I don't think so. It is probably loosely correlated with the economy at best.
The stock market can soar in times of cutbacks which hurt non-asset owners but which benefit profit margins. The stock market can boom on liquidity surges that do not translate into economic investments. The stock market can crash while the overall economy does fine(wasn't 2000 basically this, with the economy not really suffering until after 9/11?).
I wonder if my impression that this has increased a lot in the last decades is correct, and what would be the impact of this on the whole "stock market as indicator of economy" thing.
Now I wonder, are there historical exceptions to this general rule? Also, does the "lead time" grow and shrink substantially?
it changes based on other people's guesses in their participation in the stock market. Aka, it's chaotic.
Historically it's been done through wages, but those have been de facto frozen since the 1970s.
Using markets as the primary way to redistribute wealth seems convoluted at best, and yet another perversion of their original purpose.
It's important to understand that the stock market is a leading indicator.
Everyone doesn't immediately get laid off when the stock market tanks. Everyone doesn't immediately get a raise when the stock market is roaring.
A lot of people are just now experiencing the stock market mini-crash of 2022, when the pandemic helicopter money dried up. In two years a lot of people are going to be experiencing the investments that are being made in the market right now. Most of them are going to wrongly ascribe those good times to the person holding high political office even though that person had nothing to do with it. This won't be the first time it has happened.