Fiscal Conservatism in Action

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
I read your posts looking for something supportive other than your stupid uneducated opinions...

For the 6th? 7th? Time

Is there a single economist or statistician that has studied your hypothesis? I presented mine debunking it, your time supporting it.

Sorry, some dude on P&N who claims to be a bigwig CEO doesn't cut it for me.

Just...ONE....

1. Once again, are you even reading my posts? Have you registered a single fucking thing I've said?

2. Where is your post "debunking it"? I can't wait for your answer on this one.

3. Just where did you get your MBA from? And what the f*ck could you have majored in?

And I never claimed to be a CEO...though I do have Wharton and Kellogg MBAs that report to me. I think they'd be embarrassed to know that someone else with their degree could be this fucking dense though.

Direct quote from the forbes article:

However, no one, including Santa-Clara and Valkanov, seems to know why the market does better under Democrats. Another puzzle: There seems to be little correlation between economic performance and the market.

I'll keep coming back to the thread until you do the following:


POST ONE LINK, TO ANY STATISTICIAN OR ECONOMIST THAT DIRECTLY SUPPORTS YOUR ORIGINAL POST.

Feel free to come back and divert again.

Just one link.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: DixyCrat
What about the long-term impact of the real-value given the inflationary tendencies of said policies?

Can we truly look at ford without looking back to LBJ? can we truly look at bush sr. without looking at Regan?

Can you look at Bush without looking at the fact that he inherited a worse economy than any President since WWII in terms of market performance?

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
I read your posts looking for something supportive other than your stupid uneducated opinions...

For the 6th? 7th? Time

Is there a single economist or statistician that has studied your hypothesis? I presented mine debunking it, your time supporting it.

Sorry, some dude on P&N who claims to be a bigwig CEO doesn't cut it for me.

Just...ONE....

1. Once again, are you even reading my posts? Have you registered a single fucking thing I've said?

2. Where is your post "debunking it"? I can't wait for your answer on this one.

3. Just where did you get your MBA from? And what the f*ck could you have majored in?

And I never claimed to be a CEO...though I do have Wharton and Kellogg MBAs that report to me. I think they'd be embarrassed to know that someone else with their degree could be this fucking dense though.

Direct quote from the forbes article:

However, no one, including Santa-Clara and Valkanov, seems to know why the market does better under Democrats. Another puzzle: There seems to be little correlation between economic performance and the market.

I'll keep coming back to the thread until you do the following:


POST ONE LINK, TO ANY STATISTICIAN OR ECONOMIST THAT DIRECTLY SUPPORTS YOUR ORIGINAL POST.

Feel free to come back and divert again.

Just one link.

That obviously biased Forbes article doesn't do shit. As I pointed out, the article contradicts itself in trying to say there's no trends with dems and the economy. I have shown a CLEAR correlation between dems and the economy, and then the economy and the stock market. If you don't see the A->B->C relationship here, you are either 1. being a complete fucking moron, or 2. refusing to cede an obvious point because you can't admit you are wrong. I'm thinking it may be both.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
I read your posts looking for something supportive other than your stupid uneducated opinions...

For the 6th? 7th? Time

Is there a single economist or statistician that has studied your hypothesis? I presented mine debunking it, your time supporting it.

Sorry, some dude on P&N who claims to be a bigwig CEO doesn't cut it for me.

Just...ONE....

1. Once again, are you even reading my posts? Have you registered a single fucking thing I've said?

2. Where is your post "debunking it"? I can't wait for your answer on this one.

3. Just where did you get your MBA from? And what the f*ck could you have majored in?

And I never claimed to be a CEO...though I do have Wharton and Kellogg MBAs that report to me. I think they'd be embarrassed to know that someone else with their degree could be this fucking dense though.

Direct quote from the forbes article:

However, no one, including Santa-Clara and Valkanov, seems to know why the market does better under Democrats. Another puzzle: There seems to be little correlation between economic performance and the market.

I'll keep coming back to the thread until you do the following:


POST ONE LINK, TO ANY STATISTICIAN OR ECONOMIST THAT DIRECTLY SUPPORTS YOUR ORIGINAL POST.

Feel free to come back and divert again.

Just one link.

That obviously biased Forbes article doesn't do shit. As I pointed out, the article contradicts itself in trying to say there's no trends with dems and the economy. I have shown a CLEAR correlation between dems and the economy, and then the economy and the stock market. If you don't see the A->B->C relationship here, you are either 1. being a complete fucking moron, or 2. refusing to cede an obvious point because you can't admit you are wrong. I'm thinking it may be both.

Please see my post from 10/14, and your reply:

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting. So you are promising a unsustainable rate of return under democrat presidents?

Correlation != causation.

Wow, you are pretty good at hallucinating arguments from the opposition that were never posed. Are you one of those guys who walks around always swatting at imaginary flies by chance?

