SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: techguerrilla who wrote (67605)11/23/2004 11:19:31 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Election Angst Update: Clark Kent Vs the Media Wimps

by Maureen Farrell
November 23, 2004
buzzflash.com

[NOTE: There are many live links embedded in this report at the website.]

"The greatest threat to truth today may well be from my profession." -- Legendary reporter Carl Bernstein

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. While some in the mainstream media were finally paying attention to an important story as it was unfolding (rather than waiting three years, ala the New York Times), others were taking the usual safe and tired tact.

It all started on Monday, Nov. 7, when, inspired by a Cincinnati Enquirer story on how Warren County Ohio officials had "locked down" the administration building on election night and restricted open access to the vote count there, Keith Olbermann began reporting on voting irregularities across the country. "We have heard the message on the Voting Angst and will continue to cover it with all prudent speed," Olbermann later wrote on his blog, and sure enough, Countdown with Keith Olbermann doled out nightly nuggets -- not only concerning Votergate, but regarding the media itself. This exchange between Olbermann and Craig Crawford was especially satisfying:

CRAWFORD: "We're often wimps in the media. And we wait for other people to make charges, one political party or another, and then we investigate it. But this is the time to do this. There's still time before the [2004 election] results are certified. It doesn't mean it will change the outcome. But it is good and I congratulate you for looking at some of these [voting] irregularities.

OLBERMANN: "I congratulate you for joining me on the crap list for saying that there are wimps in the media. Amen, brother.

(LAUGHTER)

OLBERMANN: We know it and now everybody else knows it.

Was that good for you, too?

While it's true that Mr. Olbermann was recently voted America's "Sexiest Newscaster," the further he strays from the herd, the hotter he gets. "There's a story here, I happen to have a newscast, maybe I should cover it," Olbermann humbly told NPR, sounding a bit like Clark Kent/Superman in the process.

Lest you think my enthusiasm is part and parcel of some nerdish crush, I assure you, it cuts deeper. As a newspaperman's daughter and newspaperwoman's granddaughter, the frustration I've felt these past four years has prompted thoughts and feelings uncomfortably removed from the mainstream. In the summer of 2002, for example, I wrote about the growing number of states linking drivers' license applications to selective service registration and wondered if the U.S. was gearing up for the draft. (I still believe it is). And six months before the start of the war, with neck fully extended, I expressed doubts about the existence of Iraq's WMD.

Now here we are, thousands of dead Americans and Iraqis (and one quagmire) later, and it's apparent that questioning the official story was not the treasonous act of assorted conspiracy kooks, but the responsible thing to do. And if the media had been doing its job, you would not be reading this now.

Which brings us back to Mr. Olbermann and his colleagues.

While Ralph Nader has openly stated that this election "was hijacked from A to Z," nobody expects Peter Jennings to be similarly sensational. Oh, sure, Robert Novak reportedly raised questions about Bill Clinton's role in Vince Foster's death on national TV and Ann Coulter told Hannity and Colmes that Clinton "raped a woman [and] molested interns in the White House, and then lied about it and committed felonies," but right-wing hacks live by a set of ethics that is clear only to them, and democracy is better served when pundits remain rational and reasoned. After all, Keith Olbermann's Countdown has been able to cover this story night after night, without venturing into the crazy conspiracy zone -- despite Coulter's dubious claims to the contrary.

But when Peter Jennings introduced a story on e-vote "conspiracy theories" with the same snide dismissal he once reserved for assertions about G.W. Bush's National Guard record (assertions which turned out to be true), it was easy to see why, as the Hartford Courant put it, the mainstream media are becoming "ignored and irrelevant."

Of course it would be irresponsible for any major network to say that this election was stolen or rigged or riddled with fraud without proof, but wasn't it also irresponsible for America's most prominent pundits to immediately conclude, as Good Morning America's Charles Gibson did, that "the exit polls got it flat wrong"?

A University of Pennsylvania professor placed odds that the exit polls were that wrong in that many states at 250 million to one while renowned pollster John Zogby likened the 2004 presidential election to 1960's suspicious contest. "Something is definitely wrong," Zogby said, adding "we're talking about the Free World here."

After all, even if recounts do not alter the end result, aren't threats to our democratic process story enough? Three presidential candidates have asked for recounts, six Congressmen have asked the GAO to investigate, Ohio's presidential vote is being challenged and the League of Women's Voters is asking for an investigation into voter irregularities, proving that such concerns are more mainstream than most in the mainstream media are letting on.

