Will the stock market continue to grow forever?
"The stock market may not grow ""forever"". There will be growth in the stock market, though. The stock market is a positive-sum game, since it is driven in large part by the profits earned by the companies. This doesn't mean that any individual stock will go up forever, it doesn't mean that any given index will go up forever, and it doesn't mean there won't be periods when the market as a whole drops. But it is reasonable to expect that long-term investing in the market as a whole will continue to return profits that reflect the success of companies invested in. Historically, that return has averaged about 8%; future results may be different and exact results will depend on exactly when and how you invest. Re ""what about Japan, which has been flat over 30 years"": Market being flat doesn't mean individual companies may not be growing strongly. Picking stocks may become more important, and we might need to relearn to focus on dividends rather than being so monomaniacal about growth (dividends are not reflected in the indices, please note), but there will be money to be made. How much, and how much effort is required to get it, and whether the market offers the best available bets, deponent sayeth not. Past results are no guarantee of future returns, and your results may be better or worse than average. You should be diversified into bonds and such anyway, rather than only in the stock market." "The answer to your question depends on what you mean when you say ""growth"".  If you mean a literal increase in the aggregate market capitalization of companies, across the entire market, then, no, this sort of growth is not possible without concomitant economic growth.  The reason why is that the market capitalization of each company is proportional to its gross revenue, and the sum of all revenue from selling ""final goods"" (i.e., things purchased and used by consumers) is, apart from a few technicalities, the definition of GDP.  The exact multiplier might fluctuate up or down depending on investors' expectations about how sales will grow or decline going forward, but in a zero-growth economy this multiplier should be stable over the long run.  It might, however, still fluctuate over the short term, but more about that in a minute.   Note that all of this applies to aggregate growth across all firms.  Individual firms can still grow, of course, but as they must do this by gaining market share from other companies such growth would be balanced by a decline for some other firm.  Also, I've assumed zero net exports (that's one of the ""technicalities"" I mentioned above) because obviously you could have export-driven growth even if the domestic economy were stationary. However, often when people talk about ""growth"" in the market, what they really mean is ""return"".  That is, how much does your investment earn for you.  This isn't really the same thing as growth, but people often think of it that way, particularly in the saving phase of their investing career, when they are reinvesting their returns, and therefore their account balances are growing.  It is possible to have a positive return, averaged across the market, even in a stationary economy.  The reason why is that there are really only two things a firm can do with its net profits.  One possibility is that it could invest it in growing the business.  However, there is not much point in doing that in a stationary economy because by assumption no increase in aggregate consumption (and therefore, in the long run, aggregate production) are possible.  Therefore, firms are left with only the second option, which is to pay them out to investors as dividends.  Those dividends provide a return that is independent of economic growth. Would the stock market still be a good investment in such an economy?  Yes.  Well, sort of.  The rate of return from firms' dividend payouts will depend on investors' demand (in aggregate) for returns on their investments.  Stock prices will rise or fall, causing returns to respectively fall or rise, to find that level.  If your personal desire for returns is lower than the average across the investing public, then the stock market would look like a good investment.  If your desired return is higher than the average, then it will look like a poor investment.  The marginal investor will, of course be indifferent.  The practical upshot of this is that the people who invest in the stock market in this scenario will be precisely the ones for whom the stock market is a good investment, given their personal propensity to save and desire for returns, and so forth. Finally, you mentioned that in your scenario the GDP stagnation is due to declining population.  I am less certain what this means for investment, but my first thought is that you would have a large retired population selling its investments to fund late-life consumption, and you would have a comparatively small (relative to history) working population buying those assets.  This would lead to low asset prices, and therefore high rates of return.  However, that's assuming that retirees need to sell assets to fund their retirement consumption.  If the absolute returns on retirees' assets are large enough to fund their retirement consumption then you would wind up with relatively few sellers, resulting in high prices and therefore relatively low rates of return.  It's not obvious to me which effect would dominate, and so it's hard to say whether or not the resulting returns would look attractive to the working-age population." Yes! Look at any graph or chart covering the last 100 years.  The graph goes up. It will continue to grow unless there is an extinction event and the population gets reduced.  Corporations will continue to grow to meet the needs of the ever expanding population.
