pull down to refresh

100 sats \ 6 replies \ @kepford 19 Mar \ on: Relative Sizes of Global Stock Markets (1899 to Present) charts_and_numbers
The question is why.
I think it is dumb to ignore both world wars and the relative impact on the nations in these charts. But I wonder how much of the differences can be explained by that alone.
write
preview
43 sats \ 1 reply \ @kr OP 19 Mar
i suspect you’re right - there would be both an immediate impact, and then a lasting, compounding impact of the US being in the strongest position after WW2
reply
101 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 19 Mar
But, I want to say it is that coupled with relatively free markets. I know many here do not like the stock market. I agree that it is rigged but stock markets serve a function in a free market and are a sign of how free a market actually is.
reply
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @zuspotirko 19 Mar freebie
  1. World wars
  2. Computers and Internet invented and companies founded in the us
edit: "invented" is debatable for sure but you know what I mean. In their current form.
reply
10 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 19 Mar
Yep, for sure. I think Japan is interesting though. What explains Japan as they were a loser but grew in prosperity?
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @zuspotirko 19 Mar
All of these countries grew their economies by orders of magnitudes!
Therefore, the difference between what the uk or japan did in these 125 years isn't that big even if it looks like big in the zero-sum pie charts.
Japan was like player no.2 in using computers and internet to grow their economies. I think that supports my suggestion here.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 19 Mar
Yeah, I don't know but that makes sense.
reply