Stanford University computer scientist David Dill has also said that the risk of a stolen election is "extremely high," while John Hopkins' researcher Avi Rubin has discussed how easily it would be to hack an election and cover one's tracks.

And according to a study released by researchers at the highly respected UC Berkeley, electronic voting machines may have added between 130,000 to 260,000 (or more) votes to President Bush's tally in Florida -- making Rep. Peter King's Diary of a Political Tourist comments to Alexandra Pelosi less humorous and more Stalinesque with each questionable tally. (When asked how he knew Bush would win the election, King responded, "It's all over but the counting and we'll take care of the counting.")

In the meantime, Dean Charles Stewart III, a researcher in the MIT-Caltech Voting Technology Project replicated UC Berkeley's analysis for the Associated Press and Oakland Tribune and concluded: "There is an interesting pattern here that I hope someone looks into it." (Will someone please alert Peter Jennings?)

"We've been a little bit surprised by how many e-mails we've had suggesting that maybe once again the country got it wrong," Jennings said on World News Tonight. "Now, we're not particularly disposed to conspiracy theories. As you know, Mr. Bush won by a comfortable margin of more than three million votes."

But, had he been paying attention, Jennings would not have been surprised. And he would have known how easily votes can be electronically added or subtracted. After all, questions about the integrity of America's elections were researched and widely publicized long before anyone took to the polls. Researchers at John Hopkins University reported that Diebold machines functioned "below even the most minimal security standards" and were "unsuitable for use in a general election" while CNN aired concerns about voting machines' security and reliability.

Topic A With Tina Brown guest host Howard Dean even helped to educate viewers about potential vote fraud when he presided over an on-air hacking, and during the primaries, the AP reported that "a series of failures in primaries across the nation has shaken confidence in the technology installed at thousands of precincts" with as many as 20 states introducing legislation calling for paper receipts on voting machines.

Any journalist worth his salt would have known we have a problem, Cleveland.

But in the immediate aftermath of the 2004 election, Keith Olbermann was the lone mainstream voice shattering the "deafening silence" about voter irregularities. 20,000 grateful e-mails later, Olbermann appeared on NPR to address what some have dubbed his heroism for merely doing, as Mickey Kraus explained, what "the press is supposed to do."

As soon as the UC Berkeley study on Florida e-voting irregularities was released, Olbermann took to his blog and addressed the mainstream media's muted response. "I still hesitate to endorse the 'media lock-down' theory extolled so widely on the net," he wrote. "I've expended a lot of space on the facts of political media passivity and exhaustion, and now I'll add one factor to explain the collective shrugged shoulder: reading this stuff is hard. It's hard work."

During the last election, New York Observer columnist Ron Rosenbaum exposed the risk of being a caring journalist in an age of corruption -- even pinning the untimely death of Daily News reporter Lars-Erik Nelson on the Mayberry Machiavellis. "If you want to know the truth, I blame the Bush campaign for the death of Nelson, one of the best journalists in America," Rosenbaum wrote, of the fatal stroke Nelson suffered while watching the 2000 Florida debacle unfold.

This time around, Rosenbaum has faulted reporters who are more concerned about "me time" than about threats to Democracy. Referring to Newsweek's Jonathan Alter's observation that weary journalists were happy the Kerry campaign folded because they were eager to take post-election vacations, Rosenbaum exclaimed, "Another great moment in journalism!"

The Sacramento Bee also addressed the networks' given reasons for glossing over the story. Right after the election, it seems, all three major networks decided that tales of alleged fraud and electronic voting snafus were not worthy of investigation, because there "nothing significant had appeared anywhere to affect the election's outcome."

Luckily, this "nothing to see here, move along," mantra has not prevented others from digging for the truth -- often literally. While the watchdog organization Verified Voting has already collected 31,000 reports of "alleged election abnormalities," Bev Harris, of blackboxvoting.org has even rooted through the garbage in Florida's Volusia County, obtaining incriminating evidence and footage along the way.

If the networks don't want to look under the hood, that's fine. But to deem a story dead in the water and dismiss others' attempts to cover it? There's a reason people suspect that there's something rotten in the state of Denmark -- which is why they've been turning to the Internet in droves -- much to mainstream journalists' dismay.

