Yesterday, we talked about the latest prediction of doom—this time, a 67-percent decline in the stock market in the next 18 to 24 months. Unlike most doom-saying, which isn’t supported by any actual data (the collapse of the dollar, for example), arguments for a significant market decline are based on a number of very real facts, many of which I’ve discussed in the past.

I've never really examined the situation of a crash itself, however. What would a crash mean, and how would it likely play out?

Yesterday, I received a question from Joe Esposito that touches on some very relevant demographic-related issues:

“How do you feel about Harry Dent's prediction of a Dow 5,500 and the next big crash starting within the next 24 months or so? Just curious on your take regarding his demographic viewpoints and positioning with booms and busts. (Highs are higher and busts will be lower than that last.) Thoughts?”

When I speak to groups in various parts of the country, I often hear that things there don’t reflect the national employment averages and trends I talk about. This usually leads to some interesting discussions about why that might be the case.

The problem with looking at region-specific trends is the lack of research in that area. So I was glad to discover a recent report by Deloitte University Press that breaks out some numbers on a regional basis, with interesting results.

One of the advantages of a slow summer season is that we can spend some time on topics that are important but not urgent. Demography is a great example. It determines most of the context in which the economy operates, but its trends play out over years and decades. Like the weather, demographic trends are just there, and we have to adjust to them.

Simply looking at the U.S. population distribution can give us some insight into what will happen over the next 20 years or so, as well as what’s happening right now.

As I wrote in my last post, oil prices have stayed lower for longer than many would have expected, and we may see prices drift lower still as supply continues to outpace demand.

Some of the effects of lower prices are obvious, but others aren’t. Let's take a look at who stands to benefit from continued low prices—and who may not fare so well. 

As I write, the financial markets are dropping on fears that the situation in Ukraine is about to escalate. This doesn’t come as a surprise, and, frankly, it’s not very interesting from an economic point of view.

More striking is that oil prices have continued to decline despite this turmoil and everything else that’s happening around the world, particularly in Gaza and Iraq. Down more than 2 percent this morning, crude prices are at monthly and quarterly lows, and they're getting very close to annual lows as well.

Yesterday, we talked about how the U.S. government deficit, while improving, is still way too high, posing serious problems for the future. Today, I want to touch on two other problems that you might think have been solved—but haven’t.

Part of the return to normal for the economy and the financial markets has been a decline in interest—or at least media coverage—of the national deficit and debt.

Though understandable, this is a mistake, as the deficit and debt remain a serious problem for the country in the medium to long term.

Following up on yesterday’s post, I want to look at two areas of the investment world that have a lot to say about how we invest our money—and how we make our profits.

One of the keys to business success is sustainable advantage, often referred to as a competitive “moat.” In short, if you have something your competitors can’t duplicate, you can charge for it and make money.

The idea typically centers on things that protect products. Think of patents, or the kind of ecosystem of software, hardware, and content that Apple, Amazon, and Google are building, at a cost of billions of dollars.