[MrPowers]

Yes, stock market growth is largely driven by the real growth in earnings and dividends.

Nominal figures are not adjusted for inflation. "Real" numbers are adjusted for inflation (in economics-speak).

The stock market (e.g. S&P 500 index) has real earnings that have consistently grown over time (although earnings are quite volatile). The real dividends paid by the companies that make up the stock market have also grown over time.

Jeremy Siegel, a finance professor at Wharton, wrote a great book called Stocks for the Long Run that shows stocks have grown about 7% per year (inflation adjusted) over the last 200 years.

> What would the market look like if we corrected for the money supply?

I think it's better to correct for inflation. The money supply can grow and it doesn't necessarily cause inflation (see the 2008 monetary response to the Great Financial Crisis as an example).

> It seems like the stock markets (USA) growth is strongly correlated to inflation

I'm not sure this is true. In the 70s, inflation was high and stock returns are low. In the 90s, inflation was low and returns were high. In 2021, inflation was high and returns were high.

[i3oi3]

I was discussing low-load index investing with a friend, and the 7% over the last 200 years sounds great.

He suggested the hypothesis that that's a reflection of the rise of the United States as a superpower over the last 200 years, and if anything were to impugn the United States' status as the market of refuge, those numbers would not be predictive of consistent long-run returns in the future.

That's a hard hypothesis to refute. Are there similar long-run numbers from all stable countries around the world, or is the US market unique in that aspect?

[idkyall]

Here's a source referencing the UK stock market: https://globalfinancialdata.com/stocks-for-the-very-long-run...

"Between 1692 and 2018, stock prices increased at an average rate of 1.87% per annum before inflation and 0.36% after inflation, and with reinvested dividends averaging 5.04% per annum, investors received a total return of 6.62% per year. £1"

Now, that being said, during this time frame, clearly the UK is also a western superpower, and after a certain point in time the UK & US stock markets probably have a very strong correlation with the rise of electronic trading/risk management.

For another example of an older equity market, we might look to Japan, which has had a negative rate of return: https://www.afrugaldoctor.com/home/japans-lost-decades-30-ye...

That being said, as we see in that article the monthly $833 purchase DCA still gave a positive return over 30 years.

[ericmay]

I think it's hard to compare Japan with the US or UK or other countries because unlike those countries, Japan can't turn on what I'll call an immigration valve and just flat-out import people to grow the economy.

[danielscrubs]

Don’t forget the high taxes on investments in Japan. Basically, US is good for investors but Japan is good for workers. Japan’s median wealth is higher than US.

[shinryuu]

Not sure I would call Japan good for workers. There is a reason for japanese having the word "karoushi", which has the meaning of a person that has died due to overwork.

[svachalek]

Can't or won't?

[arrosenberg]

Would be much harder even if they wanted to. Lots of countries teach their kids English, only one teaches their kids Japanese.

[wahern]

You don't need to speak the local language to live and work some place. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of migrant workers (temporary or permanent) around the world are unable to speak the local language upon entry.

[ericmay]

Both really. They can't because they won't, but also because they can't.

[l30n4da5]

only so much space on an island. Japan is pretty crowded as it is, isn't it?

[bardworx]

About the size of east coast, from Canada to Florida. It’s fairly large.

Tokyo is crowded, however.

[anonAndOn]

Not at all. It's largely a chain of mountains so most people live down on the coasts.

[dsr_]

The US stock market is semi-unique: there are others around the world in the 20th-21st centuries that are comparable, but also correlated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_exchanges

[aeternum]

UK stock markets have returned a similar 7.5% over the last 119 years (~4.9% above inflation).

MSCI China over the last 2 decades has returned over 12%.

[staticman2]

I tried to look up what you said about China. IShares MSCI China ETF data on portfoliovisualizer.com only goes back to 2012 and shows 4.27% returns .

I don't know if your statement about MSCi China is correct but if so you are cherry picking based on an unusual start date.

[DOsinga]

> MSCI China has returned over 12%

Not per year: https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/aa99c3a4-d48b-44ac-8caa...

[VirusNewbie]

>Jeremy Siegel, a finance professor at Wharton, wrote a great book called Stocks for the Long Run that shows stocks have grown about 7% per year (inflation adjusted) over the last 200 years

You two are talking past each other. When he says inflation, he means M2, you're referencing something that adjusts to CPI.

[coned88]

> I think it's better to correct for inflation. The money supply can grow and it doesn't necessarily cause inflation (see the 2008 monetary response to the Great Financial Crisis as an example).

I may be a layman but I'm pretty sure that was just one type of inflation.

> I'm not sure this is true. In the 70s, inflation was high and stock returns are low. In the 90s, inflation was low and returns were high. In 2021, inflation was high and returns were high.

I'm not exactly talking about returns. I mean prices. In my eyes when you look at the S&P 500, every time there's money printing it's like a rolling snowball. It just gets bigger and bigger. But it's weird because that growth itself is not reflective of companies doing things but just them investing money or buying back stocks.

[svachalek]

I think there's a subtle bit that a lot of people don't see about the stock market, that it's trading dollars for bits of companies. This says something about the value of those companies, but also about the value of dollars. I think a lot of what we've seen over the past two years makes little sense if you think about it in terms of the value of American companies, but from the perspective of the value of a dollar (to those who have easy access to them) it's all a lot more logical.

[jollybean]

I think this is missing a giant factor, which is let's say 'inflation leverage'.

Inflation will hit some parts of the economy differently than others.

Consumer goods, homes, stocks, bonds - different kinds of inflation.

Quantitative Easing and other such policies, may impact the stock market differently than others.

As interest rates drop, the amount of leverage goes up dramatically, causing bubble.

Recent increases in valuations were not commensurate with profits, ergo, an ugly kind of inflation.

[jacobr1]

> Recent increases in valuations were not commensurate with profits, ergo, an ugly kind of inflation.

But we also have downturns that reduce returns significantly. If you average out the returns the presumption is that the cost of that "inflation leverage" is accounted in the inevitable bubble pop.

[throw0101a]

> I think it's better to correct for inflation. The money supply can grow and it doesn't necessarily cause inflation (see the 2008 monetary response to the Great Financial Crisis as an example).

See also Japan for several decades:

* https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=PA7P

[itsoktocry]

We don't have to speculate on this stuff, or base it on academic research from books: market P/E is easy to look up. Lo and behold it fluctuates dramatically. Same with stock returns. Averaging 7% doesn't mean you get that return annually, or ever for that matter.