Any here read The Economist?

I've subscribed for years. It's got a pro-globalization and libertarian bias. It has excellent coverage of foreign news you won't find elsewhere.

There is more content per issue than nearly every other weekly news magazine. It is also more expensive. Best price I found last time I renewed was at SubscriptionAddiction.com

(It's probably not a good choice for someone who thinks the stock market is "fake money".)

Very good mag.  High level writing. 

Love it. 

Father in Law got me a subscription 15 years ago and it's the only gifted magazine I've ever renewed.

Other than the great articles, you know I love the symbol-rich yearly covers.

I buy it at airports ... lasts a whole flight

Smart writing

>I don't think the stock market is fake money. I just think it's over valued.<

like the pots?

>>>I buy it at airports ... lasts a whole flight

Yep.  Not cheap at the airport news stand, but its worth it.  The depth and scope of the world news articles is way beyond 99% of the click bait style "news" out there.

I subscribed for a couple years but let it lapse last year.  Content is good but I found it to be too focused on international stories.  

I can only read so much about Venezuela...

>>>   I don't think the stock market is fake money. I just think it's over valued.

If you compare the S&P500 earnings yield to the ten-year treasury yield, you may think again.

I claim ignorance as to the meaning of "over valued" in the following sense: Seems to me that the market can get "bearish" even when it is "cheap"...and get "bullish" even when it is "expensive".  So my discussion of value has no trading implications...this is analysis appropriate for long-term investments.

That said, compare valuation today to that of 25 years ago: April 1992:  S&P earnings yield at ~4% is roughly same as it was then:   http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-earnings-yield/table/by-month  10-year Treasury was at 7.5% in April 1992, now 2.5%:    http://www.multpl.com/10-year-treasury-rate/table/by-month

The market earnings yield (earnings divided by price) was 3.5% lower than the 10-year treasury yield in April 1992, but the earnings yield is 1.75% above the 10-year today.

April 1992:  Market would need to drop by 47% in order to have an earnings yield equal to the 10-yr Treasury.

April 2017:  Market would need to rise by 75% in order to have an earnings yield equal to the 10-year Treasury.

Implication of above: the market is a lot cheaper today than it was in 1992.

Does that mean that the market was wildly over-valued in 1992?  Well, what if you bought the S&P 500 index fund in 1992.

How'd the market do for the past 25 years?

Up 480%, ignoring dividends:  http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximize...

(you could have spent the dividends and still have been up 480%.   That's about 8% per year compounded annually, ignoring the dividends, which were probably about 1.6%-2% per year.

As for shorter horizons, Lawrence Fink is worth listening to:  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-21/s-p-500-profit-generators-under-threat-from-peak-inflation

jACOBIN.