Home
> financial markets > World Stock Market Capitalization: 4 graphs
World Stock Market Capitalization: 4 graphs
1. World Stock Market Captialization 1980 – 2007
2. World Stock Market Captialization 1996- 2010
3. Dow Jones World Stock Index 1998 – Oct 24 2008
4. Stock Market Capitalization Around the World
Leave a comment
—– look inside —– $5.94 / $20.00
—– look inside —– $4.90 / $8.00
—– look inside —– $15.99
—– look inside —– $5.99 / 12.99
—– look inside —– $5.93 / $12.99
—– look inside —– $4.97 / $9.90
—— Ugarteche, Puyana and Madi ——
Gerson Lima / Maria Alejandra Madi
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
————— Michael Hudson ————–
Maria Alejandra Madi / Jack Reardon
————- Edward Fullbrook ————-
—————— Steve Keen —————–
————— Richard Smith —————
————– Gustavo Marques————
– Victor Beker and Beniamino Moro –
————– Lars Pålsson Syll ————-
—————– Stuart Birks —————-
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Mauro Gallegati ————–
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Real-World Economics Review Blog 
Ok, I’ll bite: What’s it mean? Especially the last chart? Two things pop to my mind, but I work from “texts” by economists who have already reduced complexities to simplicities that I can grasp.
1. Steven Waldman is from whom I first got the notion (not that he invented it): Asset inflation is (necessarily?) a symptom of the unequal distribution of incomes. Since the rich can only consume so much, they buy assets (claims on future flows), and that drives up prices. I also once speculated, since I think in public, that might the mostly steady increase in stock caps be at lest in part the result of 401Ks? That would be demand pull – though one contrived by a tax code …
2. Walter Williams is the “conservative” economist whose ancestors were slaves here in America, and teaches at George Mason University, Grove City College – places I think of as “Austrian”. He wrote in his serialized column yesterday that Americans should not be concerned about our balance of trade:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/nov/29/dont-worry-about-the-trade-deficit/?commentary
He first claims that Capital Accounts offset Current Accounts – though he conflated that in theory with that in practice. I don’t know if that was just him being sloppy, or dishonest. He then wrote:
“…there are other ways for capital inflows, or investment in the United States, to occur. With the dollars foreigners earn selling us goods, they purchase U.S. stocks, bonds and real estate.”
So, what do the charts mean?
The charts are a measure of a huge bubble.What is the inevitable fate of bubbles?
They also signify a fundamental change in what we understand by capital..
Ok, but wouldn’t that vary whether, say, one has bought stock in a company that actually makes things (solar panels?) or one has bought stock in a company that manages funeral homes (I learned of such a company yesterday – I watch business “news” programs) or stock in a finance company – like Goldman Sachs?
That pie chart could be aptly described as a “pie in the sky”
Some other good data to graph would include the aggregate annual turnover of equities markets and the proportion of it that went to new capital (the textbook function of equities markets). From the last data I saw from World Federation of Exchanges, aggregate turnover is in excess of global GDP, but the proportion of that which goes to new capital is oscillates around 1%.
“…the aggregate annual turnover of equities markets and the proportion of it that went to new capital (the textbook function of equities markets)”
Where the proportion that DID NOT would/could be thought of, by ordinary people, as “churning”?