This is a particularly good counterpoint to some of the ideas in the article: http://www.economist.com/node/16479024?story_id=16479024 http://www.economist.com

This is a particularly good counterpoint to some of the ideas in the article: http://www.economist.com/node/16479024?story_id=16479024 http://www.economist.com/node/16479024?story_id=16479024 * Even though stocks have fallen in the last decade, they are still historically expensive. Because the fell from such a high peak in 2000. * The more people that follow the author's advice of investing in shares (the cult of equity), the worse their collective return will be. * Unrelated but interesting is that high-yield bonds have outperformed stocks since 1995. If you'd invested $1,000 a month since 1970 you'd be rich. Yes, but $1,000 a month in 1970 was a lot of money. In 1970 the median household income was around $800 a month (in 1970 dollars). It'd be more informative to know how rich you'd now be if you'd invested in stocks something like 20% of the median household income for the past 40 years.