Which % of the global economy is considered “emerging”?
The company that runs the fund (Vanguard) on their website has the information on the general breakdown of their investments of that fund. They tell you that as of July 31st 2016 it is 8.7% emerging markets. They even specifically list the 7000+ companies they have purchased stocks in. Of course the actual investment and percentages could [change every day]. Vanguard may publish on this Site, in the fund's holdings on the   webpages, a detailed list of the securities (aggregated by issuer for   money market funds) held in a Vanguard fund (portfolio holdings) as of   the most recent calendar-quarter-end, 30 days after the end of the   calendar quarter, except for Vanguard Market Neutral Fund (60 calendar   days after the end of the calendar quarter), Vanguard index funds (15   calendar days after the end of the month), and Vanguard Money Market   Funds (within five [5] business days after the last business day of   the preceding month). Except with respect to Vanguard Money Market   Funds, Vanguard may exclude any portion of these portfolio holdings   from publication on this Site when deemed in the best interest of the   fund.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-policy-development/u-s-is-a-danger-to-the-world-warns-top-economist-idUSKCN1C41XD) reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; BARCELONA - A global push to end poverty and hunger, and combat climate change by 2030 is at risk from American &amp;quot;Militarism&amp;quot;, powerful business interests and the actions of President Donald Trump, said leading U.S. economist and U.N. special adviser Jeffrey Sachs.  &gt; &amp;quot;More and more I see that while the kind of technical solutions I work on are very important ... the real obstacles that we are fighting every day are the political obstacles, the headwinds of powerful interests, bad ways of doing things,&amp;quot; he added.  &gt; Sachs, who has helped some 100 countries shape their policies, said he had expected to focus on international development issues &amp;quot;Because the U.S. would more or less take care of itself&amp;quot; - but that no longer applies to his home nation.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/73l97c/us_is_a_danger_to_the_world_warns_top_economist/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~219995 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **U.S.**^#1 **Sachs**^#2 **More**^#3 **United**^#4 **going**^#5" Think of GDP growth as a weighted average of all agents in the country that produce goods and services, some grow, some retract, we get an average of ~1.5%.   While the S&amp;P 500 is just the weighted average of the 500 largest **public** companies, and while some shrink, most are growing. They are responsible for a portion of GDP growth, but not all.   Even the Wilshire 5000, which has every public company listed will show growth larger than GDP because of the nature of the companies listed.  Lastly, as time goes to infinity, all companies will grow at the rate of GDP growth, otherwise they'll consume every other company until it is the only one left.  Essentially, exchanges only look at a handful of companies and their performance. GDP looks at all companies in the U$. "GDP being a measurement for an economy's growth and with the stock market being driven (mostly) by company profits you would expect a tight correlation between GDP growth and stock market performance. After all, a growing economy should lead to a corresponding increase in profit right? But the stock market is heavily influenced by investor mentality; irrational exuberant buying and panic selling make the stock market far more volatile than GDP ever can be. Just look at the 2001 bubble and 2008 panic sell-off for famous examples. I feel emerging markets are particularly prone to overly optimistic buying to ""get in"" on the GDP growth followed by overly pessimistic selling when politics get unfavorable. Also keep in mind that GDP measurements are all done after the fact, the growth that is reported has already happened. The stock market might have already expected the reported growth and priced it in. A final point: governments and companies in emerging markets have a reputation (sometimes deserved) of poor governance, think corruption, nepotism etc. So even if the economy grows substantially investors might not believe they can profit from the growth.  P.S. What do you base the ""no great increase"" on? Emerging markets have had a rough decade but that index would have still returned 9% annually if you held it since 2001." "This might not map well, because personal finance is not the global economy; but let's start by talking about this in terms of the cost of a loan vs the gain of an investment.   If you can buy a house with a mortgage at 3%, but make 7% on average in the stock market... You should take as *looong* as possible to pay that off, and invest every penny you can spare in the markets.  Heck, if you can take on even *more* debt at 3%, you should still do the same.  Now imagine you have the power to literally print money, *but*, doing so is effectively a form of ""loan"" to yourself.  We call the ""interest"" on that loan ""inflation"", and it comes out to roughly 2%, basically the same rate that US treasuries pay (they aren't strictly locked, but they rarely drift far apart).  So, if you can print money at 1%, you should rationally print as much money as you possibly can to buy US treasuries at 2+%.  But someone has to *take* that money off your hands - Pallets of money siting in a warehouse aren't worth any more than the paper they're made of.  There we get into trade imbalances... Whether printing money costs you 0.1% or 10% or 1000% per year depends on whether your country is, on average, making or losing money on international trade (I'm glossing over a hell of a lot there, as full disclosure), and by how much.  