer demand.

I guess Im agreeing with you that its not that consumers rule,
although we may in many cases be able to get stuff far less expensively
today than in the past. The system has dynamics that appear to some as
if the consumers rule, but the real cause may be in the corporate
decision-making process that pegged success to growth -- or not.

> There are IMO many signs that consumption must peak (at least in the
> western world) and that the western quality of life is likely to be
> impacted negatively. I am very comfortable with the forcast of declining
> quality of life and a "back to the basics" trend. Not sure I would want to
> credit it to Kondratieff, but...

Itd be interesting to model alternative business processes that didnt
depend on growth for success to see if one could create viable societal
results and sustainable businesses. Thats not on my schedule for
today, though. I imagine there are published articles on this, too.

Bill
From: Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
--
Bill Harris 3217 102nd Place SE
Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA
http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541

Posted: **Fri Jul 25, 2003 12:47 pm**

At 08:08 AM 7/23/2003 -0700, Bill Harris wrote:

>Im reading Michael Hammers Agenda, in which he makes the claim we have
>moved to a customer oriented market because we have much more supply than
>demand, thus putting the customer in control.

Seems this shift would happen naturally as the stocks of products sold and
the number of customers increase. The stocks increase even without
increases in the rates at which new products can be delivered or new
customers can be added. The increasing values of these stocks requires an
increasing emphasis on customer service to prevent losses of product sales
and customers from increasing customer dissatisfaction.

>Looking at that statement and other somewhat casual observations of the
>(US, at least) economy, should a reasonable person think we are now in the
>down side of a long wave? That the tough economic times weve seen for
>the past few years will need years to work through, as levels
>adjust? That simple, short-term economic fixes wont work as they may
>have in the past? That the concerns weve heard about deflation should be
>seen in a longer context of an entire cycle, not as an isolated event to
>be overcome? Is there a commonly accepted date for the start of this decline?

This is a great question. Ive been wondering about the same thing and
hoping someone would raise it. While there will be business cycle
recoveries and declines, it seems to me that it will take a decade or more
to get out of this trough of the long wave due to flawed economic policies.

The insightful paper by John Sterman on the long wave should be required
reading for all economists, politicians and citizens. Its D-4329 “The Long
Wave Decline and the Politics of Depression," Presentation to the Bank
Credit Analyst Conference, New York City, September, 1992, pp.41, $4.00.
Its available from MIT: http://web.mit.edu/sdg/www/publist.html

I hope he doesnt mind including excerpts below. I also have some
observations.

I truly would find it interesting to get an update of Johns perspective on
all this.

In “The Long Wave Decline" he notes that:
<<
The period of the long wave is between about 45 and 60 years. It is not
clockwork, but rather an internally generated dynamic subject to the
influences of other forces in the world. ... The world economy has been in
the decline phase of the long wave since the 1970s. The peak of real GNP
against trend (the long-term, superimposed exponential increase) was in 1973.
>>

>If we are in such a phase, any strategic societal suggestions?

In a way its somewhat amazing that the long wave doesnt get more
attention as the prescriptions for action would be quite different at
different parts of the cycle.

It appears to me that, while we might have been pulling out of the long
wave trough about now, the speculative investment bubble of the 90s created
even more capital expansion at a time when the economy hadnt finished
working off excess capacity. It seems.the bubble of "irrational exuberance"
and over-investment will prolong the bumpy ride along the trough.

It also seems to me that the Federal Reserve, rather than steadily raising
interest rates throughout 2000, should have instead increased margin
requirements. When speculators look for on the order of 20% returns in 6
months, they are not deterred by a few percentage points increase in
interest rates; only a lessened ability to borrow to fuel their speculation
will be effective. In addition, when the speculative bubble did finally
burst, the higher interest rates made the collapse even worse. The Fed did
abruptly reverse course, but to little effect in the face of such great
production overcapacity.

Given the excess of supply over demand at this stage in the long wave
cycle, cutting taxes on corporations and the wealthy to promote investment
seems counterproductive. There will be no investment without demand. More
demand would be created by cutting taxes for low and middle incomes than
for the wealthy (the economic class that has fared best throughout the
90s). Tax cuts for Enron-type execs and stock analysts who misled investors
are particularly egregious.