Citing ways the established media "gets really angry" over new forms of journalism, Olbermann also told NPR that traditional journalists often feel contempt for bloggers -- a sentiment which was evident when Chris Matthew covered Votergate for MSNBC's Hardball on Nov.12. "Do you really believe that the bloggers who are out on the fringe there, the people who are putting up these smoke signals now from hell, saying that this election was stolen -- do you think Ralph Nader is ever going to admit he was wrong?," Matthews asked Joe Trippi. "He's out there talking about theft of an election. I just saw the tape. He never comes back and says he was wrong. "So, yes, of course it would be irresponsible for journalists to say that Bush stole the election, but, without wading through the evidence, Matthews already deduced that Nader and the "fringe" bloggers "from hell" are "wrong" -- making Trippi's observations about the media all the more poignant. "I think it was healthy that the blogs began this [investigation into voter irregularities]," Trippi told Matthews. "I actually think this speaks more towards what is the press' responsibility and the two parties' responsibility to ensure that these issues get carried out, because it wouldn't have been done. This would not have been followed up on if the blogs hadn't brought it out."
Even before the Hardball segment aired, however, the discrepancy between Olbermann's reporting and Matthews' coverage was glaring -- with Hardball's promotional material containing mealy-mouthed, limp little caveats. "Don't worry folks, the election results won't be overturned," Nov. 12's Hardball Briefing declared. "Whether you agree with a recount or not... the rules are the rules," Shuster wrote in his blog, about Ohio's impending recount.

"Don't worry folks?" "Whether you agree or not"? Can you imagine Walter Cronkite introducing a story while hemming and hawing that way? What was that about the media being a pack of wimps? (If the right wing likes your message, however, there is no need to fear. "Chris was all over Clinton's impeachment before being all over Clinton's impeachment was cool," Dominic Bellone brayed in the Hardball Briefing for Nov. 17 "It's one of the big stories that cemented me as a fan of Chris. . It's Chris in his element").

There is no doubt, of course, that had the e-vote been on the other foot, FOX News and Drudge would be discussing voter irregularities 'round the clock. And if Kerry's brother were Florida's governor and had a track record of disenfranchising Republicans, Rush Limbaugh would be throwing tantrum after tantrum. What do you suppose would have happened had the head of a voting machine company promised to deliver Ohio's electoral votes to John Kerry? Close your eyes and imagine.

Not all conservatives are partisan hacks, however, and some are adding surprising riders to recent op-eds. "Bush's reelection, if won fair and square, was won because 20 million Christian evangelicals voted against abortion and homosexuals," former Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts wrote on Nov. 19. If won fair and square? If? It looks like Votergate is making a dent.

Even so, some media giants remain downright pathological in their coverage. The Washington Post's passive aggressive reporting on Ralph Nader's New Hampshire concerns, for example, was captured in their headline: "Losing by 335,000 in N.H., Nader Demands a Recount." Meanwhile, the New York Times sandwiched a piece debunking election complaints as groundless conspiracy theories between two fine editorials calling for "a voter-verified paper record of every vote cast," and "election officials who act with openness and integrity." Sybil, is that you?

Singling out Ohio and Florida as states with "highly partisan secretaries of state," however, the Times rightfully concluded: "If we want the voters to trust the umpires, we need umpires who don't take sides." That doesn't seem too much to ask, does it? But calling for safeguards for future elections is not enough. We need a sense of closure and honesty and truth today.

"The mainstream press must immediately realize that this issue rises above partisanship and demands attention," Yale Law School associate dean Ian Soloman remarked and slowly but surely, many are finally flirting with this story. But although journalists who address election oddities ought to be commended, their habits of issuing backdoor disclaimers and offering preemptive apologies merely reinforce perceptions of wimpiness.

Yeah. Ok. We got it. This "crazy" story isn't as big as Whitewater. Or Travelgate. Or Bill Clinton's blow job. And quite honestly, given the Clinton body counts, we've had enough bizarre speculation to last a lifetime. But for the love of God, it's not too difficult to figure this out. We "on the fringe" exist because of the mainstream media's abject failure. And pundits' dismissive attitudes will not quell the legitimate concerns of wide swaths of the population -- especially those whose WMD doubts and Iraq predictions (which were also ridiculed during the heavily propagandized countdown to war), turned out to be true.

And even without all the fact checkers and six-figure salaries, the fringe folks often see the bigger picture, as the mainstream media help the White House roll out its deadly new product du jour.

Robert Parry and Kevin Phillips have long explored the preferential treatment the Bush family has enjoyed in the press, but this goes beyond Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry or whoever runs in 2008. No, this story is bigger than any particular candidate. It's as big as America herself.

