I don't think the question should be whether we're near the peak...

I don't think the question should be whether we're near the peak or not, really. I really don't know. There are so many macro factors at play. Does anyone know?

The point that matters is that the only "PE" that matters, from a valuation perspective, is one where the "E" tells you something about equivalent annual earnings, on the basis of those earnings being sustained ad infinitum. Then the inverse of the PE will tell us something about your earnings yield based on something akin to "earnings power".

Essentially, an E is only worth the paper it's written on if it tells us something about the present-value of ALL the Es that are comming. Why should 1, 2, 3 or 5 years of E be your basis for valuation?

Hence the question of "cyclicality".