Regarding protectionism, there are policies that work both ways.

There is a NY Times editorial today on "The `Free Trade Fix Is In" [The
United States government has just added a final flourish of hypocrisy to
its efforts to crush the Vietnamese catfish industry under a mountain of
protectionism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/25/opinion/25FRI3.html and The Great Catfish War
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/22/opinion/22TUE1.html].

Another example is that increasing U.S. farm subsidies vastly distort trade
(reference: Daryll E. Ray, agricultural economist with the Agricultural
Policy Analysis Center http://www.agpolicy.org/ at the University of
Tennessee, testified before the House Committee on Agriculture on 2/14/01
http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/h10214w2.htm).

On the other hand, we also have policies that amount to what might be
called "reverse protectionism." Examples:
- An artificially strong dollar caused by high real interest rates (prior
to the last few years) that makes foreign labor and products cheaper than
they would otherwise be.
- Not responding to the "tax war" that allows countries to lower taxes and
environmental standards to the point that they mortgage their long-term
future for short-term gain.
- Allowing transfer pricing schemes whereby corporations move profits to
foreign subsidiaries to take advantage of the lower taxes.
- Not responding to counties that peg their currency to the dollar to
prevent any decline in the value of the dollar that would hurt their
exports and increase imports.
- Trade with countries without labor standards and with totalitarian
regimes that creates an uneven playing field.
- Investment tax credits for corporations that move their manufacturing off
shore (the nation does not fully profit from innovation when it does not
retain complementary assets: David J. Teece, “Profiting from Technological
Innovation: Implications for Integration, Collaboration, Licensing, and
Public Policy, Research Policy, 15 (1986), p. 285-305).

Considering our growing trade deficit it seems that "reverse protectionism"
is winning.

Bob
________________________

Robert E. Powell, Ph.D., MBA
Continuous Improvement Associates
6992 Blackhawk Place
Colorado Springs, CO 80919
Ph. 719 599-0977
E-mail: scuba@usa.net
http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/

Posted: **Sat Jul 26, 2003 9:15 am**

Folks,

This could well turn out to be a very interesting correspondence.

Bill posed a fascinating question but could find only two mentions of
Kondratieff on Google, suggesting that the long wave is not a big issue with
economists. Jay (Forrest) is comfortable with back to basics. The trouble
with that is that those of us who lived through the 1940s and 50s know just
how basic basic can be. That might trigger another correspondence on what
is an acceptable definition of basic and from whose point of view.

The issue seems to me, though, to be wider and is what evidence is there
that the long wave actually exists?

The wave is thought to be 60 to 80 years duration. Wed need to have seen
maybe 5 or 6 waves to have confidence that it happens, but that takes us
back to about 1650. The first issue then is the reliability of economic data
(or reasonable proxies thereof) in the past 350 years. Economics is,
however, not the whole story and we have to take some account of the fact
that, in 1650, Europe was only starting to recover from the devastation of
the 30 Years War and the American colonies were just about becoming viable.
Well gloss over the fact that the 18th century saw continental Europe
engulfed in war for about 65 years out of 100 and jump ahead to the American
Revolution (or The Big Mistake), and its French successor. Wed better not
forget the agricultural and industrial revolutions (which made the
catastrophe of the 20th century possible), the European colonisation of much
of the rest of the world, the abolition of the slave trade, the growth of
democracy, the rise of American hegemony, and other matters that would take
a couple of pages to mention, even with such a broad historical brush.

All this must be very hard to untangle and leave a visible wave behind so I
hope that someone can tell me the evidence for the existence of the long
wave. Of course, we can build SD, and maybe other, models that show a long
wave but, with respect to my colleagues who have done that, thats not the
same as proof of its existence.

I look forward to the replies.

Geoff Coyle
From: "geoff coyle" <geoff.coyle@btinternet.com>

PS Following the previous message, I looked for Kondratieff on Google and =
there seem to be scores of references.

