100 years of SPX *** These securities databases are populated by CUSIP number. But the CUSIP system was not in place until late 1970s. Prices older than that had to be added by hand.
%% MOSTLY the same USa way as past 200 years. A lot of it = treating others like you would want be treated; + USa mostly anti socialist-anti commie. Even something as simple + basic as hunting or hunting business guns + ammo business ; look @ freedoms in USa compared to commies
Your chart is a nominal graph of the S&P. For real returns you need to consider the dividend and also adjust for inflation. The dividend in the slower slope region was roughly 7-8% vs roughly 1-2% in the higher slope region (see for example https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-dividend-yield) Also in the slower slope region we were on a gold standard and inflation was basically zero (productivity, population and economic growth roughly matched the increase in gold reserves) while once keynesian ideas went mainstream and deficit spending for entitlements, wars and everything else under the sun became mainstream, we had endemic inflation which raises equity nominal returns because big cap equities are an inflation hedge and typically beneficiaries of government contracts financed via deficit spending. This should be enough to explain the different slopes in your graph.
It's not 75 years but more like since the Civil War. It can be argued that the conclusion of the Civil War marked the start of MAGA tears, and when they started flowing, America become a much better nation. When MAGAs cry, America prospers. Believe it or not.
The answer is easy. Power America has always been wary of educated masses. They see Europe and its unemployed educated masses striking for more benefits and social changes and would rather keep America a content, middle "working" class, blue collar workforce. America brain drained the world after WW2, taking in STEM expertise from winner and loser countries. America represented the land of opportunity and many chose expatriation to start a new life. Twenty years later local stem talent simply wasn't enough to fill the available jobs and universities started marketing themselves to the world. That was a paradigm shift that caught the rest of world flat footed. Their universities were all state owned and managed, there was no marketing budget to compete. UCLA, Harvard, MIT, etc. became global brands, standards of excellence, justified or not. The brain drain of foreign nationals increased, skimming from developing nations their best and brightest, taking precious educational resources leaving to get their stem PhD in glowing America which didn't have to spend a dime on their education until it really mattered. The Silicon Valley couldn't have been without foreign talents and certainly couldn't have become the tech powerhouse it has become without all the Indian, Chinese and Eastern European stem PhDs that fill their research centers and tech firms. All these people cost a fraction of the cost of educating Americans with the hope of branching into stem and be competitive with science driven nations.
Yeah I am aware of all this. I am trying to explore the reason WHY STEM talents are not cultivated right here in the USA. STEM talents recruited from WWII (can't really blame the USA; they were getting slaughtered in countries like Germany and Italy under the Nazi regime) eventually grew old and retired and yet the pool of STEM talents dwindled and reached a point where USA has to always actively recruit again from the world. WHY?? WHY didn't we cultivate our own STEM talents locally?? This is my question. Your answer of fearing that they would push for changes doesn't cut it. It's the intellectuals with liberal arts degree that "think too much" and push for changes. STEM talents don't, relatively speaking. Knowing STEM just allows one to do things faster and do things better so WHY didn't the USA cultivate local STEM talents? Personally, I think it's just cultural differences.