Recently, various writers have been alluding to Terry Pettijohn's now-mythical survey of the relationship between Playboy Playmates and the economy. Pettijohn's argument is that, as times get tougher, male concepts of beauty shift toward more mature, stable-looking women who are older, taller, and less curvy. Conversely, in boom times, the woman of choice would be shorter, younger, and more hourglass-shaped.

While my knowledge of Playboy Playmates was once disturbingly encyclopedic, I have to admit that I have been out of the game for quite some time now. That said, I'd have to question Professor Pettijohn's methodology, if only for the fact that the Playboy ideal has shown far less fluctuation over the years than society at large. To put it bluntly, many of the heroin addict-thin models that grace the pages of women's fashion magazines would never be allowed within arm's length of a Playboy pictorial. Like the Rockettes, Playmates have traditionally remained within a comfortably healthy median, neither ballerina scrawny nor fully zaftig.

Now, arguably, there could be some comparisons drawn between economic boom/bust cycles and the shapes of women's bodies. Certainly, the androgynous flapper look of the 1920's, the Twiggy look of the 1960's, and the starvation victim/heroin addict look of the late 1990's/early 2000's are somewhat comparable. Similarly, the hourglass 1940's, 1950's, and 1980's have similar style cues. While it would be silly to take these comparisons to extremes, fashion goes in cycles, and those cycles overlap somewhat with the economy. However, this is far from a direct confluence; the 1930's look, for example, was still boyish, and our current ultra-thin look has been developing for quite some time.

Can't tell a leading from a lagging economic indicator to save your life? Don't understand why people get so excited about a book whose cover is, after all, beige? Want to know the latest information on business confidence in Japan but don't know who to ask? Bernard Baumohl's The Secrets of Economic Indicators: Hidden Clues to Future Economic Trends and Investment Opportunities is the book for you.

Surprisingly accessible, written not at all in the style of "the dismal science," Secrets of Economic Indicators provides a survey of the most influential economic indicators for both domestic and major international markets, including Germany, Japan, China, India and Brazil.

For the U.S., economic indicators are organized topically into categories covering employment, consumer spending, national outputs, housing and construction, the Federal Reserve, foreign trade and prices. Each category contains numerous entries for relevant economic indicators. As an example of a national output indicator, Baumohl includes an entry for Durable Goods Orders. This entry lists other names for the economic indicator, its relationship to overall market activity, a website where the latest information is available, the schedule for regular releases and how often, as well as what agency or department of the government is responsible for providing the information. Baumohl also provides a narrative description of the indicator, why it is important, how the indicator is computed based on what information, and what the last few figures have been for the indicator, organized in handy chart format.

Entries for economic indicators that are leading, as distinct from lagging, include a section on how this indicator provides clues for shorter and longer term economic activity, a very helpful piece of information for all types of investors.

Highlighting the disparity between government statistics and the real world, orders for durable goods fell an estimated 2.8% in May, led by reductions in the orders for aircraft, metals and machinery. It is speculated that some of the decline is due to a productivity spike in April which has temporarily raised inventories in an economy which is entering a cooling phase. Adding to the statistical decline is a reduction in steel orders which had surged through the first quarter as manufacturing interests bolstered their inventories of raw materials both domestically and abroad.

Economists are still forecasting higher levels of corporate investment and from what I see, that's true. Companies are looking to renew and refine their interior operations and are aggressively seeking improvements to revenue flow. The investments to that end however are falling into the categories of infrastructure, R& D and sales rather than increased output capacity, leading to reductions in workforce, not increases in production machinery. Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at Global Insight Inc. in Lexington, Massachusetts stated, "Capital spending is not moving forward with the strength we had hoped.''

The cover story of the current issue of Fortune, which shares a parent company, Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX), with this blog, sounds the trumpets -- proclaiming that Business is back!

I've had the pleasure of working with the author of this article, Geoff Colvin, who interviewed me once on the now-defunct Wall $treet Week with Fortune in 2004. Colvin also quoted me in this article on The Home Depot Inc. (NYSE: HD). So I know I would enjoy debating him on the premise of his article which is that after six years of a lousy reputation in the wake of the dot-com collapse and Enron/WorldCom, business is now enjoying a resurgence in public opinion.

But Colvin's premise strikes me more as wishful thinking than persuasive evidence. With business magazine advertising declining -- Fortune's dropped 9.6% in the first quarter -- this advertiser-friendly article could help bring in more revenue. He bases his conclusion on three pillars:

After a long walk on the Venice Beach boardwalk (CA) yesterday I may have gotten notice of things to come. Speaking to several artists on the beach, I learned that they are having a tough summer. Business is noticeably slower this summer than last. They speculate that fuel prices and fewer people wanting to fly has reduced tourism and their customer base.

I have no way of knowing if there is a direct correlation but I can report that the boardwalk was packed and parking was hard to find. Based on my observations, it does not seem like a viable explanation. How could the beach be as crowded as ever and business be slower?

The answer is simple, although unscientific: Consumer priorities and discretionary spending have been altered. The number of people visiting the boardwalk may not be appreciably different. People still love the beach, the sites, the sounds and the people-watching. However, after spending more on gas to get there, ($3.15 to $3.45 per gallon) and paying more for parking ($5 if you walk a distance, to $15) they have less in their pockets. They buy hot dogs, pizza, ice cream, beer, and t-shirts. They have less money to spend on art, jewelery, and novelties.

Why Venice Beach as an indicator?