Posted: **Sat Jul 26, 2003 4:42 pm**

Hi every one

About the long waves: How long are they?

When reading the two articles from the Milwaukee journal and Doctor Faber
there are few references to Kondratieff
who studied very long waves of 60 years and in these articles the subjects
are inflation, deflation, the amount of credit and the interest of rate,
which fluctate with much shorter cycles, as it is difficult to say which one
of the cycle and the others is of real influence.

I have not been at the SD conference in N. Y. and wonder how is treated the
general problem of interest of rate in the economic SD models.

Currently when a central bank decreases the interest of rate it is supposed
to boost the demand.
In fact it can have two opposite effects:

1. I can consider that instead of saving my money and
being less paid I prefer to spend it.

2. I can consider that if the bank is decreasing the rate of interest it is
expecting a decrease of inflation so the product I wanted to buy will be
soon cheaper. On top of that it is expecting a slow down of the economy and
I had better save for the hard times to come.

The same for the increase of the interest of rate which can have two kinds
of opposite effects.

A french economist Mr Allais (he won a nobel prize of economy but is not at
all recognized in France, nobody is a prophet in his home land) advocated to
index the money on the inflation for the sake of clarity, equity and
predictability.
Clariy because you know that the cost is the interest, equity because nobody
is fooled by inflation or deflation and predictability because you know
exactly the cost or the profit of your operation in the future.

For instance if you borrow 1000 dollars at 1% interest of rate, and give it
back one year later and there has been 2% of inflation you will give 10
dollars for the interest, 1000 dollars for the capital and 20 dollars for
the inflation or 1030 dollars back.
If there is a deflation of 2% you will give 1000 + 1 - 2 or
999 Dollars back.

If the bank is decreasing or increasing the interest of rate, it will have
no influence on my own policy of spending, because the earning of my savings
will always be the same, and the decrease of the prices will be exactly
compensated by the decrease of the interest of my savings.

Have SD models studied that option considering that confidence which comes
from predictability is a critical intangible of any economic model?

Best regards to every one.

J.J. Laublé
From: "JEAN-JACQUES LAUBLE" <JEAN-JACQUES.LAUBLE@WANADOO.FR>

Posted: **Mon Jul 28, 2003 8:09 am**

Hi Geoff!

When I say I am "comfortable" with an outlook of decline, I intended to
indicate that I find decline a very viable scenario - not that I nor the
world should view decline as a preferable or attractive future.

I personally feel (part systems thinking/part gut) that the US in
particular will suffer heavily over the 2015 to 2040 period (very loosely).
I simply dont see how our infrastructure (city and housing land use
patterns, long commute highway systems, and low MPG fleet (which will take
years to replace) built on low cost energy can reasonably accommodate high
energy costs without substantial economic impact. (The outlook of increased
crude oil supply from Iraq will likely only promote continued sprawl and
ultimate crisis.)

The fragility of the US economy is clear and a shift in drivers seems
evident as it (and employment) flounders and refuses to respond to
traditional remedies (i.e. interest rate cuts and spending increases).

I tend to think the outlook for Europe is rather brighter - other than the
significant impact a floundering US economy has on Europe. I think Europe
is poised to be the global leader in 20-30 years (far too long a logic path
to explain in an email).

I personally see the potential decline as rising from overspecialization
and exploitive policies - which may be "natural" based on my readings in
ecological evolution but are, I think avoidable. The Kondratieff cycles
have received quite a bit of attention and study in the futures studies
arena and while proponents will cite interesting evidence, I remain
unconvinced. (By overspecialization I mean pruning of supply channels (of
food, materials, dependencies, etc. This combines with exploitation and
environmental variation to create boom/bust cycles which are traumatic in
an overly simplified system. Put simply, fewer suppliers make one more
susceptible to traumatic disruptions in supply - all other things equal.
Compare having one supplier and three suppliers (in different locations).
An electrical outage, strike, etc. at one location is more traumatic in the
single source than for three. I would personally suggest that current
business practices are potentially oversimplifying our supply networks and
increasing the risk of serious supply disruptions.)

