Ever heard anyone complain of 'ageism'? It is a worrisome social phenomenon. It involves the typecasting of people, organisms or organisations by age, and is worrisome because even in a world that takes increasing pc commoditisation so for granted (Political Correctness, that is), complaining about it gets no more than cheesy grins and instant snickers in response.

When was the last time you heard 'old' in a positive context? Well, buckle up. You're about to. The Old Economy is back, and boy-oh-boy, back with a bang. But first, a word on the so-called New Economy, the part that managed to reposition the other sectors as Old by selling itself as New, turning these epithets into a substitute for real equity analysis. The word is 'tsk'. Make that 'tsk tsk'.

The New Economy is suddenly the object of our commiseration more than anything else. The dotcoms are not even worth mentioning. Software services are under unprecedented pain, pincered by at least three forces beyond their control-shrinking tech spends, margin-crushing cost competitors and a soggy dollar. Other industries that used the Millennium exuberance to clamber up the futuristic flag of 'low-smoke high-brain' business have also been laid low, lately.

It would, nonetheless, be silly to pronounce the New Economy doomed. It's just that conditions have turned tough, and the assumptions on risks have had to be reworked. All this has made space for realistic evaluations of the firms' abilities to make the most of the wider potential (it's never easy to discern the sophistication level of the customer needs that they fulfill).

In contrast, there's nothing terribly enigmatic about furnace burners and metal bashers. In any transition economy doing anything more than an annual 3 per cent by way of GDP growth, demand for a vast number of things-material manufactured objects that you can touch-must necessarily stay buoyant. India, with barely $500 per capita annual income, has quite a haul ahead of it. The core sector, in particular, must keep chugging away. All the better if infrastructure development becomes the grand billboard on which the ruling dispensation wants to pin its achievements. With elections approaching, is it any surprise that investor interest in the super-information highway is getting eclipsed by interest in the super Indian highway?

Look at corporate results. Steel is in very good shape, spewing out the sort of profits that the Old Economy, with all the presumed infirmities that went with that label, was thought incapable of. Cement is another solid performer, and the consolidation in this industry has offset the pressure exerted by other factors on pricing power. The automobiles sector is shining anew, too, with key players having shaped themselves up to compete on both cost and consumer engagement. Meanwhile, auto ancillaries is looking good as an export story. And several firms are beginning to notch up an iota or two of credible firepower on R&D as well.

Of course, Old Economy sectors tend to be cyclical, and many of these high performers are riding up the crest of an upturn. If the profits now are looking exceptionally good, thank the relentless cost-cutting done during the weak phase. Yet, all the excitement could vanish once the cycle turns, or if any risk factor kicks in.

It would be a pity if the Old Economy were to simply get outbuzzed by something else. It is about time that Indian investors grow out of the Faddist School of investing. All businesses are growth businesses. Capital markets do their job when they allocate capital on the basis of genuinely sustainable success, not quarterly chart-show razzmatazz, and certainly not labels. After all, it takes as much brainwork to profitably market cars than execute software projects.

Smart-sector-dumb-sector distinctions mock common sense. In fact, some spade-calling is in order here. It's about time this Old and New terminology is understood for what it is. An artificial division that should, if we insist, hold no relevance whatsoever.