Hacker News Reader

It seems an obvious answer would be that there has been a lot of growth outside of the 500 large companies picked to comprise the s&p 500.

The s&p 500 is not an index of all corporate growth.

This is the correct answer and is actually somewhat visible if you also look at the DJIA and NASDAQ figures.

The S&P 500 and DJIA are limited to a fixed number of corporations. The NASDAQ is allowed to expand it's number of listed companies over time.

If you look at the NASDAQ figures it's able to show considerable and relevant growth, as more companies have listed. (Still not at 2000's peak, but much closer than the S&P or DJIA.)

> You don't really explain why the S&P rising slower than M3

Why do you think a constant fraction of every dollar the Fed creates should go into the S&P 500? Private markets, debt markets and bank reserves have soared since 2008, for example.

This chart is the financial equivalent of "a series of tubes."

Doesn't M0/1/2/3 have to keep up with population growth? I'm no economist, but dividing the S&P by M3 seems like a category error. In the US, we've got 130 million more people than we did in 1970, and 50 million more than we did in 2000.