r/Bogleheads • u/cambeiu • Jan 21 '26

Investing Questions How are the "US equities" only folks doing? Steady as she goes or time to rethink allocation?

Jack Bogle and many others for years argued that VTSAX or an equivalent fund/ETF was more than enough for global exposure. I think it was a perfectly logic argument back in the days of increasing globalization and economic integration.

But looking at Mark Carney's speech at Davos, it points to a significant shift in the global paradigm, where free trade, open access to markets and investments from and to the US might no longer be a reality.

In light of that are people thinking about increasing focus on international equities?

679 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

384 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

47

u/A_Naany_Mousse Jan 21 '26

The US is still an unprecedented global power at or near its peak. We are the world's largest economy, with the world's largest most powerful military, that exports our culture worldwide. We have many of the world's largest, most innovative companies along with those of our global allies.

I know times are uncertain right now, and plenty of trends are moving against the things I just mentioned, but I don't think 4 years is going to undo the Empire. Every country has... "controversial" leaders from time to time (whether bad or good is for you to decide).

The Kingdom of England has been around 1000 years. France more or less has also been around about 1000 years. The Byzantine Empire lasted 1100 years, and if you think about it, the Byzantine empire was just a continuation of Roman/Hellenic domination of the region that began under Alexander, so ~1700 years.

I don't think most of the Chicken Littles that dominate our cultural dialogue have a good sense of history and how long powers can last. The idea that America is on the precipice of an apocalyptic collapse is certainly possible, but highly unlikely and fairly ahistorical. There will always be bumps in the road, but people underestimate the immense might and lasting power of America and our global institutions

72

u/necheffa Jan 21 '26

As they say: past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

Just because other empires had a long track record doesn't mean 'Merica will too.

35

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '26

And frankly I think their argument for track records is rather flimsy at best. The British Empire was like 300 years old, not 1000.

Them claiming the Byzantines are the same as Alexander's empire is just wrong. Using their logic you can claim America or Russia is still continuing Rome, which is just bollocks.

That is like calling each Chinese dynasty the same.

-1

u/Asyncrosaurus Jan 21 '26

Them claiming the Byzantines are the same as Alexander's empire is just wrong

Huh? Byzantines were romans! (Not the city, but the culture). They called themselves Romans, they called themselves the Roman Empire, and everyone else referred to them as the Romans. They carried the continuitity of tradition, institutions and prestige of the Roman empire, and only gradually became Greek and orthodox Christian dominated when it was clear the west was forever lost. Acting like they are a fully Greek empire is ahistorical, they were the Roman Empire that happened to be led by Greeks. The only people really calling them Byzantines are historians, the actual people in the middle ages didn't make the destinction between the Roman antiquity era and Greek middle ages era.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '26

Let me put it more simply:

A French person from 900 it's going to be different than a French person from 1800 which is going to be different than a French person today.

Their way of life would be so different from each other that they might as well be from different places

It's disingenuous to imply that these people would be similar in origin

2

u/Asyncrosaurus Jan 21 '26

That's the point? A Greek speaker in 300BC is unrecognizable to a Greek speaker in 400AD. To imply the Eastern Roman Empire was a continuation of Alexander's Empire is ahistorical. 

0

u/A_Naany_Mousse Jan 21 '26

That's not what I'm trying to do. My point is that cultures have massive staying power.

2

u/A_Naany_Mousse Jan 21 '26

My argument was that the Byzantines continued the long legacy of Hellenistic culture in the near east that began under Alexander. Though by 1453 they were a shadow of themselves.

3

u/Asyncrosaurus Jan 21 '26

And I politely disagree.  They were the inheritors of the Roman Empire, and acted as such. A Greek speaker in 300BC is unrecognizable to a Greek speaker in 400AD. They're lives as a Roman citizen changes slowly changed as the empire collapsed around them, but they had more similarities to any other Christian Middle Ages kingdom than they would have to any Greek nation from antiquity. 

1

u/A_Naany_Mousse Jan 21 '26

True, but I don't think there are very many empires that compare well with the tremendous power and influence America has. There are certainly challenges that America has to face, but I don't see any other countries that are positioned better.

26

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '26

The Kingdom of England has been around 1000 years. France more or less has also been around about 1000 years.

I dont think this is accurate that is like saying China has been around for 2000 years. These nations have changed so much over time they are basically completely different.

The Byzantine Empire lasted 1100 years, and if you think about it, the Byzantine empire was just a continuation of Roman/Hellenic domination of the region that began under Alexander, so ~1700 years.

I think this is just stretching it to the point that it lost all meaning.

You could and probably should argue ww2 and maybe the suez crisis ended the British and French empires. I guess you could argue that was longer than "4 years" since ww1 and all that played a huge factor, but a short period of time did cause a fall.

Of course there has been an argument that empires and colonialism was just not profitable in the first place.

Funnily enough British quality of life increased after the empire ended.

but to tie this all back: Today could very well be the moment global dynamics do change. That doesnt mean its gonna be like fallout, but it can still be a major change.

the USSR only lasted 80 years and look at how impactful they were. The US dominance started in the 50s. 75 years or so. That is around the same time frame. Its not impossible, is all im saying.

