and go where? the Greens reckon the world is going to melt.
Recap on The Great Depression Ahead
- Thread starter .toe
- Start date
and go where? the Greens reckon the world is going to melt.
Something shifty about a number like that,10 million in each state would be more like it,and it's something that no one will be able to stop..willair..
This is pretty much where Dent says we are headed, he specifically uses Japan as an example of what can happen to the political environment in an an aging population.
US Fears Grow Over Catching Japan Economy Slowdown - CNBC News
US Fears Grow Over Catching Japan Economy Slowdown - CNBC News
Last edited:
Australian demographics aren't as bad as the U.S. or Europe (Australian Spending Wave, below). We go flat into 2025 and then boom again, plus we have good trade with China (whos demographics turn sour in 5-10 years), and India (who's demographics haven't started their spending phase yet).
The dotted line is the 'Innovation Wave', or population at age 23 when they are the most innovative, but also cause the most inflation due to the high cost to productivity ratio in putting young people to work.
If you want to see Spending Wave charts for other countries they are HERE.
The dotted line is the 'Innovation Wave', or population at age 23 when they are the most innovative, but also cause the most inflation due to the high cost to productivity ratio in putting young people to work.
If you want to see Spending Wave charts for other countries they are HERE.
It's pretty much proven that most of his predictions have been wrong.
Sure the age groups will have an influence on economies, but he's curve fitting.
Sure the age groups will have an influence on economies, but he's curve fitting.
I do agree that he altered his indicators once to explain why his forecast for the Dow wasn't met, and I don't follow his lines of interest in short term market indicators such as support/resistance etc. However demographics are the guts of his method and I find it hard to ignore his 1992 forecast of a ten year plus boom based on baby boomer peak spending, the same method that lead to his forecast of a financial crisis in 2008 leading to a debt deflation depression, in the US.
@Aaron Sice & @Piston Broke,
I have to agree with the guts of what you're saying, and I think Dent certainly deserves to cop some flack. He uses some very questionable economic indicators, and when they go wrong he looks for other indicators to explain those failings.
However in the interest of protecting the baby from the bathwater plughole, I hope you don't mind me adding that it's the demographics only that I'm interested in. The rest I'll agree is rubbish.
The demographics can't tell us how high the Dow or the NASDAQ will go, they only tell us what direction the economy will go, how strong it will be, and when the trend might finish. Looking only at the demographics Dent successfully forecast several events years, or decades in advance. The boom of the 1990's, Japan's lost decade, The rise of China and India, the crash in the US was forecast to be between 2007 & 2009, the downturn in Europe. And now he forecasts another lost decade, in the US & Europe, a forecast that was made in the 1990s.
Non of this could've been curve fit because the forecasts were made way in advance of the events. I have no idea why he would risk muddying his demography using bogus indicators. But I would guess that it's pretty hard to fill a book if you only have one indicator of your own.
I have to agree with the guts of what you're saying, and I think Dent certainly deserves to cop some flack. He uses some very questionable economic indicators, and when they go wrong he looks for other indicators to explain those failings.
However in the interest of protecting the baby from the bathwater plughole, I hope you don't mind me adding that it's the demographics only that I'm interested in. The rest I'll agree is rubbish.
The demographics can't tell us how high the Dow or the NASDAQ will go, they only tell us what direction the economy will go, how strong it will be, and when the trend might finish. Looking only at the demographics Dent successfully forecast several events years, or decades in advance. The boom of the 1990's, Japan's lost decade, The rise of China and India, the crash in the US was forecast to be between 2007 & 2009, the downturn in Europe. And now he forecasts another lost decade, in the US & Europe, a forecast that was made in the 1990s.
Non of this could've been curve fit because the forecasts were made way in advance of the events. I have no idea why he would risk muddying his demography using bogus indicators. But I would guess that it's pretty hard to fill a book if you only have one indicator of your own.
There are many on here that quote population increase as a sure sign of boom even citing it's the reason our RE markets & economy will stay in a boom.
So here's a us population growth chart showing how erroneous this thinking is.
And based on the 2006 census the US economy should be fine because of all those extra people buying real estate.....
So here's a us population growth chart showing how erroneous this thinking is.
And based on the 2006 census the US economy should be fine because of all those extra people buying real estate.....
Yes the population has grown from births and immigration. But this issue is not about those things as such. This is about the number of people who are aged between 40 and 50, they are far and away the largest spending age-group (my first post here has a 'spending by age-group' chart). And baby boomers have been in that group up till now, but from now they move quickly into a lower spending age bracket (in the U.S. & Europe).
40-50 year olds are the most productive, they earn the most, they have the most demands on their money, and they borrow the most money. Which is why it's no mistake that the bust comes 50 years after the peak of the baby boom (1960), when BBs stop earning, borrowing and spending big money.
Demographers do extrapolate this to Realestate. They don't just look at population growth, they look at age groups. An increase in 20-30 year olds means rents will increase, an increase in 30-40 year old buying means first home prices will rise (Bernhard Salt has been going on about Gen Ys starting families & buying first homes lately). An increase in 40-50 year olds means upgrade homes will increase in value due to competition.
