To: LLCF who wrote (17208 ) 3/21/2002 10:04:29 PM From: Maurice Winn Read Replies (2) | Respond to True. As you say, the DNA which makes up humans at the moment is little different from that of 100 and 50 years ago. But it is different. More importantly, the spread of age in human populations is dramatically different from 100 years ago and 50 years ago when there were far more people in the young age groups and few living above age 70. Also, the socialisation of people is hugely different now, in modern urban worlds than 100 years ago when a fraction of the number of people were alive as now and they lived 80% in rural agricultural and small town ways. if you're talking the stock market and it's valuations [and we are, at least I am] these valuation are mostly affected by human psychological behaviour... that indeed hasnt' changed much IMO. It's OK to be part of the "it's different this time crowd" however... it's very popular at the moment. >...anyway, time will tell, no reason to argue. > I'm keen to test my ideas against other's ideas to see if there are missing links in my mind. Jay persuaded me that it would be judicious to lighten up on Q! and my net asset value is therefore dramatically better than this time a year ago. So I consider the discussion not a matter of winning or losing, but of getting a good model of the world in my head. If my comments help others improve their models, all to the good. If they correct my ideas, that's even better.