I have great respect for the thinking in this forum and like you, look
forward to others thoughts!
Jay Forrest
From: Jay Forrest <jay@jayforrest.com>

Posted: **Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:10 am**

Thanks for the comments Bill!

I think I would argue that delocalization of manufacturing is potentially
approaching a limit. Seems like 2/3 of the non-electronic products I pick
up are made in China or India. Somewhere between lower labor costs and
productivity many products seem to be as inexpensive as they have ever been
- despite having to ship them half way around the globe.

As I indicated in my followup email, I sloppily used the word "greed" to
represent pursuit of short term profit - which seems to be the primary
motivator for moving jobs around the globe. While this increases profits,
it is not sustainable - one can get a step drop in cost by going moving a
phone center to India or outsourcing the manufacture of a can opener to
China, but companies are missing the fact that the loss of jobs has an
impact on their ability to sell can openers or items that need a call
center because their market lost jobs.

I see the economy as a positive feedback loop. Spending creates jobs
creates more income creates more spending. Once that loop goes negative, it
seems to me it can snowball easily. I also feel that a service economy may
be more susceptible to snowballing than a manufacturing economy. The more
fundamental needs that are displaced, the easier it seems the economy might
snowball.

With respect to "consumer control" I think we may have an illusion of
control - in that manufacturers (and service providers) are putting
together all kinds of features and pursuing niche markets - but there is
little communication between a buyer and the manufacturer in most cases -
the flow is in dollars, not info. Dialog and customization of the purchase
is bounded by what is available, not what you want.

We may be seeing the service economy beginning to evolve into/develop more
of a localized manufacturing/production mentality in the form of artisans.
This is IMO being driven partly by need resulting from lost jobs. I tend to
believe the delocalization we are seeing related to globalization will
swing back to more of a balance between local and global - especially as
energy costs increase). And that would I think be more of a consumer
control economy as manufacturers and consumers come back into contact.

The "growth" issue is a critical one and deserves serious attention both by
corporations, government, and academia. One of the challenges the US faces
is our "need" for growth. As we build infrastructure in the form of
government investments such as highways, buildings, armies, etc. these take
maintenance. And, with relatively few exceptions, these structures are
semi-permanent. So every time we do something new we create a future
obligation. These obligations pile up and create a growing commitment which
demands growth to maintain "break-even". The fundamental dynamics are
essentially the same as the Barry Richmonds wonderful DEC customer service
example from the early 1970s. Only by having the government cut obligations
and or dispose of facilities can growth in government revenues not be
necessary. (Well, okay there is one other possibility - being more
efficient - or finding a way to repair roads so they take less and less
maintenance for example.)

Companies face a similar problem - especially when one ties executive
compensation to profits - but with very different drivers and dynamics. The
corporate situation is compounded by competition and the delocalization of
production (and even some services). I think corporate management is asking
the wrong question. I would suggest they seem to be primarily asking "How
can we increase profits next year?" and, at least for those who are
currently successful, they should be asking "What can we do to be more
successful five (or ten) years from now?" Perhaps instead of granting stock
options based on last years performance the options should be based on
five (or ten) years ago!

Thanks!
Jay Forrest
From: Jay Forrest <jay@jayforrest.com>

Posted: **Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:12 pm**

Hello

Do long waves really exist?

Many people have suggested causes for long waves. Most suggestions seem
to be very dependent on the current economic and political situation.
The suggested causes of long waves seem to be different depending on the
time of the wave, e.g. in 1990s, 1930s, 1870s.

In my view, these suggestions are only the immediate causes for the
waves, the possible long-term causes remaining invisible.

So my question is (if long waves really exist) that what kind of
long-term phenomena would cause the long waves (or causes immediately
causing the waves). I can see no such cause. E.g. technological and
political situations are very different on different times. And they
very much define the economic situation. What could cause technological
and political situations vary in such a way that long waves would form?

