To: sun-tzu who wrote (132387 ) 11/1/2001 3:15:36 PM From: SOROS Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 436258 Why is the concept of looking at historical returns in the market and comparing them with the returns from 1985 to 2000, and then logically determining what a probable return will be in the next few years? Forget that the bubble makes it way worse. Forget that Greenspan has done some things to make it WAY worse. Forget that accounting standards have allowed things that make it WAY worse. Forget that the debt everywhere makes it WAY worse. Forget that companies overextended themselves which makes it WAY worse. Forget that PEs are almost at historical highs which makes it WAY worse. Forget, forget, forget. Just eliminate all that "bear talk" which many would have you believe "is different this time". Just do the math. I know this concept is WAY too deep for CNBC, Cramer, and Maria -- after all, they have their entire futures relying on FORGETTING all of these things, but can we all say "10% HISTORICAL AVERAGE combined with 20+% last 15 year average means 5% next 15 year average, or 0% next 6-7 year average or a DROP (perish the thought!) of about 50% from current levels." Come on Cramer and Maria! Try it again. "10% HISTORICAL AVERAGE combined with 20+% last 15 year average means 5% next 15 year average, or 0% next 6-7 year average or a DROP (perish the thought!) of about 50% from current levels." Cramer, get that $153 Krispy Kreme donut out of your gut and Maria, get it out of your, er, uh, sitting place, and one more time: "10% HISTORICAL AVERAGE combined with 20+% last 15 year average means 5% next 15 year average, or 0% next 6-7 year average or a DROP (perish the thought!) of about 50% from current levels." I give up. I feel like Jay Leno on the street. Do either one of you guys know what Little Miss Muffet sat on? No? Do you know what stock brokers and financial "analysts" did during the early CRASH when their advice didn't pan out? Hint -- get a parachute.