The data say unequivocally YES!
This post is in response to a new commenter, two dogs, here at Progressive Eruptions who said I was wrong when I made the claim that the stock market historically does better under the Democrats than it does under Republicans. Here are the facts:
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
One of the topics that seems to be all over the news is what Presidency will be best for the stock markets.
At fist sight, one would tend to think that the markets would react more positively to a Republican victory:
Generally big money and big businesses in the market tends to be Republican
Republicans are all about capital accumulation and low taxes
Republicans tend to favor growth through economic policy, free markets
Etc….
But it appears that the above is not true… apart from the fact that there is a trend for a more pronounced bounce after a Republican victory, history shows us that the Democrats are better for the markets.
The New York Times has published a really interesting chart/study showing that under a Democratic Presidency the average yearly return is better and that a $10,000 investment in the S&P in 1929 would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only and to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9% under Democratic Presidents:
29 comments:
Hardly a surprise...everthing runs better under the Democrats.
Thanks for the link, Shaw. Your article says yes! But THIS says NO! In case no one wants to click the link that I added, it is to the Dow Industrial Average at Google Finance. Despite what any jabbering head wants to say, the market history disputes Shaw's deductions, vehemently.
Two dogs, you show the Dow for this week....everyone knows that Democratic administration have historically enjoyed greater returns on stocks and they also enjoy lower unemployment figures during their tenure than Republicans do.
For your information we currently have a Republican Administration in office so your google finance link is going to be tied to Republicans...its too early for you to start blaming the democrats for the current economic mess...can't start doing that until January 20th...
So, hold on for another 73 days and you can start spewing your opinion at that time...
Ah Shaw, one point you might want to reseach is the one about big business and big money....
Besides George Soros, you also have Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who vote Democrat...they are pretty much the biggest big money out there.
Most of the support that the Republicans enjoy are people in business who derive a benefit from doing business with the government and or who must work with government (oil - drilling rights, pharma - patents and FDA, wall street - regulations and foreign contracts and of course the defense industry) otherwise most consumer goods companies and such are more supportive of Democrats.
That is why a republican administration will never do a thing about illegal immigration no matter what they say about national security....
Sorry, Tao, since you obviously do not know anything about Google Finance, that is the DOW since its inception, there is a slider at the bottom. I am certain that you can figure it out. You were able to ascertain that it is only showing this week. Try slowly going back on the slider and see if you can figure out when exactly this market trough started, try about December 2006.
And everyone that has a brain knows that your second statement is asinine, but don't look at any facts, just read the NYT. They have just been downgraded to junk bond status by the way, and they own the Boston Globe.
The Left's media outlets are going the way of the dinosaur. Because the people that write for them are morons.
The Left's media outlets are going the way of the dinosaur. Because the people that write for them are morons.
William Kristol and David Brooks! Did you hear that!!!!
Plus, two dogs, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia, once solid southern and southwestern Republican states have turned blue.
Oh the times, they are a-changing!
Shaw, yes especially Kristol and Brooks. Neither are conservative, they are of the new batch of neo-cons that y'all lurve to talk about. No common sense, just political savvy. Like someone else we know.
Uh, you better scratch New Mexico from your list, it hasn't been Republican since Reagan, but yes, that whopping 22k votes in Virginia was awesome. What most Obamabots fail to realize is that their best strategy was jumping over and voting for McCain in the primaries. True, there are a lot of silly folks that voted for Obama, but the reason why he won is because the alternative was McCain. I don't know of anyone that voted FOR McCain, they all voted against the sand-pounding stupidity of Obama.
When did McCain get traction and close on Obama? When he nominated Sarah Palin, a conservative. If the McCainiac was actually conservative, there would have been no contest. And he still might have won if the Barrystream Media hadn't pulled out all the stops to attempt to destroy Sarah Palin. In which they failed to the detriment of losing even more readers.
Shaw, enjoy the win, it shall be very short lived. Gotta make the donuts!
Mmmmmmm Donuts. I have dibs on the jellies!!!!
Two Dogs...
I can slide your google finance anyway you want me to and the facts still hold...
I voted for Obama because I HATE George Bush....he is the biggest socialist idiot I ever saw...
McCain was not a consideration this year and you go ahead and continue to support Palin...the governor of the one state that gets more federal funds than any other state in the nation and they actually get more tax money flowing to them than they pay in! That either makes them a socialist state or worse...
In 1980 your knight in shining armor came to power with 17% of the actual total vote (of all eligible voters) and this year Obama got 22% of the same vote...if Reagan achieved greatness on 17% then imagine what Obama will accomplish with 22%...
Before you go off and sing palin in 2012 you need to deal with the fact that Bush, your latest leader has lower ratings than Nixon did when he resigned. America has spoken...and they did so very loudly...