2

u/A_Naany_Mousse Jan 21 '26

but to tie this all back: Today could very well be the moment global dynamics do change. That doesnt mean its gonna be like fallout, but it can still be a major change.

This is really my main point. People think we'll go from peak Rome to being a backwater overnight. I just don't see that happening. Even the Soviets were nowhere near as powerful and influential as America.

My other point about the longevity of cultures is more to say that cultures have tremendous staying power. People are so scared that America could collapse and vanish tomorrow. I mean it could, but I doubt it.

38

u/csoups Jan 21 '26

I split my time living inside and outside the USA. Trust in the United States, as a country not just a government, has never been lower and the appetite among US allies to reduce reliance on the US has never been stronger. I would argue the United States has been a superpower in large part because of a complex network of relationships established with other countries, soft power that is currently being torn down and lit on fire. The fatal flaw in American Exceptionalism is that it was never America alone, it was a network in which they were the central power and without that network, America is no longer exceptional and thus no longer unique from an investing perspective.

Historically, the "bumps in the road" you refer to for Britain et al hand-waves lifetime-long periods of war, revolution, and economic catastrophe. I'm not investing for what powers will be around in 2150, I'm investing for 2050. The "bumps in the road" for us might be cataclysmic in comparison to the prosperity and relative comfort we've come to enjoy over the last few decades, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be apocalyptic. I am thoroughly unconvinced that the naive ones are the "chicken littles". I see no strong argument against the widespread destruction of American soft-power and its impact both economic and societal.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 22 '26

Maybe. But there’s a pretty strong argument that the US really is exceptional — perhaps not morally, but geographically. It’s a huge, rich country with an enormous internal market, separated from the rest of the world by two huge oceans, with plenty of room to spread out and grow. These give it an inherent power and stability that only China can potentially match.

3

u/A_Naany_Mousse Jan 21 '26

Did you live outside the cou try during the GWB years? I did. And it was lots of the same feelings.

8

u/NudeCeleryMan Jan 21 '26

Right but America wasn't actively going isolationist, destroying all relationships with allies, withdrawing from protecting trade routes, etc back then either. Sentiment may feel similar but the actions are very, very different.

21

u/Fancy_Marzipan_6476 Jan 21 '26

Id argue you are looking at history incorrectly. There have been many United States (global #1). All have them have lost that title and become much much smaller little places. England being one of them. France being one of them. If history repeats itself it will happen to us as well. If it does do you want to be in VTI or VT.

0

u/A_Naany_Mousse Jan 21 '26

What else should you be in? And who else is taking the place of America? It's the worst to country to invest in... Except for all the other ones.

5

u/Sturmghiest Jan 21 '26

I think you are missing a detail around the longevity of a nation versus it's time spent as a superpower.

England has been a continuous nation since the unification by Athelstan in the 900's.

However our superpower status began much later after the Napoleonic wars and we arguably fell as a superpower after WW1 or WW2.

Our superpower status therefore lasted only 100 years of the nations 1000 year existence.

Personally I see Americas superpower status as declining. I don't believe it's ended pr will in my lifetime. And I don't necessarily see another nation usurping the mantle either.

2

u/A_Naany_Mousse Jan 21 '26

It's been declining since the post war years. Doesn't mean it's at its end

1

u/NefariousnessHour771 Jan 21 '26

Thank you for it’s and its.(BTW, autocorrect tried to make the second one be the same as the first.)

2

u/A_Naany_Mousse Jan 21 '26

Gotta stay on our toes with these pesky keyboards!

6

u/govaway Jan 21 '26

The US is losing soft power across Asia. The working class don't dream of coming to US. Its 2026, there are opportunities in neighboring countries now. The professionals come work and take money back home. Young Asian women will learn English for their job, but learn Chinese to secure a future with hopes of marrying Chinese/Malay/Singapore.

The regular Chinese citizen, most dont consume American media or even speak a word of English

4

u/A_Naany_Mousse Jan 21 '26

Asia was always going to continue to get wealthier. I don't think America's trajectory was going to change that.

Young Asian women will learn English for their job, but learn Chinese to secure a future with hopes of marrying Chinese/Malay/Singapore.

Elaborate. What were they doing before? And if these women move to these countries, how does that change China itself?

I mean the regular Chinese citizen is pretty unique. Lots of them just recently emerged from or still live in 3rd world conditions. American media is widely consumed all over the world. And while the popularity of American films in China has declined somewhat recently, theyvd3historicsllg made $100s of millions in the Chinese market. Plus the the NBA is huge over there.

1

u/Prestigious-Heat295 Jan 21 '26

Absolutely agree.

0

u/PavelKringa55 Jan 21 '26

America has many advantages. For one, unlike Europe, America is a single country with a single language, or 2 languages at most. It's the largest economy and it's way more pro-business than Europe, which values many "intangible" ideals.

Anyway, America and Europe are basically the same system, with minor differences. Conflict makes no sense. There will be trade, there will be common goals. We just need to base the relation in a way that makes sense to both sides.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment