Talk:Vicious circle

Merger proposal

I oppose merging the Vicious circle article with this one. That article is a dab page, and this one describes economic and organizational theories in detail. Bry9000 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been three weeks since the merge tag was added with no other comments, so I removed the merge tag. Bry9000 (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Name of article

shouldnt this be viscious cycle?

Nope. Vicious is right, no S. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 June 29 06:25 (UTC)

The images don't look right. Some of the ovals have been cropped. Swirlix 01:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

History of theory?

I'm helping someone with a thesis, and they want to use "Virtuous Circle" as the theoretical backbone. I'm having trouble finding the person who first developed the theory . . . Can it be attributed to one source? It sounds like it, especially with the "Twentieth Century" part. Can anyone help? Thanks!

To answer your question, I did some internet search and it appears that vicious and virtuous economic cycles were not that popular until recently. The closest to a definition or an explanation that I could find is by International Institute of Management in an article written by Med Yones, titled US Economy Risks and Strategies for 2007-2007 – The article is dated June, 2009

http://www.iim-edu.org/u.s.economyrisks/

I’m including the definition/explanations below.

2) U.S. Economic Risks

This section provides a quick assessment of the U.S. economic health status. The basic commonsense formula to assess the health of an economy is as follows:

If revenues are more than expenditures (surplus), then the economic health is good, because the Government can afford to invest in socioeconomic development projects such as research and development, education, transportation and infrastructure. With more income, the government can afford to lower taxes, which attracts more global investors, resulting in more economic activities and creates more jobs and enlarge the consumer spending. It is what I call a virtuous economic cycle.

If revenues are less than the expenditures (deficit), then the economic health is not bad. An increasing debt will result in higher interest payments, and less money available for socioeconomic development. To pay for the debt, the Government will have to raise taxes, which will reduce the competitive position of US in a global economy and chase investors away resulting in less economic activities and more job loss. It is what I call a vicious economic cycle.

What is really interesting is that the article predicted the economic crisis and used the terms vicious economic cycles and virtual economic cycles to explain the current sharp cycles.

Although this might not be the oldest use of the terms, but I hope it helps as a source. The other interesting thing about the article is that I Googled the phrase, US Economy Risks, and found it to be the first search result out of about 100 million pages, so it must have had a lot of exposure and influencing the current popularity of the terms. It was also widely quoted by the media like Scoop New Zealand, Bloomberg, Reuters and so on.

CMF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Engender (talk • contribs) 7 March, 2006.

The comment about austin powers's movie seems a bit misplaced here. I think it should be deleted. Zé - 21/08/2006

Indeed. Fat Bastard's particular example of the vicious cycle seems unnecessary.

Question on Reciprocal Altruism & Virtuous Cycle

How are these 2 different ? --பராசக்தி 16:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Monetarize" is not a word =

The word you want is "monetize." Fixing the text isn't enough here; the original poster needs to re-do his graphics as well. DoctorJS3 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Euthyphro Dilemma

Euthyphro dilemma is cited as another example of cycle, but it is not a cycle at all, rather a dilemma about the implications of two hypotheses in theistic moral. The only "cycle" it could imply would be a mutual logical lack, which cannot be properly called a vicious nor virtuous cycle because it does not concern cyclic reinforcement. I suggest that the reference to this dillemma be removed. 24.202.61.223 (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)