The number of computer scientists raising red flags about e-voting should raise red flags, but we live in a really bizarre time when the bigger picture is obscured and which team you're on is more important than integrity and honesty and fairness and transparency and our democratic process.

"Regardless of the outcome of this election, once all the votes are counted -- and they will be counted -- we will continue to challenge this administration," John Kerry said in a statement released last Friday. "I will fight for a national standard for federal elections that has both transparency and accountability in our voting system. It is unacceptable in the United States that people still don't have full confidence in the integrity of the voting process."

Does that mean Kerry's lawyers are working diligently from an undisclosed location? Does it mean he's going to fight? Or is he telling disgruntled citizens what they want to hear? It's difficult to tell.

But one thing is for certain: We do not need any more self-obsessed pundits telling half truths and sharpening their claws. (Citing the old "they can dish it out but they can't take it" adage, even Tom Brokaw admitted that Jon Stewart was right to lambaste Crossfire's hosts). We have plenty of wimps and partisan hacks who act like bullies, and then recoil and whine when someone rightfully tells them that they're not serving the public interest. No. More than ever, we need outwardly humble, mild mannered Clark Kents, who say, "there's a story here. . . maybe I should cover it."

"I've gotten 37,000 emails in the last two weeks (now running at better than 25:1 in favor)," Keith Olbermann wrote in his blog on Nov. 21. See, Peter Jennings? No need for surprise. When reporters actually do their jobs, they become Supermen of sorts -- fighting for Truth, Justice and the American way.

***
Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in helping other writers get television and radio exposure.

ENDS



To: techguerrilla who wrote (67605)12/3/2004 12:46:29 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Transcript of Harry Dent Jr. interview on (TV show) Wall Street Week with Fortune (magazine)............................

pbs.org

Air date: November 26, 2004

Harry Dent Jr. interview

KAREN GIBBS: Most market watchers see a trendless market going into 2005 and beyond, but one prognosticator is bucking the trading range trend. Harry S. Dent, Jr., money manager and author of The Next Great Bubble Boom, says get in now, as we're in for another ride like the Roaring Twenties. Harry, nice to see you.

HARRY DENT: Nice to be here, Karen.

GIBBS: Well, you've got some very provocative ideas in the book, but I didn't really have to dig deep into it. Just looking at the jacket cover gave me a little pause here. You're predicting that the Dow could be at 14,000 by the end of 2005, and at the end of the decade we could see the Nasdaq at 20,000. Excuse my skepticism, but these numbers really sound off the chart.

DENT: No, they do. Actually our targets for the Dow by the end of the decade are 35 to 40,000 and for the Nasdaq our most likely target is 13,000. It could go as high as 20, but if we had to bet today, I'd bet 13,000. Now that sounds outrageous. You've got to remember, it got up to 5,500 faster than anybody thought in the late '90s. That is the same gain the automotive index, the tech indexes made in the Roaring Twenties after the crash, and that's a similar gain that the Dow made from 1922 to '29 from the bottom to the top. So we've also got another chart in the book that's interesting.

We show something called the Dow channel. Since the early '80s when the baby boomers started driving this boom with their rising spending and productivity, the Dow's been going up about 15 percent. We just hit the high end of that channel in '99, early 2000.We hit the low end in the correction. And if the Dow just keeps going at the same average rate since the early '80s, we're not asking for anymore than that, we do hit 40,000 by the end of the decade. So that's our best target. If it hit 30,000, I think most of the listeners would be happy.

GIBBS: You also say that you think the S&P is about 40 percent undervalued right now. And let's say we're at 1130. That's saying that the S&P 500 should be somewhere between 1500 and 1600.

DENT: Yeah, and we expect to see that next year, frankly. We expect to see the Dow at 14,000 plus by the end of next year and the S&P 500 over 1500 and the Nasdaq close to 3,000. Now one of the best long term indicators for valuations, you simply compare bond yields with the yields on the S&P 500, the earnings of the S&P 500. And it shows, yes, the S&P about 40 percent undervalued, and nobody wants to buy. But you've got stocks this undervalued with the demographic trends, baby boomers pointing up, and they never stop spending in this downturn. And you've got these technology cycles going straight from 10 percent in 1994 to 90 percent still zooming up. This is the investment opportunity of a lifetime from our point of view.

GIBBS: Well, your book title is kind of confusing to me, The Next Great Bubble Boom, and bubble brings feelings of 2000 when we crashed and burned. How can you have a bubble and a boom?

