{Schumpeter K [, Kondratieff, & Juglar] Cycles [continued (4)]}[26th October 1989]

[Redbook6:334-335][19891026:1454]{Schumpeter K [, Kondratieff, & Juglar] Cycles [continued (4)]}[26th October 1989]

.1454

Of course, the swing away from regularity of the 64-cycle* – a sort of ‘nodding’ of the circle pattern away and back again – can be interpreted as the influence of the degree of the 512**-cycle on each 64-cycle; and, perhaps, other cycles may also influence the ones being considered.

Questions are:

(1) Why lags, not leads (or, if 1825-1857*** is reliable, why sometimes leads, sometimes lags?)? Discounting 1825-57,*** I speculate that material (outer-circle) circles**** lag, inner-circle circles*** lead.

(2) Will this lead/lag pattern be found elsewhere, eg in the 8 [x] 64-cycles of European history on which I am working at present? If so, I should expect the effect to be least in the first (1536-1600) and last (1984-2048), most in the middle (1728-1792 and 1792-1856). So far, there is not much sign of consistent lead or lag, although a lot of spread.

*[See last three previous entries, [Redbook6:333][19891026:1125c]{Schumpeter K[, Kondratieff, & Juglar] Cycles}[26th October 1989]ff.]

**[ms has 536 (& see last previous entry), which must presumably be an error]

***[See last previous entry but two, [Redbook6:333][19891026:1125c]{Schumpeter K[, Kondratieff, & Juglar] Cycles}[26th October 1989]&f]

****[ie cycles]

[PostedBlogger04092020]