Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The New Economy and its Winners -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: fedhead who wrote (16152)	2/18/2003 4:01:19 PM
From: Bill Harmond	Respond to of 57684

reuters.com

To: fedhead who wrote (16152)	2/18/2003 6:15:02 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 57684

well sure, a lot of people feel that way but don't you think its a little disingenuous to create a list of "major market bottoms" that only includes 2 periods- the WWII era where deficits were 10x what they are today wrt GDP, and the 70s when not only did we have inflation/stagflation, but the USAs role in the industrial world was being questioned (nobody wanted to buy our inferior products). Thats the problem with all this "historical relevance"... just the fact that it is all so irrelevant. What about the recession that happened at the last turn of the century... coming off the guilded age, there was a major market decline involved I know, and certainly a lot of up years afterwards going into the 20s... speaking in purely innovation terms that period is the most like today imo- my guess is that investing in 1901-02 (during the recession) produced GREAT returns for the next 20 years, why isn't it in there? Either they don't have the data or the valuations weren't quite low enough for a "major market bottom" is my guess.