In market cap weighted index there is fairly heavy concentration in the largest stocks. The top 10 stocks typically account for about 20% of the S&P 500 index.  In Equal Weight this bias towards large caps is removed. The Market Cap method would be good when large stocks drive the markets. However if the markets are getting driven by Mid Caps and Small caps, the equal weight wins. Historically most big companies start out small and grow big fast in a short span of time. Thus if we were to do Market cap one would have purchased smaller number of shares of the said company as its cap/weight would have been small and when it becomes big we would have purchased the shares at a higher price. However if we were to do equal weight, then as the company grows big one would have more share at a cheaper price and would result in better returns. There is a nice article on this, also gives the comparision of the returns over a period of 10 years, where equal weight index has done good. It does not mean that it would continue. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/exchangetradedfunds/08/index-debate.asp#axzz1RRDCnFre "&gt;Then you are using the word ""passive income"" wrong  My point is that the problem goes beyond ""passive income"".  Sure, utilising unethical tax and debt avoidance strategies isn't a passive method that requires no effort, but it's obviously not a good thing either.  &gt;50%+ of the population isn't intelligent enough to even do this.   Stock market speculation is just one example. There are a lot of wealthy people who are much less intelligent and work much less than people who have only a fraction of their wealth.  I certainly hope you're not suggesting that wealth is necessarily, or even usually an indicator of intelligence or work ethic.  &gt;I still don't know where you even got this idea. I've read the book and he doesn't even really talk about this.  Are you joking? ""Poor Dad"" is portrayed as a pitiable piece of shit because he has integrity and works an honest job. ""Rich Dad"" is some kind of fucking superhero because instead of contributing to society in some way, his priority is to constantly generate wealth and continue to grow like cancer. ""Rich Dad"" detracts from society, and in a remotely fair system his wealth would reflect his contributions, not his willingness to manipulate others.  &gt;You're right, it isn't, which is why most people don't do it for a living.   Oh, so becoming obscenely wealthy at the expense of others would be acceptable in your idea of a perfect society? Hell, If we're going to take such a Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' approach to society, why not just remove all welfare programs and let the wealthy among us continue to buy politicians until they pay no taxes and everyone else subsidises their lifestyle? Oh wait, we're already doing exactly that.   I would rather things get worse than stay the same. It is clear that people need to hurt more before they wake up to see who is responsible for their rapidly declining quality of life." "Brendan, The short answer is no, there is no need to get into any other funds. For all intents and purposes the S&P 500 is ""The Stock Market"". The news media may quote the Dow when the market reaches new highs or crashes but all of the Dow 30 stocks are included in the S&P 500.  The S&P is also marketcap weighted, which means that it owns in higher proportion the big ""Blue Chip"" stocks more than the smaller less known companies. To explain, the top 10 holdings in the S&P represent 18% of the total index, while the bottom 10 only represent 0.17% (less than 1 percent). They do have an equal weighted S&P in which all 500 companies represent only 1/500th of the index and that is technically even more diversified but in actuality it makes it more volatile because it has a higher concentration of those smaller less known companies. So it will tend to perform better during up markets and worse during down markets. As far as diversification into different asset classes or other countries, that's non-sense. The S&P 500 has companies in it that give you that exposure. For example, it includes companies that directly benefit from rising oil prices, rising gold prices, etc known as the Energy and Materials sector. It also includes companies that own malls, apartment complexes, etc. known as the Real Estate sector. And as far as other countries, most of the companies in the S&P are multi-national companies, meaning that they do business over seas in many parts of the world. Apple and FaceBook for example sell their products in many different countries. So you don't need to invest any of your money into an Emerging Market fund or an Asia Fund because most of our companies are already doing business in those parts of the world. Likewise, you don't need to specifically invest into a real estate or gold fund.  As far as bonds go, if you're in your twenties you have no need for them either. Why, because the S&P 500 also pays you dividends and these dividends grow over time. So for example, if Microsoft increases its dividend payment by 100% over a ten year period , all of the shares you buy today at a 2.5% yield will, in 10 years, have a higher 5% yield. A bond on the other hand will never increase its yield over time. If it pays out 4%, that's all it will ever pay. You want to invest because you want to grow your money and if you want to invest passively the fastest way to do that is through index ETFs like the $SPY, $IVV, and $RSP. Also look into the $XIV, it's an inverse VIX ETF, it moves 5x faster than the S&P in the same direction. If you want to actively trade your money, you can grow it even faster by getting into things like options, highly volatile penny stocks, shorting stocks, and futures. Don't get involved in FX or currency trading, unless it through futures." I like Obama and hate Trump, but let's be accurate. These rate hikes were planned before Trump got elected, actually started happening before Trump was elected, and they would have continued to happen regardless of who became president in 2017. That's how the business cycle works. Did you expect the rate to stay near 0% forever? Unlike the stock market which offers growth long term, the derivatives market is a zero sum game.  This phrase is how one describes a poker game. 7 people walk in, and walk out with the same total amount of money (note, the 7th guy is the 'house', and with nothing at risk, he gets his cut). No money is created, the total value doesn't change.  When I buy or sell an option, there is someone on the other side of that trade with a gain or loss equal and opposite to my position. At option expiration, or a repurchase that closes an open contract, the whole series of trades resulted in no net gain of wealth.  The huge losses were spread among the banks, the investors, the insurance companies, and the government. By government, I mean the taxpayer. You paid your share, my friend, as did I. Welcome to Money.SE. Get to 150 rep, and vote in the election. Very interesting. I would like to expand beyond just precious metals and stocks, but I am not ready just to jump in just yet (I am a relatively young investor, but have been playing around with stocks for 4 years on and off). The problem I often find is that the stock market is often too overvalued to play Ben Graham type strategy/ PE/B, so I would like to expand my knowledge of investing so I can invest in any market and still find value. After reading Jim Rogers, I was really interested in commodities as an alternative to stocks, but I like to play really conservative (generally). Thank you for your insight. If you don't mind, I would like to add you as a friend, since you seem quite above average in the strategy department. "common sentiment that no investor can consistently beat the market on returns.  I guess its more like very few investor can beat the market, a vast Majority cannot / do not. What evidence exists for or against this? Obviously we can have a comparison of all investors. If we start taking a look at some of the Actively Managed Funds. Given that Fund Managers are experts compared to common individual investors, if we compare this, we can potentially extend it more generically to others. Most funds beat the markets for few years, as you keep increasing the timeline, i.e. try seeing 10 year 15 year 20 year return; this is easy the data is available, you would realize that no fund consistently beat the index. Few years quite good, few years quite bad. On Average most funds were below market returns especially if one compares on longer terms or 10 - 20 years. Hence the perception Of course we all know Warren Buffet has beat the market by leaps and bounds. After the initial success, people like Warren Buffet develop the power of ""Self Fulfilling Prophecy"". There would be many other individuals." "Clear malice?  lol   The article isn't even about ""the market"" it is about the economy.  The article is about how GDP growth is not looking that great.  The stock market can go up for reasons that have nothing to do with a good economy.  If investors believe Trump will cut corporate taxes, stocks should rise, because an investor will make more money when the company pays less in taxes.  Stock prices have gone up, but the economy isn't looking great."