Current political situation is very much result of the WW2, that was
very much caused by one man (or was it?) and therefore unlikely to
happen in cycles. The Russian revolution in 1917 had an immense effect
on the politics of the 20th century. Also this kind of things hardly
occur in cycles. The role of coincidence seems to be so great that it is
hard to believe that politics would cause such waves.

The technological development is so fast that 60 year cycle would seem
unprobable.

Then there are of course reasons depending on the man. E.g. people
repeating old mistakes, like getting over-excited about stock markets. I
would think that the time of repeating old mistakes would depend on the
the age of the people somehow. But people are currently living much
longer that they used to, and I think people get they children also bit
later that they used to. I think these should break the waves, too.

I must admit that the idea of the long waves fascinates me. It is like
psychohistory in the books of Isaac Asimov ("Foundation", "Foundation
and Empire", "Second Foundation").

Best regards

Niko Papula
From: Niko Papula <Niko.Papula@rexpartners.com>

Posted: **Wed Jul 30, 2003 10:23 am**

One significant constraint to the long-wave theory is getting experts to agree
on what data are relevant. Is there a consensus on what macroeconomic
variables would represent the long wave? How can we prove its existence? Its
similar to meteorologists trying to prove the existence of global warming, or
any trend whose timespan involves more than one generation of decision
makers.

From: Brenda Burke <beb252@mfire.com>

Brenda Burke
Operations/Training Manager
Successful Systems, Inc.
www.gjk.com/ssi

(508) 660-6945

Posted: **Thu Jul 31, 2003 2:28 pm**

The discussion of the long wave (Kondratieff cycle) and where in it
the US and world economy might be would benefit from reference to the
extensive body of work done on this topic by the MIT system dynamics
group, dating back to the early 1970s. None of this has apparently
been cited by any of the writers so far in this thread. The
following is a small sample of relevant papers, covering simple
models, the SD National Model, empirical data, and policy
implications:

Models of the long wave and experimental results with a long wave
management flight simulator:

Haxholdt, C., C. Kampmann, et al. (1995). "Mode Locking and
Entrainment of Endogenous Economic Cycles." System Dynamics Review
11(3): 177-198.

Kampmann, C., C. Haxholdt, et al. (1994). Entrainment in a
Disaggregated Economic Long Wave Model. Evolutionary Economics and
Chaos Theory. L. Leydesdorff and P. van den Besselaar. London,
Pinter: 109-124.

Kampmann, C., C. Haxholdt, et al. (1995). "Entrainment in a
Disaggregated Economic Long Wave Model." Open Systems and Information
Dynamics 3(2): 255-274.

Sterman, J. D. (1985). "A Behavioral Model of the Economic Long
Wave." Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 6: 17-53.

Sterman, J. D. (1988). "Deterministic Chaos in Models of Human
Behavior: Methodological Issues and Experimental Results." System
Dynamics Review 4: 148-178.

Sterman, J. D. (1989). "Deterministic Chaos in an Experimental
Economic System." Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 12:
1-28.

Sterman, J. D. and D. L. Meadows (1985). "STRATEGEM-2: A
Microcomputer Simulation Game of the Kondratiev Cycle." Simulation
and Games 16(2): 174-202.

Sterman, J. D. (1989). "Misperceptions of Feedback in Dynamic
Decision Making." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 43(3): 301-335.

Brens, M. and J. Sturis (1991). "Local and global bifurcations in a
model of the economic long wave." System Dynamics Review 7(1): 41-60.

Overviews of the SD National Model and empirical data on long waves:

Sterman, J. D. (1986). "The Economic Long Wave: Theory and Evidence."
System Dynamics Review 2(2): 87-125.

Sterman, J. D. (1988). Nonlinear Dynamics in the World Economy: The
Economic Long Wave. Structure, Coherence, and Chaos in Dynamical
Systems. P. Christiansen and R. Parmentier. Manchester, Manchester
University Press: 389-413.

Sterman, J. D. and E. Mosekilde (1994). Business Cycles and Long
Waves: A Behavioral, Disequilibrium Perspective. Business Cycles:
Theory and Empirical Methods. W. Semmler. Boston, Kluwer Academic
Publishers: 13-51.

