This post was written by Minyanville contributor Jason Goepfert.

Regarding an observation I saw on the Dow's six straight losses, I show it's happened roughly every 20 years since 1896.

The last occurrence wasn't that long ago, September 2002, though a couple of those months were just barely negative and may actually show a positive return depending on who your data vendor is.

Anyway, what I think is interesting is that the Dow's performance after the others was mixed when looking out one to three months -- sometimes up, sometimes down. After six months, only two of the six were positive and the average risk during those six months was -11%, compared to an average reward of +8%.

It was certainly an exciting year for wireless. Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL)'s iPhone was a game changer, there were some big announcements from Google (NASDAQ: GOOG), and even Nokia (NYSE: NOK) made an impressive comeback.

As for 2008, it's a good bet we'll continue to see some big headlines.

I interviewed Frank Dickson, who is the chief research officer at MultiMedia Intelligence. According to him:

The handset as a platform: The introduction of the iPhone was the first example of this. It did not create the trend, but it did add fuel to the fire. Google's Android and a rumored Java-based OS are elements of the developing trend. Essentially, we are seeing the rise of a new class of mobile devices that are applications centric with voice functionality. These devices are internet browsers, music players, text messengers, and e-mail devices. Yes, they still make voice calls, but they are clearly optimized for other uses. Operators such as Verizon Wireless (NYSE: VZ) are seeing the coming explosion of this product class and have embraced it by opening their networks to these devices.

They say money can't buy you time, but tell that to Sumner Redstone, the 84-year-old chairman of Viacom Inc. (NYSE: VIA). He spoke of his addiction to a health-drink in a recent issue of Fortune. He loves it so much, he's pushing it to all his mogul friends.

His beverage of choice these days? It's called MonaVie, a dark-purple drink with a cult-like following. Allegedly chock full of antioxidants, one of its main ingredients is the Brazillian acai berry (pronounced A-sigh-ee), well known among health nuts for its anti-aging properties. It'll set you back $40 a bottle (no problem if you run in Sumner's circles), and it's sold only via private party, like Tupperware. Or Avon.

Redstone told the magazine that he was first hipped to the drink by Viacom executive Bill Roedy on a trip to Germany in January. Then he learned that his butler's sister-in-law was a fan as well. Well, what more endorsement does one require?

He bought a bottle and tried it for himself. Now he's gulping down four ounces a day. "Since I've been on
MonaVie," I haven't taken a sleeping pill," he told the magazine.

So enamored is he of the purple elixir that he slipped a bottle to Bill Clinton and Wolfgang Puck at a recent party, according to the magazine. "Just about every friend I have is on it," he said. Fans include Michael Milken and Boston Red Sox pitcher Jonathan Papelbon.

No reports yet on how Clinton likes the stuff. But it's probably only a matter of time before celebrity chef Puck introduces a meat dish with a MonaVie reduction sauce.

Wall Street is replete with cliches about the importance of going against the common thinking: Sheep getting slaughtered, lemmings running, J.P. Morgan's shoe-shine boy, contrarian investing, etc. Then there are the cliches urging investors to do just opposite: Don't fight the trend, the trend is your friend, etc.

There are entire books advocating these two schools of thought. There's David Dreman'sContrarian Investment Strategies and Charles Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds that discuss examples of herd behavior, mass hysteria and, in some cases, the effectiveness of simply betting against mass sentiment. Then there's James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds that talks about how the crowds are so often right.

FinancialNext.com is putting this question to the test: Is it better to follow the crowd or fight it? There, you can vote on questions such as "Will there be more new homes sales in February than January?" and "Will there be a recession in 2007?" Then, the results will be tabulated, and we will see who was right -- the minority or the majority. This is an interesting idea, but will work best if lots of people vote. So go over there and let us know what you think!

Barron's roundtable is having trouble discerning a strong trend in 2007's economy and securities markets. The Goldman Sachs Group's (NYSE:GS) market analyst Abby Joseph Cohen, who accurately guessed that the S&P 500 would end 2006 at 1,400 -- it actually closed at 1,418 -- expects a 9% rise to 1,550 by the end of 2007. This precision masks significant confusion about the factors driving 2007's prospects.

I always enjoy reading Barron's annual roundtable, which pits savvy money managers against each other to predict what will happen to the economy and the market before they pick stocks for the coming year. This year's debate pits Fred Hickey, a New Hampshire newsletter writer, who thinks that a housing collapse and sluggish tech sales will lead to a big correction, against Cohen and others money managers -- who believe that global liquidity will bail us out.

Alan Abelson, Barron's editor, spent much of 2006 supporting the housing collapse school of thought. As I've posted here, here, and here, the housing collapse theory seemed persuasive. But I am now questioning the housing collapse argument because, although the economy has slowed down, it hasn't collapsed. There are at least three possible explanations:

1. The housing collapse is too small a part of the overall economy to sink it;
2. The collapse is taking longer than expected and it will play out in the future; or
3. Global liquidity is offsetting the impact of the housing collapse.

At this point, I am leaning towards explanation three, with a dash of one and two thrown in for good measure.

I participated in a panel discussion at a conference on Saturday with a couple of young, smart, geeky teenagers -- i.e., the absolute center of most marketers' universe. These girls, Iris and Sheena, were the very definition of "early adopter" and "Generation Y" all rolled into one, a tiny yet brilliant focus group on the future of technology, social networking, and the internet.

Someone asked if Iris had a blog, and she said, "I hate to say this, but [pause] MySpace." She and Sheena both related how they checked out their MySpace accounts daily to see if friends had tried to contact them. For the two of them, both from lower-income families and members of under-represented minority groups, their technology lives consisted of homework, their podcasts, and MySpace.

If I were less of an analytical sort, I'd immediately say that MySpace is clearly winning the social networking arena. The site has the teenagers! What's more, it has hours each day of attention from these girls, from my youngest sister, my babysitter -- all of the 13- to 25-year-old demographic, really. But then I thought for an instant more, and I realized that Iris and Sheena were both the perfect example of MySpace's market domination and the reason why Microsoft, AOL, and Google will always win the race for ad dollars.

There's no money in these teenagers' MySpace behavior.