Keep believing that Obama is stupid and it will just be that longer till the conservatives see the White House again....
Thank you, tao. Well said.
But we'll never get the conservatives to see what is before their eyes.
They make their own reality.
Are you comparing Reagan's landslide elections to Obama's? Dang man, mathematics doesn't exist in this world for y'all does it?
Reagan: 1980- 489 electoral votes, 44 states. 1984- 525 electoral votes, 49 states.
Obama: Predicted-364 electoral votes, 125 less than Reagan's FIRST election, 161 less than the SECOND.
How does Obama even compare? To say so is insane, but you have tried.
By the way, I am not pushing Sarah Palin for president in 2012, she barely has more experience in the workforce and only marginally more intelligence than Obama.
Y'know, two dogs, it's okay for you to disagree with Obama and pre-empt his administration with criticism (he isn't even in office and conservatives have predicted his administration will fail--nice people, great Americans).
But your totally harebrained claim that President-elect Obama is stupid reflects on your intellect more than it does on his. And it is embarrassing.
You actually believe Sarah Palin is more intelligent than Obama?
Really?
This is perhaps the most glaring and most tragic reason the conservatives lost on Nov. 4.
There is no one with functioning frontal lobes who believes Sarah "I Can See Russia From My State" Palin, and who also pathetically said the Wall Street bailout was "all about job creation" is smarter than Obama.
When a person states something as batshit crazy as that, then there is no reason to take anything else that person says seriously.
Seriously.
Shaw, one comment on that first line. Back when you were in diapers, George W. Bush was elected for his first term. Democrats pulled out all the stops to steal the election in Florida by sucking up to the Florida Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court stopped the Democrats from circumventing a national election. Personally, I couldn't care less about that. To think otherwise is just plain stupid.
It is all about philosophy, son. Here's what it is. The Republican CONSERVATIVE ideology has been the only one to continually work along side capitalism. After the 1994 Republican landslide, we got rid of a bunch of government handouts and killed a bunch of bad legislation and the economy exploded. George W. Bush is no "conservative." In his first term, he vetoed exactly one piece of legislation and that was to provide more money for embryonic stem cell research. That was a good veto because embryonic stem cell research has accomplished nothing except to make super-tumors. Adult stem cell research has provided relief for thousands.
Just as quickly as the 200 elections were resolved, the Republicans backpedaled from what was working to the more ridiculous big government ideology. They ditched their philosophy. Philosophy is ALWAYS first, Shaw.
When Barack Obama gets elected on his "ideas" don't you think that he should follow through with them? His first three cabinet appointments are lobbyists. Wow. Do you would think that since that was such a huge part of his platform he would have stuck with it? It is because he has no philosophy of which to speak. That is the FIRST evidence of his glaring lack of intelligence. He is a weathervane. Do you think that he will remove the soldiers from Iraq? He said that, you know.
Secondly, he even lived through the Carter years and doesn't put two and two together. That is the second piece of evidence that proves he lacks intelligence.
Oh, but he was President of the Harvard Law Review! Shaw, the HLR is a student run college newspaper. Check it, wow HUGE accomplishment.
There is an old cliche is that is most fitting here. Goes something like this: Those who forget the past are destined to repeat it.
Now, to compare Palin with Obama is somewhat unfair. However, since Obama was president of the HLR, we have to assume that he is SMART? Sorry my standards obviously are higher than yours. Add to that, she never once uttered the words "you can see Russia from my house." That did not happen, sir.
Sarah Palin proved that she had developed a philosophy of running her life and business. She made the decisions of what were right and what were wrong and then stuck with them. Sadly, she appears to be crawfishing on Ted Stevens right now, and that is very disappointing to me. But, up until then, there is no comparison between the intelligence of someone that has developed a philosophy and someone that hasn't.
Shaw, I am an architect that took Calculus II-IV as electives and made A's in all three. I AM SMARTER than Barack Obama. He can read, wow! True, he has made much more money that I have, but is that the standard that you have? It doesn't seem like it since Obama groupies only want to screw over the rich and take their money.
There is a reason that I commented here, it is because you appear to have the intelligence to admit your weaknesses and see the problems. Your solutions however need more development. Blind faith in a MAN other than yourself shall certainly kill that for you and that would perpetuate the ignorance in this country. I saw a young person that seemed to have a modicum of smarts and I tried to guide you in the proper direction, maybe I was wrong to do that, but at least I tried. That is because there does appear to be a definitive shift from the life of self-reliance to one of slavery and servitude. By the way, slavery and servitude is what Obama offers. REQUIRING students to perform 100 hours of community service for every year in college kinda sounds like the DRAFT to me.
That is why instead of linking a bunch of asinine articles to dispute your silly "The economy does better under Democrats!" post, I simply gave you a link to the actual market that overwhelming disputes your ideas. Call it offering the information for self-discovery. Listen and learn. Obama is a man, and NOT a very smart one. But, you have the freedom to pick your masters because of the greatness of this country. For my master, I'll pick ME.