40-50 year olds are the most productive, they earn the most, they have the most demands on their money, and they borrow the most money. Which is why it's no mistake that the bust comes 50 years after the peak of the baby boom (1960), when BBs stop earning, borrowing and spending big money.
Demographers do extrapolate this to Realestate. They don't just look at population growth, they look at age groups. An increase in 20-30 year olds means rents will increase, an increase in 30-40 year old buying means first home prices will rise (Bernhard Salt has been going on about Gen Ys starting families & buying first homes lately). An increase in 40-50 year olds means upgrade homes will increase in value due to competition.
Last edited:
I dont believe that either, younger GenY & GenZ spend, and have spent on them, more imo.
But who am I to contradict someone who writes book and does highly paid seminars on and correcting his own wrong forecasts.
Lookup his book "The great boom ahead" 1993, page 15 headline "The Bottom Line" And tell me if even one of his predictions was right.
If the only repsonse is "he changed them later", then it pretty much confirms they were bogus to begin with.
You aren't just contradicting an individual author, you are contradicting virtually everything I've ever read about the boomer generation.
It did happen, but that's the past and not how I see the future.
That all the "experts" dont agree is not an issue for me.
And IMO most of what is published is a sales pitch to the boomers by "economic hitmen" and wishful thinking, hangers on and bandwagon followers.
Soros calls it "reflexivity" I call it SPBS Self Perpetuating BS.
I called a US, UK & EU recession in 07 when everybody, and the experts, were saying it's a storm in a teacup and limited to the US.
But that's the fun in predictions that dont seem predictable.
So in a few years we'll know
And Harry is likely to change his forecasts again...
but you can't generalise an entire freaking generation, you can only make reference to what you have seen or experienced.
You need a skilled workforce that has the capabilities to service other countries be it innovative financial products / IT or back and foot massage - and at this rate the US and Europe may be heading towards the latter.
Talking about Harry, he has just run a webinar and has now made it available for a limited time (till tomorrow).
So here is the link
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=e4bbv...OK-ufc4BLkKPmFyQ9ra0Gio0hYXwb46vmxwjS44C0Uac=
obviously there is a sales advert at the end but none the less interesting to listen to.
I was trying to find some freeby software which would allow me to record sound and vision but have been unsuccessful - any hints greatly appreciated.
Cheers
So here is the link
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=e4bbv...OK-ufc4BLkKPmFyQ9ra0Gio0hYXwb46vmxwjS44C0Uac=
obviously there is a sales advert at the end but none the less interesting to listen to.
I was trying to find some freeby software which would allow me to record sound and vision but have been unsuccessful - any hints greatly appreciated.
Cheers
I found this book a fantastic learning experience. I am still critically evaluating it, and may do for a while yet.
For me it was a complete eye opener for demographics and their place in financials.
I am in a science based profession and therefor tend to view the world through such goggles. When criticism is drawn by a person who adjusts his prediction based on updated information doesn't wash with me. Thats what science is. (in relation to graph fitting). Still upto critical evaluation of the individual.
But what has intrigued me is the "mass balance of money" effect. It is all very well talking about peak spending of baby boomers but if they slow spending does that mean the money dissappeared(the money they spent). It has to go somewhere.
Does it mean the rich got richer?...
Does it mean the 'general' public got richer?
Does it mean debt was transferred to next generation?...
Does it mean that govt are less free to print money?
Does it mean less people are now available to hold credit against assets effecting banks ability to loan.
Did they live on credit and this will only further the credit crunch(see point above)
What of the asset they own that hold intrinsic wealth?
I guess the bottom line of this post is that money is not like energy that can neither be created or destroyed. Money is just a figment of worth in 2 human minds. The one wanting it and the one selling it.
Without answering the above questions the premice of the book seems simple. Less people to spent money means less money going into stock/re. Less demand....
Still cant figure out where the BB money went though....
For me it was a complete eye opener for demographics and their place in financials.
I am in a science based profession and therefor tend to view the world through such goggles. When criticism is drawn by a person who adjusts his prediction based on updated information doesn't wash with me. Thats what science is. (in relation to graph fitting). Still upto critical evaluation of the individual.
But what has intrigued me is the "mass balance of money" effect. It is all very well talking about peak spending of baby boomers but if they slow spending does that mean the money dissappeared(the money they spent). It has to go somewhere.
Does it mean the rich got richer?...
Does it mean the 'general' public got richer?
Does it mean debt was transferred to next generation?...
Does it mean that govt are less free to print money?
Does it mean less people are now available to hold credit against assets effecting banks ability to loan.
Did they live on credit and this will only further the credit crunch(see point above)
What of the asset they own that hold intrinsic wealth?
I guess the bottom line of this post is that money is not like energy that can neither be created or destroyed. Money is just a figment of worth in 2 human minds. The one wanting it and the one selling it.
Without answering the above questions the premice of the book seems simple. Less people to spent money means less money going into stock/re. Less demand....
Still cant figure out where the BB money went though....
the BB money came in the form of borrwings from foreigners from real estate prices that were bid up. australia doesn't generally produce consumer items so it was consumed and the cash went back overseas. That's how I am seeing it anyway. It would need to be supported by some graphs on foreign debt held by the private sector i.e. banks. the value of the AUD has a big impact on that debt balance
Similar threads