DENT: Well, we had one in the late '90s. Our book The Great Boom Ahead saw that coming way back in the early '90s when people thought like today, oh, you know, America's seen its best days, we're too much in debt, the deficit, the Iraqi war, the S&L crisis. But we had two important indicators. Baby boom spending, the simple, predictable demographics of when people spend the most money, and we've tracked technology cycles throughout history and know where we are on them. And we said, you know, technologies are going to accelerate into the mainstream of our economy. It's going to drive up productivity, create new growth industries and an incredible stock market. Now those two things happened.

GIBBS: But you know, we see these boom cycles, these bust cycles, and then they're followed by periods of trading ranges, kind of painful. I'm thinking of like '74 to '82 where the market just, maybe a 1,000-point trading range for the Dow, and then '87 to '91, another just dead in the water period. And we're coming off the bust of 2000 where baby boomers got burned and are very, very shy of the stock market. How are they going to play into helping this scenario play out?

DENT: Well, the thing is they're going to continue to spend and continue to invest. I mean that's what our indicators show. Demographics are very projectable, very predictable. The problem is people are getting whipsawed by this bubble boom. I mean what we tell people is not that a bubble has burst. We are in a bubble boom, and that's difficult for investors. '87 was the first bubble. People forget that, 40 percent crash like that on the Dow. That burned people. And you know what? Everybody said it's over after that. Then we get a bigger bubble.

Now we've got one more coming. People, baby boomers in particular, need to take advantage of this boom because after that baby boom spending will decline, put us in a declining economy for 12 to 14 years, just like the Japanese in the '90s and early 2000s. The U.S., you said that extended bear market, '68 to '82 stocks were down, 14 years. In 1930 to 1942, 13-year bear markets.

Generations earn and spend more money. We show this in a chart called "The Spending Wave," as they're moving in greater numbers to their peak spending years, which we can quantify. It's age 46 to 50. And then there's a decline with the baby bust to follow until the next generation comes along.

Every 40 years we get extended bear markets and people are surprised. They shouldn't be any more surprised at that than getting cold in winter in November. We chart these cycles, and it's important to take advantage of this next boom and bubble, because from 2010 to 2022 our spending wave is pointing down, just like it did for Japan in 1990 to 2003.

GIBBS: I can understand how we're going to see a fading back say after 2010, 2012, but I don't see how we're going to get there, particularly when we're facing situations that we've never faced before. We have never had so much geopolitical risk in the marketplace. And we've got foreign investors that are concerned about the falling dollar and what that does to asset values.

DENT: You know, things follow these trends. When you get a down market, value stocks do better than growth. The dollar's going to fall. Government deficits go up when the economy slows. We predicted in 1992, again way ahead of the boom and bubble, that not only would we have a boom and bubble, but the government deficit would disappear by 1998 to 2000 because the economy which strengthened the government's finances, rising taxes, falling inflation, which our indicators predicted would lower the cost of financing.

We see that again. This deficit will reverse. The U.S. will lead in growth again. The dollar will rise, so the dollar also follows these cycles. We get a bigger downturn, we lower interest rates to stimulate our economy more than Europe and other countries, our dollar falls. We have a high deficit, our dollar falls. All of those things will reverse. So we keep our eye -- economists always get kind of confused by all these things, interest rates, dollar, currencies -- we keep our eye on the ball. It's the demographics of generation spending and productivity cycles, and it's these new technologies that increase productivity and create growth industries that actually drive our economy. It's important to know where we are on those cycles.

GIBBS: Boomers aren't one to embrace new technology, though. How do you see boomers pushing this next boom, especially in the technology arena?

DENT: Well, you know, they have. We all say we resisted, but in 1994 cell phones hit 10 percent of households. This is a principle in our book we call the S curve. It takes a long time to get to 10 percent, but all of a sudden, you hit critical mass and things accelerate to 90 percent. Cell phones hit 50 percent in 2001 right in the middle of this crash and they're going to hit 90 percent by the end of this decade.

GIBBS: You're certainly moving against the grain here, because what I hear you saying is that we should be investing in technology now where everyone is saying stay away, don't touch it.

DENT: Nobody wants to touch it, yeah. It was the same in the early '20s. You see this big crash in tech stocks. Again, General Motors is doing the same thing Intel did 80 years earlier. We've got a chart in the book that shows General Motors 80 years ago in the last revolution -- that's about how long we have these revolutions, about every other generation -- crash, bigger boom. General Motors went up 22 times from '22 to '29, and people were saying the same thing, the tech revolution's over, I don't want to touch tech stocks. So tech was going to lead this next boom like it did in '95 to '99.