Sarah Palin proved that she had developed a philosophy of running her life and business. She made the decisions of what were right and what were wrong and then stuck with them.
Oh. My. God. She was for the bridge to nowhere. Fact. Then when it became unpopular, she was against it. Fact. But she kept the funding anyway. She left the little village of Wasilla millions of dollars in debt after profligate spending on a sports facility on land which the village had no title to. Fact. Conservative philosophy? Leave a town that had no debt when you became mayor in millions of dollars in debt? Or should we just ignore those two glaring examples of profligacy and non-conservative philosophy?
By the way, slavery and servitude is what Obama offers. REQUIRING students to perform 100 hours of community service for every year in college kinda sounds like the DRAFT to me.
Did you actually read what that program is about? He's asking students to participate in community service if they take $$$$ from the government to help pay for college tuition. That's hardly servitude. It's called WORKING for something your country is willing to help you with. Is there a problem in the conservative philosophy with that?
Look. No matter what he does, you've decided he's a failure, stupid, and out to destroy America as we know it.
As for your educational credentials, good for you. You must be very proud of yourself.
Nowhere on this blog do I profess blind faith in Obama. Those are your words not mine.
But I think they are jealous words because had the Republicans had a candidate as admired nationally and worldwide as is Obama, you would be as delighted about it as much as I am.
You sound bitter, angry, and somewhat mean-spirited.
I'm so sorry. I wish I could change that attitude. But in the end, it is you who must come to grips with why you feel that way.
PS. I've been to Mississippi. Drove on the Natchez Trace, visited Elvis' home in Tupelo, and had a great weekend in Biloxi.
Nice state you have there.
Shaw, as far as Palin's "debt" in Wasilla, you should check things for yourself instead of parroting the words of morons. The "debt" that Wasilla accepted under the governance of Palin was voted on in bond issues for infrastructure needed BECAUSE of Palin's policies inspiring new business in the city. Intellectual curiosity will help you, mindless obedience offers you nothing.
When you REQUIRE free people to perform community service that is called slavery, Shaw. Then to offer forty dollars an hour to college kids for community service (that is required) is not only stupid, but it puts folks out of work and increases the government expenditure. Again, think about what they are saying, Shaw. Refusing to use your brain is helping no one.
Shaw, our country is in a ideological battle right now, the intelligent people have lost this round. In order for intelligence to persevere, we must attract smart people to our side. That is what I have tried to do. If you refuse to accept the challenge, then I was wrong, no blood, no foul, I tried.
I would like to say that yes, I am upset with the mentality that swept Obama into office. Blatant racism is always ugly. It seems to me that our country has lost its way and with the lack of philosophical honesty held by the side that has gained control, the downside shall be another eight years of economic ruin. You see, I lived through the debacle of Jimmy Carter and he was more intellectually curious than Obama. So, when a "smarter" guy tries something and fails miserably at it, why would I think that a dumber one could succeed with the same tack?
History is always a great barometer of the future.
The other thing to consider is that under Republicans you typically have an over inflated stock market because of deregulation and accounting tricks. Enron, AIG, Leahman Brothers were never as profitable as the seemed on paper and therefore gave us a false impression of wallstreet.
two dogs typed:
'Oh, but he was President of the Harvard Law Review! Shaw, the HLR is a student run college newspaper. Check it, wow HUGE accomplishment'
Well he isn't an architect but my impression is Harvard is a bit beyond community college and I seem to recall having read somewhere the standards are fairly high.
Arthurstone, I do agree with the supposed standards that Harvard has, but when someone points to Obama being so smart, THAT is the one thing that they continually point out. Wow, it's a college newspaper in essence. What a supposedly brilliant constitutional attorney should have on his resume would be the number of cases that he tried before the Supreme Court or at least the Illinois Supreme Court. He has no such credentials and since he is no longer licensed to practice law, I am guessing that he will never get that either.
Toad734, funny those specific companies you mention. Guess who has worked on Obama's campaigns and have contributed bunches of money to the cause? Check AIG's and Lehman's contributions and where their former execs are. Please. Do y'all do any research at all before you type a comment?
two dogs sulked:
'What a supposedly brilliant constitutional attorney should have on his resume would be the number of cases that he tried before the Supreme Court or at least the Illinois Supreme Court. He has no such credentials and since he is no longer licensed to practice law, I am guessing that he will never get that either.'
But you have to admit President of the United States of America certainly perks up a resume.
Even better that 'A's' in calculus!
Yes, that president thing will certainly boost his resume, working a lunch counter at Taco Bell would have accomplished a boost as well.
two dogs typed:
'Yes, that president thing will certainly boost his resume, working a lunch counter at Taco Bell would have accomplished a boost as well.'