If you're printing money as fast as you can just to buy food to stay alive with zero exports, you're screwed; if your country exports $10 to the US (or equivalents) for every $1 you import, the rest of that is essentially ""invested"" in USD, in that you didn't need to print it yourself just to feed your people." "What a great explanation! I was familiar with many of the concepts, but I've learnt quite a lot. Do you happen to know any sources for further reading that are just as understandable to a non-economist? And/Or would you mind continuing / expanding this into whichever direction you find worth exploring? I would love to see this explanation ""connected"" to the debt crisis and how/why the US and europe seem to be in different situations there. Maybe that would be too complex to explain in more detail using your model, but maybe it is possible..?" "The U.S. economy has grown at just under 3% a year after inflation over the past 50 years. (Some of this occurred to ""private"" companies that are not listed on the stock market, or before they were listed.) The stock market returns averaged 7.14% a year, ""gross,"" but when you subtract the 4.67% inflation, the ""net"" number is 2.47% a year. That gain corresponds closely to the ""just under 3% a year"" GDP growth during that time." "China's regulators, it seems, are on the attack. Guo Shuqing, chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, announced recently that he'd resign if he wasn't able to discipline the banking system. Under his leadership, the CBRC is stepping up scrutiny of the role of trust companies and other financial institutions in helping China's banks circumvent lending restrictions.  The People's Bank of China has also been on the offensive. It has recently raised the cost of liquidity, attacked riskier funding structures among smaller banks, and discontinued a program that effectively monetized one-fifth of last year's increase in lending.  Are the regulators finally getting serious about reining in credit creation? The answer is an easy one: Yes if they're willing to allow economic growth to slow substantially, probably to 3 percent or less, and no if they aren't.    inRead invented by Teads  This is because there's a big difference between China's sustainable growth rate, based on rising demand driven by household consumption and productive investment, and its actual GDP growth rate, which is boosted by massive lending to fund investment projects that are driven by the need to generate economic activity and employment.  Economists find it very difficult to formally acknowledge the difference between the two rates, and many don't even seem to recognize that it exists. Yet this only shows how confused economists are about gross domestic product more generally. The confusion arises because a country's GDP is not a measure of the value of goods and services it creates but rather a measure of economic activity. In a market economy, investment must create enough additional productive capacity to justify the expenditure. If it doesn't, it must be written down to its true economic value. This is why GDP is a reasonable proxy in a market economy for the value of goods and services produced.  But in a command economy, investment can be driven by factors other than the need to increase productivity, such as boosting employment or local tax revenue. What's more, loss-making investments can be carried for decades before they're amortized, and insolvency can be ignored. This means that GDP growth can overstate value creation for decades.  That's what has happened in China. In the first quarter of 2017, China added debt equal to more than 40 percentage points of GDP -- an amount that has been growing year after year. In 2011, the World Economic Forum predicted that China's debt would increase by a worrying $20 trillion by 2020. By 2016, it had already increased by $22 trillion, according to the most conservative estimates, and at current rates it will increase by as much as $50 trillion by 2020. These numbers probably understate the reality.  If all this debt hasn't boosted China's GDP growth to substantially more than its potential growth rate, then what was the point? And why has it proven so difficult for the government to rein it in? It has promised to do so since 2012, yet credit growth has only accelerated, reaching some of the highest levels ever seen for a developing country.  The answer is that credit creation had to accelerate to boost GDP growth above the growth rate of productive capacity. Much, if not most, of China's 6.5 percent GDP growth is simply an artificial boost in economic activity with no commensurate increase in the capacity to create goods and services. It must be fully reversed once credit stops growing. To make matters worse, if high debt levels generate financial distress costs for the economy -- as already seems to be happening -- the amount that must be reversed will substantially exceed the original boost.  Once credit is under control, China will have lower but healthier GDP growth rates. If the economy rebalances, most Chinese might not even notice: It would require that household income -- which has grown much more slowly than GDP for nearly three decades -- now grow faster, so that the sharp slowdown in economic growth won't be matched by an equivalent slowdown in wage growth.  Clear thinking from leading voices in business, economics, politics, foreign affairs, culture, and more. Share the View  Enter your email  Sign Up But to manage this rebalancing requires substantial transfers of wealth from local governments to ordinary households to boost consumption. This is why China hasn't been able to control credit growth in the past. The central government has had to fight off provincial ""vested interests,"" who oppose any substantial transfer of wealth. Without these transfers, slower GDP growth would mean higher unemployment.  Whether regulators can succeed in reining in credit creation this time is ultimately a political question, and depends on the central government's ability to force through necessary reforms. Until then, as long as China has the debt capacity, GDP growth rates will remain high. But to see that as healthy is to miss the point completely." "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/july/global-energy-investment-fell-for-a-second-year-in-2016-as-oil-and-gas-spending-c.html) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Global energy investment fell by 12% in 2016, the second consecutive year of decline, as increased spending on energy efficiency and electricity networks was more than offset by a continued drop in upstream oil and gas spending, according to the International Energy Agency&amp;#039;s annual World Energy Investment report.  &gt; Global energy investment amounted to USD 1.7 trillion in 2016, or 2.2% of global GDP. For the first time, spending on the electricity sector around the world exceeded the combined spending on oil, gas and coal supply.  &gt; The United States saw a sharp decline in oil and gas investment, and accounted for 16% of global spending.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6nqnvn/july_global_energy_investment_fell_for_a/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~168423 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **energy**^#1 **investment**^#2 **spender**^#3 **year**^#4 **Global**^#5" "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/28/chinas-debt-surpasses-300-percent-of-gdp-iif-says-raising-doubts-over-yellens-crisis-remarks.html) reduced by 69%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Casrten Brzeski, senior economist at ING said that &amp;quot;High debt levels mean that the debt crisis has not been solved, yet. Neither in the US, nor in the Eurozone. Increasing debt levels in Asia and other emerging market economies also show that a structural change has not yet taken place.""  &gt; According to the IIF, despite the fact that debt levels have slowed down in mature economies, emerging market debt rose 5 percentage points from a year ago.  &gt; &amp;quot;The household debt-to-GDP ratio hit an all-time high of over 45 percent in the first quarter of 2017 -well above the Emerging Market average of around 35 percent. In addition, our estimates based on monthly data on total social financing suggest that China&amp;#039;s total debt surpassed 304 percent of GDP as of May 2017,&amp;quot; the IIF noted.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6p6vug/chinas_debt_surpasses_300_percent_of_gdp_iif_says/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~174153 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **debt**^#1 **Bank**^#2 **market**^#3 **trillion**^#4 **levels**^#5" The article speaks about how pieces of the pie have shrunk. I'm also curious to know if the pie's growth has maintained or shrunk as well. All the women starting full time jobs from the 60's would have to have some impact on the overall salaries. That's inevitable.   And how have the demographics changed in the top 5%? Could a divergence there justify a portion of the diverging rates? This is an interesting read.  I'd be interested in hearing what percentage of people making the high cutoff before, and then going above that after was.  That is, how many low wage workers were converted to higher wage workers, and what affect that had on the resulting statistics. "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://about.bnef.com/blog/electric-vehicles-accelerate-54-new-car-sales-2040/) reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; London and New York, 6 July 2017 - Electric vehicles will make up the majority of new car sales worldwide by 2040, and account for 33% of all the light-duty vehicles on the road, according to new research published today.  &gt; The team now estimates that EVs will account for 54% of all new light-duty vehicle sales globally by 2040, not the 35% share it forecast previously.  &gt; BNEF sees them accounting for nearly 67% of new car sales in Europe by 2040, and for 58% in of sales in the U.S. and 51% in China by the same date.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6p1zel/electric_vehicles_to_accelerate_to_54_of_new_car/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~173744 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **New**^#1 **vehicle**^#2 **BNEF**^#3 **Energy**^#4 **Bloomberg**^#5" This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.    - [/r/ConcentrationOfWealth] [Peak Inequality: The .01% And The Impoverishment Of Society • /r/economy](http://np.reddit.com/r/ConcentrationOfWealth/comments/2ehfse/peak_inequality_the_01_and_the_impoverishment_of/)   *^If ^you ^follow ^any ^of ^the ^above ^links, ^respect ^the ^rules ^of ^reddit ^and ^don't ^vote ^or ^comment. ^Questions? ^Abuse? [^Message ^me ^here.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmeta_bot_mailbag)* I find it somewhat doubtful that the US economy will grow by less than 16 billion in the next 33 years. 33 years ago the US had a GDP of just 4 Trillion. Yes i know that growth has slowed down considerably but I just don't see how the US economy will fail to double in such a long period of time.   Hell from 2015 to 2016 the US economy grew 530 billion dollars to 18.57 Trillion dollars. Assuming Growth stopped and we simply increased our GDP by that much every year we'd increase by that much in 33 years. But that's unlikely to happen over the long period and since growth is compounding I see us easily staying ahead of India. China only gets past us on PPP seeing as their nominal economy was practically flat last year due to a slump in the renimbi. "This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-31/u-s-slips-in-global-competitiveness-ranking-as-china-shoots-up) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The U.S. fell out of the top three in a global competitiveness ranking, as executives&amp;#039; perception of the world&amp;#039;s biggest economy deteriorated after Donald Trump&amp;#039;s election.  &gt; The U.S. slipped one spot to fourth in an annual ranking published by the IMD World Competitiveness Center, a research group at IMD business school in Switzerland.  &gt; The U.S. drop largely reflects survey results, as global executives questioned by IMD ranked the country lower in categories including government and business efficiency.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6epyee/us_slips_in_global_competitiveness_ranking_as/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~134240 tl;drs so far."") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **ranks**^#1 **country**^#2 **U.S.**^#3 **economy**^#4 **World**^#5"