> Are you saying that USA's economic productivity tripled the past 10 years? No, that's obviously false. How could I believe that? I am observing that Japan's

> Are you saying that USA's economic productivity tripled the past 10 years? No, that's obviously false. How could I believe that? I am observing that Japan's economy has had very little real growth over the 30 year period referenced by my parent commenter, and that that is the primary problem for investors over there. (The real GDP of the United States as measured by the Federal Reserve bank increased by 33% from 2010 to 2020 immediately before the pandemic, see: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1.) > How many decades do you think it takes for USA to triple its productivity for real, so that it catches up to the stock market? That is how many decades the crash could set you back if this really is such a bubble. I think there are a bunch of assumptions here about how asset prices track the growth of GDP that may not be correct. But, the way I model it, it doesn't really matter if my absolute assets recover to a particular nominal dollar amount after a crash. What I'm mainly concerned about is that my share of the productive capacity of the US economy doesn't decrease, and that that economy as a whole (particularly the portion represented by publicly traded companies) continues to grow. As long as those two conditions are satisfied, I'm not terribly concerned about the dollar amount assigned to my portfolio. What I'm chiefly concerned about is the amount of real consumption that my investments and labor entitle me to. And I believe that the best way to think about my investments in this context is the fraction of real production in the country that they represent, times the total amount of real production.