GIBBS: Baby boomers aren't the only ones driving this economy now. In fact the new term is the echo boomers, the sons and daughters of baby boomers. The outlook doesn't look so good for them though does it?

DENT: Well, you know, it's tough. They're going to have a very good job, they're just coming out of school, a lot of them, and they will be for many years, and they're going to have very good job prospects. They're going to be scarce, so they're going to be in demand during this boom, but a lot of them are going to be coming into their peak career cycles when this economy is slowing from 2010 to 2022. So they have a challenge in careers and jobs.

The baby boomers have the challenge of, "Oh my gosh, what's going to happen to our retirement funds if the stock market doesn't go up at 10, 12 percent a year like most people expect?" So again, people need to get these good jobs, get with good companies now. I'm telling a lot of younger people don't stay in school forever. Go and get a good job and advance your career while the economy is strong. If you want to go back and get a masters degree, do it in the downturn when it will be easier to get in a good college.

GIBBS: Okay. So you're saying for baby boomers get in on this train now. Don't wait for the market to start rallying, jump in and ride a pretty good rally up to 2010. At that point, what should investors do?

DENT: 2010 to 2012 is the danger period. We think that's when the next bubble will peak and the next crash will come. There is nowhere to hide in a time like that. Even real estate will be down by then. So you need to be in high quality fixed income. Now a lot of baby boomers investors may want to just ride out in corporate bonds and fixed annuities. Stocks aren't going anywhere, real estate's not going anywhere. But people who want to turn around and invest again, say once you get a major crash, let's say by mid-to-late 2012, you could start investing in health care and drug stocks because baby boomers are going to keep spending money on that. And incredibly Asia is going to be the part of the world, Europe is going to decline forever after this boom, we're going to start to plateau in the U.S., Asia will have incredible growth opportunities and continued consumer spending trends.

GIBBS: But along with those incredible growth opportunities comes lots of volatility. How much would you suggest Asia can take up of the portfolio?

DENT: We find that Asia should be 10 to 20 percent of your portfolio, because Asia helps to diversify against U.S. stocks. But if you put too much of Asia in your portfolio, the volatility starts to get you and it hurts more than helps.

GIBBS: You also back tested to the fifth year of the cycle, and is this why you're saying 2005 is just going to be a monster?

DENT: Yeah, there's two things about this decennial cycle. You do tend to get a downturn in the first few years. You tend to recover those losses in year three and four in most decades. All the gains in the stock market over time are made in the fifth through ninth year, the second half of the decade. Even in bear markets like the '70s and the '30s, you would have made money from the fifth through nine years.

When you look back, what's the best year in the cycle zero to nine? It's the fifth year. The fifth year has never been down in the last century. The fifth year has averaged 34.6 percent gains. Nobody's expecting the stock market to do that, anymore than they expected such a strong recovery in 2003. Every cycle we have says next year is going to be a strong year. If you don't get in here around 10,000 on the Dow, you're not going to see 10,000 for a long time and you're not going to get another opportunity like this.

GIBBS: Is there anything that could throw this scenario out of kilter?

DENT: You know, our biggest concern is the geopolitical scene.

Terrorism is not new. We actually had the first terrorist attack on America, a bomb on Wall Street in the early '20s, and that caused huge anti-immigration ethic in this country and had a lot of affects, and we had the Roaring Twenties anyway.

But, you know, this is a big thing, and you seeing something like 9/11 that, I mean four months, I was in New York four months after that, and condo prices were skyrocketing again. So it didn't stop people from buying houses, didn't stop people from doing business. But if we had something really major happen, that would be our biggest worry.

We're actually more worried (that) the terrorist type of threats come more and geopolitical conflicts come more in bad times than good times when people are dissatisfied. I mean, we don't consider it an accident that Hitler came out of the Great Depression and World War II came out of that. So we're more worried about that from 2010 to 2022, but that is the wild card.

We've also back tested and shown that when there is political crisis, the markets tend to be down for a few weeks, but tend to be at new highs within six months. They usually are buying opportunities. The Cuban Missile Crisis, the beginning of World War I, Pearl Harbor, the assassination of Kennedy, you know, all these things. The markets react, but demographics and technology cycles still drive the economy, and so those are still pointing up. Those are buying opportunities.

GIBBS: Harry S. Dent, Jr., thanks very much for joining us.

© Copyright 2002 - 2004 Maryland Public Television and FORTUNE.