Post by @darthnull@infosec.exchange

2025-11-25 13:16 UTC

@mnalis@mastodon.online @SPF@hear-me.social @briankrebs@infosec.exchange Yeah. The chart definitely implies a 132% increase, but it’s not made clear in the article. I only have trouble believing the graph on its face because 12% *average* annual growth, especially including COVID years, feels high. But I’m not an economist, and maybe that’s reasonable for these index companies.

Replies (2)

@SPF@hear-me.social 2025-11-25 13:25

@darthnull@infosec.exchange @mnalis@mastodon.online @briankrebs@infosec.exchange Other sources/calculators say the nominal *increase* in the whole index has been 172% over the same time period, equal to 16.45% growth per year. (So $100 invested in January 2019 is $272 now.) If we strip out the Magnificent 7 firms, maybe that's where 132% increase comes from. Annual growth in the neighborhood of 12% as @darthnull@infosec.exchange said. Everyone seems to be talking about a thought experiment: "What would the US stock market look like if AI didn't exist?" It's a good question. But cutting out only those seven firms wouldn't really isolate the effects. It's complex and probably impossible to answer, because other non-AI firms are affected by all that borrowing and spending.

Open ##3121184
@briankrebs@infosec.exchange 2025-11-25 13:27

@darthnull@infosec.exchange @mnalis@mastodon.online @SPF@hear-me.social The market did extremely well these past 4-5 years, and most of the summaries of economic growth in the US market put the returns at around 100 percent for the total period. So if it's off, it's not by a huge amount.

Open ##3121185