The stock market performance

[Sugar Magnolia]

I'm sure this will get some comments.

 

From Andrew Tobias' article yesterday:

 

VOTE YOUR WALLET

 

It’s well known the economy and stock market do better under Dems than Reps. But how foolish do I feel for never having made it this clear? The text (below) makes the case, but the graphic will drop that sculpted jaw of yours straight down to your thorax. Thank you, New York Times:

 

Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants

 

By TOMMY McCALL

 

Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?

 

As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S. & P. stock market index would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.

 

[Savage Beatings]

Would be interesting to make the same comparisons between Dem and Repub controlled Congress and the Market instead of the Presidency.

[Puddy]

Interesting trivia but I'm not sure about the correlation.

[AtomicCEO]

Interesting trivia but I'm not sure about the correlation.

 

Whats hard to understand about this:

"Tax cuts for the rich do not benefit society. They only benefit the rich."

 

Ironically though... the rich do better when society does well. They're just too stupid to see it.

[muck]

I would say that there is at least an 18 month lag between an administration and the impact in the economy...and the market is a leading indicator by around 6 months or so...so, offset the administrations (Dem or Rep) with a one year lag ... so, for example, the first year (or two) of the Bush presidency should get credited to Clinton, and the first year (or two) of Clinton should be put on Bush Senior, etc ...

 

I wonder how that would play out?

[Puddy]

Whats hard to understand about this:

"Tax cuts for the rich do not benefit society. They only benefit the rich."

Well...I'm just not sure of the direct correlation of the party in office and the performance of the stock market. I think it's a stretch to draw the cause/effect relationship. There is certainly more involved in determining how equities fare than the president.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Well...I'm just not sure of the direct correlation of the party in office and the performance of the stock market. I think it's a stretch to draw the cause/effect relationship. There is certainly more involved in determining how equities fare than the president.

 

I agree.

[yo mama]

Well...I'm just not sure of the direct correlation of the party in office and the performance of the stock market. I think it's a stretch to draw the cause/effect relationship. There is certainly more involved in determining how equities fare than the president.

Agreed. But without the simplicity of an "if A then B" causal relationship you can't get most folks to focus long enough to care. Most people prefer simple but wrong to accurate but tediously complex.

[Caveman_Nick]

Whats hard to understand about this:

"Tax cuts for the rich do not benefit society. They only benefit the rich."

 

Ironically though... the rich do better when society does well. They're just too stupid to see it.

 

I wonder how many people would take filthy rich and stupid over smart and destitute?

[AtomicCEO]

Agreed. But without the simplicity of an "if A then B" causal relationship you can't get most folks to focus long enough to care. Most people prefer simple but wrong to accurate but tediously complex.

 

Some people refuse to see the blatantly obvious.

 

This country thrives when government supports the people. The country stalls when government shift the balance to favor the very rich.

[Savage Beatings]

A country thrives when people support themselves and then each other.

A country stalls when the government gets too involved in the interest of its own power and control over the citizenry.

But some people refuse to see this even though its blatantly obvious.

[The Holy Roller]

A country thrives when people support themselves and then each other.

A country stalls when the government gets too involved in the interest of its own power and control over the citizenry.

But some people refuse to see this even though its blatantly obvious.

 

Blatantly.

[Jackass]

Would be interesting to make the same comparisons between Dem and Repub controlled Congress and the Market instead of the Presidency.

 

Dem Pres + Rep Congress: 14.6%

Rep Pres + Rep Congress: 10.9%

 

Dem Pres + Dem Congress : 8.8%

Rep Pres+Dem Congress: 6.6%

[westvirginia]

Dem Pres + Rep Congress: 14.6%

Rep Pres + Rep Congress: 10.9%

 

Dem Pres + Dem Congress : 8.8%

Rep Pres+Dem Congress: 6.6%

 

 

Are those the average returns?

[Perchoutofwater]

Dems normally raise income taxes, and income taxes are generally higher than capital gains taxes, so it makes a little bit of sense tha more money will be invested in the markets when Dems reign. With lower income taxes, small business owners (you know the guys to employ most of America) tend to reinvest in their businesses to try to make them more proififable, whether by buying new machinery or employing more people. Let's not forget the Market isn't the end all do all of the economy. I'd like to know what the average unemployment was under dem vs repubs. I'd also like know what the average GDP was, both or which would be a better depiction of the overall economy than the market.

[muck]

This is the last I plan on saying about exactly what I'm doing in the market for some time.

 

By the close of trading today, we'll have covered 2/3 of our short position ... effectively leaving us with 35% short the market and 65% cash.

[polksalet]

"under Dems vs Reps administrations

 

that is all I need to have read to know it is a biased report

[muck]

This is the last I plan on saying about exactly what I'm doing in the market for some time.

 

By the close of trading today, we'll have covered 2/3 of our short position ... effectively leaving us with 35% short the market and 65% cash.

 

Just finished covering what we were going to cover today on that last leg down...

[Jackass]

Are those the average returns?

 

Yes

[AtomicCEO]

"under Dems vs Reps administrations

 

that is all I need to have read to know it is a biased report

 

Then just look at the numbers.

[polksalet]

Then just look at the numbers.

 

The term "under" implies that the president is somehow in charge of the US economy. Only a moron thinks that the president is in charge of the US economy.

Edited October 19, 2008 by polksalet

[AtomicCEO]

The term "under" implies that the president is somehow in charge of the US economy. Only a moron thinks that the president is in charge of the US economy.

 

The president submits the federal budget.

The president names the Fed Chair.

The president names the Secretary of the Treasury.

 

Unless you believe in those 5 jew bankers that control the economy, I'd say the president has more power than most folks.

[Retrograde assault]

I think the economy started to go in the crapper in 2006.

Edited October 19, 2008 by Retrograde assault

[muck]

The president submits the federal budget.

The president names the Fed Chair.

The president names the Secretary of the Treasury.

 

Unless you believe in those 5 jew bankers that control the economy, I'd say the president has more power than most folks.

 

I would posit that there is AT LEAST a 12 month lag (and maybe a 24-36 month lag) from legislative action and real economic impact.

[AtomicCEO]

I would posit that there is AT LEAST a 12 month lag (and maybe a 24-36 month lag) from legislative action and real economic impact.

 

Then why was that economic bailout package in such a hurry if it wouldn't affect anything for 2 years?

And why does the president keep sending out free checks for short term relief?

And why does just anticipation of a cut in interest rates affect the markets dramatically?

 

I think there are short term and long term effects, and you're oversimplifiying in a way that will make Bush look like less of a nation-destroying moron, and to try to undercut Obama's success when the economy turns around next year.

 

I'm sorry, dude. Tax cuts for the rich do not make the economy better. How much evidence do you need to see? Wanna try it one more time to put a good economy into a recession before declaring it a failure?