5 ms·
> it's not an economic indicator Can you explain this statement? It's almost synonymous with the stock market, and is one of the most common headline numbers t
by kcanini 10y ago
> it's not an economic indicator
Can you explain this statement? It's almost synonymous with the stock market, and is one of the most common headline numbers that people mention in business and economy news reports.
- acchow 10y agoThe stock market is not the economy.
- pyromine 10y agoCapital markets are crucial indicators of economic activity
- milesrout 10y agoOnly because we use them as indicators of economic activity. When stock markets plunge people panic and that panic is what causes economic instability. That's what causes issues. Economics is purely a product of human minds acting in unison or opposition.
- dnadler 10y agoI think it's the other way around, no? People panic, and then sell their equity.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoI think it's both. That is, it's a feedback loop. Some people sell their stock, so the market declines, so more people sell their stock, so the market declines more, so more people sell their stock... For this to happen, though, enough people must be thinking that the market is poised for a big fall, so they're on a hair trigger, ready to sell right at the start of the drop.
- paulddraper 10y agoIt basically is. It represents the state of capital investment, which as it is turns out is important in a capitalist economy. The stock market would not be the economy in say, a Marxist system.
- srssays 10y agoFor a counterexample see Brexit. The FTSE 100 went up after Brexit, when other economic indicators were negative, because it primarily contains large multinationals which are insulated from the local economy. So a stock market index is only correlated with the local economy if there are few multinationals.
- pacaro 10y agoWell, arguably the FTSE went up because the pound plummeted.