Reader Al B. takes issue with my gloom. Good on ya, Al -- gloom should be taken issue with. And yes, apocalyptic predictions are often wrong.
On the other hand -- I have a vivid memory of a very intelligent, sophisticated colleague explaining to me, late in 1999, why there wouldn't be overall stock market downturns any more. Markets are interconnected, information is readily available, there will be sector crashes but thanks to data flow and the democratization of investment, each would be cushioned in other sectors. Not quite "we've conquered the business cycle," but getting there. Didn't exactly pan out.
So -- am I expecting breadlines? Not necessarily. But there's still a lot of excessive heat in the markets, the recovery, if there is one, is an intermittent thing, and the fragile state of a) currency balance and b) real estate investment is, well, worrisome.
Things change. Including stability.
Yes, I admit I may just be reflecting my own fatigue. On the other hand, what if I'm not the only one. A non-technical question -- what happens if a lot of people decide to step off the treadmill? Cf. the late Roman Empire.
Or maybe it's just the humidity talking.
Perhaps the economy starts all over again when it gets crisp in the fall.
Don't read me wrong, I am not suggesting seven more years (or days, weeks or months even) of feast...or famine for that matter. I do agree that difficult times are ahead, just as I felt during the giddiness of the late 90's. But just as few, if any, including me, predicted how the 90's would unwind -- most did not predict the unrelenting, interconnected financial distress, the lack of spending, the still mostly jobless recovery, etc. I am not putting faith in the wisdom of the conventional thought, nor in the governors of the financial system. They will first do great harm (see Greenspan).
What to do...look to the long-term, always. And may the force be with us.
Posted by: Al B. | July 19, 2005 at 02:53 PM