Jerome, you were forecasting no growth in the US and other capitalist economies last year--(you'll find your comment was the first to the diary I link to).  That forecast has proven to be wrong so far, as shown in the strong growth figures from the latest (2nd quarter '06) OECD data showing 3.6% growth in the US, and 2.5% growth in the Euro Zone.  (I don't have quick access to Asian data right now, but I know growth there was even stronger.)  Preliminary monthly figures I have seen show continued positive growth in Q3 for these economies, and I'm confident the year will end up with very positive growth.  In fact, I would expect that the Dow will end up the year at or near 12.000, which will be an all time high,,,,breaking the old highs set during the technology peaks of 2000.  

I would suggest you find someone better than Mr. Eisinger to guide your thoughts and understanding on the economy.  His bio seems to suggest he is a journalist, with a BA in American Studies from Columbia University.  His lack of study in economics, and practise of it as a profession is incredibly obvious in his comments.

Corporate profits are off the charts. There's only one way for them to go from here.

The Standard & Poor's 500 companies have had 17 consecutive quarters of double-digit operating profit growth. That's a record since S&P started tracking operating earnings in 1988, according to Howard Silverblatt, S&P's keeper of the numbers.

So record earnings growth for US corportations coupled with the 3.6% strong growth in the overall economy,,,and Mr. Eisinger implies the only way for strong US companies and the overall economy to go is down?!!  That is truely absurd.

Yet investors are paying less and less per dollar of earnings. The projected price-to-earnings ratio of the S&P is merely 15. That's inexpensive relative to recent history -- with good reason

The "mere 15 PE" is the historical average of the S&P 500.  Being at average doesn't seem like something to deride.

The title, "The lagging effect of 9/11", appears to blame the terrorist attacks, but that's not quite what the column says...

You are right that the column does not suggest that,,,Mr. Eisinger is clearly not so well versed in economics to discuss risk premiums on stock market valuations.  But anyone that doesn't understand that today's valuations contain higher than normal risk premiums due to the added volatility of terror attacks in the world, and their potential impact on future earnings,,,,should not be investing in the stock markets, much less writing about it.  (US equity markets typically have a risk premium of about 3%; analysis that I have recently seen, which is updated monthly, suggest that there is an additional 10% to 20% risk premium on the market.)

Mr. Eisinger shows his lack of understanding of economics and the stock market in a number of other comments, but the above should suffice to prove the point.