Forrester, J. W., G. W. Low, et al. (1977). Capital Formation and the
Long Wave in Economic Activity, M.I.T. System Dynamics Group.

Forrester, N. B. (1982). A Dynamic Synthesis of Basic Macroeconomic
Theory: Implications for Stabilization Policy Analysis, M. I. T.

Policy implications:

Forrester, J. W. (1979). "Innovation and the Economic Long Wave."
McKinsey Quarterly(Spring): 26-38.

Forrester, J. W. (1979). "Innovation and the Economic Long Wave."
Management Review 68(6): 16-24.

Forrester, J. W. (1980). "Innovation and the Economic Long Wave."
Planning Rev. 8(6).

Forrester, J. W. (1983). Innovation and Economic Change. Long Waves
in the World Economy. C. Freeman. London, Butterworths: 126-134.

Forrester, J. W. (1985). "Economic Conditions Ahead: Understanding
the Kondratieff Wave." The Futurist XIX(3): 16-20.

Forrester, J. W. (1992). "Productivity and the Long Wave." The
Systems Thinker 3(2): 4.

Forrester, J. W. (1991). The Longer View: This Is Not a
Business-Cycle Recession, M. I. T. System Dynamics Group.

Senge, P. M. and N. J. Mass (1983). "The Economic Long
Wave--Implications for Industrial Recovery." Economic Development
Commentary 7(1): 3-9.

Graham, A. K. (1982). "The Long Wave." J. Business Forecasting 1(5): 69-74.

Graham, A. K. and P. M. Senge (1980). "A Long Wave Hypothesis of
Innovation." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 17: 283-311.

Meadows, D. H. (1991). "Two Views of the Long Wave Theory." The
Systems Thinker 2(1): 4.

Sterman, J. D. (1983). "The Long Wave." Science 219(18 March): 1276.

Sterman, J. D. (1986). "Debt, Default, and Long Waves: Is History
Relevant?" Bank Credit Analyst 38(5): 28-42.

Sterman, J. D. (1990). A Long Wave Perspective on the Economy in the
1990s. Bank Credit Analyst. 42: 28-47.

Sterman, J. D. (1992). Long Wave Decline and the Politics of
Depression. Bank Credit Analyst. 44: 26-42.

Sterman, J. D. (1993). Caught by the Long Wave. Globe and Mail, Toronto.

John Sterman
From: John Sterman <jsterman@mit.edu>

Posted: **Fri Aug 01, 2003 9:28 am**

Brenda refers to the macroeconomic variables, but surely we also need to
talk about long waves (if they exist) in more general
social/political/technological variables. I do though, support her view that
we need some kind of consensus on what a wave would have to include before
we could start to look for them.

On global warming, if that exists except in the minds of the global
warming industry, theres a fascinating diagram on page 12 of Steven
Mithens outstanding book After The Ice; A Global Human History. It shows
temperatures for the last 20000 years (derived from ice cores through the
Greenland glaciers) and it would be a bold analyst who can discern any clear
changes from it in the last 8000 years. Brenda is also right to say that we
need a long view, certainly longer than a politician, or a scientist looking
for the next grant in order to survive, can take.

Geoff
From: "geoff coyle" <geoff.coyle@btinternet.com>

Posted: **Sat Aug 02, 2003 10:04 am**

John rightly cites the volume of work on models (something that I mentioned
in my first query). Its certainly an impressive collection, ranging over
the last 20 years but it does not, as far as I can tell, address the issue
of empirical evidence for the waves existence.

Geoff
From: "geoff coyle" <geoff.coyle@btinternet.com>

Ventana software support forum

Where are we in the Long waves

Where are we in the Long waves

Where are we in the Long waves

Where are we in the Long waves

Where are we in the Long waves

Where are we in the Long waves

Where are we in the Long waves

Where are we in the Long waves

Where are we in the Long waves

Where are we in the Long waves

Where are we in the Long waves

Where are we in the Long waves

Where are we in the Long waves

Where are we in the Long waves