If they build the money into buildings, or price it into bonds, people's rents will go down, and their mortgages will get cheaper, and eventually it has to find its way back into the stock market, right?


Can't smokestacks get "overpriced" too?


Assuming we need more durable assets to meet the demand to invest, doesn't the price have to be "too high" to stimulate the supply of durable assets, and long-term projects?


Isn't it possible that demand will pretty much go up in a stiaght line, and that supply will only occasionally overshoot it, but that in an effort to avoid the costs of overshooting and cyclicality, will tend to undershoot it, on average, by a larger and larger margin?


Meaning, nobody wants to get stuck with VerticalNet again. So isn't it possible we could have all the demand we had in 1999, but without even the junk stock to absorb it?


eLROY