Eight years (color me optimistic) is a long, long time to nurture that sort of bitterness dogs. Good luck with it.
In fact Obama is a very, very bright guy. He has enormous curiosity and a great deal of empathy. These are characteristics I like to see in a leader and they are characteristics sorely lacking in both the current occupant of the White House and in both members of the recent GOP ticket. That and he prefers Toni Morrison to Hemingway. Shakespeare to Edward Gibbons.
You can learn a lot about a person from what they enjoy reading.
Arthurstone, then quit being bitter. Y'all have suffered for eight solid years of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Bitterness? Yes.
You can learn a lot about a person by reading what they wrote.
Sorry, folks, I don't desire to argue, I desire to attract intelligent people to the intelligent side. My trolling came up empty for my desired catch.
two dogs burped:
'Arthurstone, then quit being bitter. Y'all have suffered for eight solid years of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Bitterness? Yes.'
'Y'all'??!!
I'm responding to YOUR remarks. Spare me the faux-rustic 'y'all'.
Y'hear?
Not leaving well enough alone he typed:
'I desire to attract intelligent people to the intelligent side. My trolling came up empty for my desired catch.'
Your chances of success may increase when you actually join the 'intelligent' side dogs.
But I doubt it.
Interesting discussion going on here.
But let's put this thing about Obama vs. Palin vis-a-vis their education, to rest, okay?
Only in the magical thinking world of the increasingly irrelevant Republican Party would one hear the insupportable claim that Palin is smarter than Obama.
If one were to propose this outlandish, crackpot idea in any place on the planet, that person would be laughed into insensibility and shunned for the rest of his natural life.
Here are Palin's credentials, which, BTW, wouldn't get her a job as the receptionist in a high-tech corporation:
In 1982, she enrolled at Hawaii Pacific College but left after her first semester.
She transferred to North Idaho community college, where she spent two semesters as a general studies major.
From there, she transferred to the University of Idaho for two semesters.
She then attended the Matanuska-Susitna community college in Alaska for one term.
The next year she returned to the University of Idaho where she spent three semesters completing her Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism, graduating in 1987.
Well. She got her degree. But an undistinguished one.
Barack Obama:
He graduated Columbia University with an undergraduate degree in political science, specializing in international relations.
Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988.
At the end of his first year, he was selected, based on his grades and a writing competition, as an editor of the Harvard Law Review.
In February 1990, in his second year, he was elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the Law Review's staff of eighty editors.
He graduated with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991.
Taught Constitutional Law at University of Chicago, and worked as a Civil Rights Lawyer.
Of course, to those blinded by ideology, this counts for nothing, and Palin's palid educational credentials are to be lauded over Obama's.
Black is white; up is down; day is night.
Just ask the conservatives.
No Shaw, as usual, those intellectually incurious THINK that talking about a 47 year old man's college days are relevant. I pointed out that the ONLY thing that is heralded to prove Obama's intelligence is HLR. In case you did not know this, Obama went to Occidental College FIRST. So, your whole irrelevant dissertation proving Obama's intelligence was utter FAIL. Only really silly people, that have never accomplished anything, look to college to point out success.
Why do you think that I pointed out that I made A's in cal II-IV? Because I knew that you would continue to belabor the point if you were stupid.
If you want to point out Obama's success, you should point to the fact that he has amassed a cult following having never accomplished anything in his adult life. Of course, you can now say that the cult gave him the mantle of most powerful man on the planet, a post from which he can "rein."
Sorry, I must cease to comment here, the moron might rub off.
two dogs picked up his ball and went home:
'Sorry, I must cease to comment here, the moron might rub off.'
Don't worry dogs. I don't think what you have is catching.
Although it's been amusing watching you equate runner up to Miss Alaska 1984 with US Senator/Harvard Law/teaching at University of Chicago/Illinois State Senate I can't say I'll miss you much.
Your self-regard is just a touch over done. Not everyone here has worked their college grades into their posts.
Cheers!
two dogs said this, really!
If you want to point out Obama's success, you should point to the fact that he has amassed a cult following having never accomplished anything in his adult life.
HE F*****G WON THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Please, two dogs, my friend, you're embarrassing yourself with your bizarre comments.
To you the people who admire Obama are a "cult;" and the people who admired Ronald Reagan were a ?????
Give it up.
Of course, you can now say that the cult gave him the mantle of most powerful man on the planet, a post from which he can "rein."
rein? I think you FAILED spelling.
Look, two dogs, it is painfully evident that you hate Obama and are blinded by your prejudice.
Go join the 30 percenters who will live out the next years in the wilderness.
Go read about where the Republican Party and conservatives are headed.
Hint: It begins with O and ends with bscurity.
Really. You are not main stream.
You and your ilk are the looney fringe.
Post a Comment