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 : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (20054)	12/31/2004 5:31:05 PM
From: SouthFloridaGuy	Respond to of 116555

Just read Heinz? or somebody's analysis of 2005 and beyond. Must say I agree. Thanks for the link. worldmarket.blogspot.com

To: mishedlo who wrote (20054)	1/3/2005 3:08:24 PM
From: Joe Stocks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116555

Hi mish, Good post. I agree with much of what you say here and have expressed the same at IHUB. One thing I would like to add is that we will see weakness in many stocks if growth just stops or goes flat. Many jobs are built in for ever higher growth. I predicted last year that we will see retal start cutting back on new store expanison this year. The poulation grew 1% last year but yet these retailers continue to grow new store openings 10-20%. We are very much over stored. Here is something I posted at IHUB last month. Many point to favorable demographics to fuel continued growth. I disagree. This post was in reponse to something some posted anout what Harry Dent was saying. I don't think you will see this theory anywhere. (maybe for good reason. lol!) investorshub.com >>About Dent and the Baby-boomers demographics. Here is a theory for ya. I would argue that the first half of the babyboomer generation is wealthier than the second half. Therefor, I do not see the level of spending that we saw as the first half moved through their most productive and spend free days. mainly for two reasons. First of all the first born, first half were able to take the higher paying leadership and management positions. Second, the first of the boomers have a signifiacnt wealth advantage due to the inflation that took place in the 70's and early 80's. Those born between 1946 and 1955 were buying their first homes between the ages on 22 and 30 or from 1968 to 1985. The second group tended to buy their first home a bit later in life, probably starting in the the late 80's to mid 90's. By the time the early boomers saw the mid 90's pull around, they were ready to build their largest and most expensive home of their lifetime. That could account for much of the strong building growth of the mid 90's to early 2000's. Low finacing rates kept the building boom going until present day. Another theory I have is that the later boomers are deeper in debt that the early boomers. The late boomers should be called the 'me to's' as they borrowed their way to live the life style of their older siblings. Just a thought. I think Dent is wrong here. Tell me. Does that book offer an email address for Dent? We exchanged a couple emails back after I read his 'Roaring 2000's' book that I was so disappointed in<< Nice board.