Guess what. My position on my first post is the exact same as my last post. You're the one wandering all over the place making claims and backing up nothing with ANY LINKS!



Oh yay, the forbes article also discounts economy: "There seems to be little correlation between economic performance and the market. " Feel free to prove them wrong with a statistical study.

Forbes sees correlation between dem presidents and the market, but cannot find causation. Forbes does NOT see correlation between economy and the markets, therefore your premise is false.


So for the umpteenth time - where is your link that shows causation? The burden of proof of A>B>C lies on you, not me. You are the nitwit that thinks correlation implies causation

I guess even an elementary understanding of statistics would elude such a powerful figure as yourself, you're too busy managing all those Wharton MBA's and posting stupidity to P&N! :roll:

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
I read your posts looking for something supportive other than your stupid uneducated opinions...

For the 6th? 7th? Time

Is there a single economist or statistician that has studied your hypothesis? I presented mine debunking it, your time supporting it.

Sorry, some dude on P&N who claims to be a bigwig CEO doesn't cut it for me.

Just...ONE....

1. Once again, are you even reading my posts? Have you registered a single fucking thing I've said?

2. Where is your post "debunking it"? I can't wait for your answer on this one.

3. Just where did you get your MBA from? And what the f*ck could you have majored in?

And I never claimed to be a CEO...though I do have Wharton and Kellogg MBAs that report to me. I think they'd be embarrassed to know that someone else with their degree could be this fucking dense though.

Direct quote from the forbes article:

However, no one, including Santa-Clara and Valkanov, seems to know why the market does better under Democrats. Another puzzle: There seems to be little correlation between economic performance and the market.

I'll keep coming back to the thread until you do the following:


POST ONE LINK, TO ANY STATISTICIAN OR ECONOMIST THAT DIRECTLY SUPPORTS YOUR ORIGINAL POST.

Feel free to come back and divert again.

Just one link.

That obviously biased Forbes article doesn't do shit. As I pointed out, the article contradicts itself in trying to say there's no trends with dems and the economy. I have shown a CLEAR correlation between dems and the economy, and then the economy and the stock market. If you don't see the A->B->C relationship here, you are either 1. being a complete fucking moron, or 2. refusing to cede an obvious point because you can't admit you are wrong. I'm thinking it may be both.

Please see my post from 10/14, and your reply:

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting. So you are promising a unsustainable rate of return under democrat presidents?

Correlation != causation.

Wow, you are pretty good at hallucinating arguments from the opposition that were never posed. Are you one of those guys who walks around always swatting at imaginary flies by chance?

Guess what. My position on my first post is the exact same as my last post. You're the one wandering all over the place making claims and backing up nothing with ANY LINKS!



Oh yay, the forbes article also discounts economy: "There seems to be little correlation between economic performance and the market. " Feel free to prove them wrong with a statistical study.

Forbes sees correlation between dem presidents and the market, but cannot find causation. Forbes does NOT see correlation between economy and the markets, therefore your premise is false.


So for the umpteenth time - where is your link that shows causation? The burden of proof of A>B>C lies on you, not me. You are the nitwit that thinks correlation implies causation

I guess even an elementary understanding of statistics would elude such a powerful figure as yourself, you're too busy managing all those Wharton MBA's and posting stupidity to P&N! :roll:

You claim to be a finance major - did you read the first chapter of your finance 101 book? You might want to try - because it says the stock market is the single best-known LEADING INDICATOR or a good economy. This should be common sense to anyone to follows the market. It is extremely rare that you will see the stock market act out of line with the economy (1987 was one example) but of course, the idiotic Forbes article you cited has absolutely no facts to back up its bullshit claim. Since you can't seem to grasp things without a link, here's a thorough statistical analysis of the stock market and economy, clearly establishing Granger causality between the stock market and the economy. link The obvious explanation they cite is that investors are forward looking, and buy stock when they anticipate a strong economy. This is common sense to anyone but you.

If that's not enough, here's an elementary table showing the effect of economic indicators on stock prices. Again, this should be common sense, and it shows how the stock market moves with the economy. link This was off a 30 second google search, you should try it sometime. Or you can always just get another MBA.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: DixyCrat
What about the long-term impact of the real-value given the inflationary tendencies of said policies?

Can we truly look at ford without looking back to LBJ? can we truly look at bush sr. without looking at Regan?

Can you look at Bush without looking at the fact that he inherited a worse economy than any President since WWII in terms of market performance?

Do you visit your proctologist for these ""news nuggets"" ?

 

[DerekWilson]

it sucks that republicans have people fooled into believing that they are conservative, especially fiscally ... our government hasn't been managed in a fiscally conservative way since before the great depression.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
I read your posts looking for something supportive other than your stupid uneducated opinions...

For the 6th? 7th? Time

Is there a single economist or statistician that has studied your hypothesis? I presented mine debunking it, your time supporting it.

Sorry, some dude on P&N who claims to be a bigwig CEO doesn't cut it for me.

Just...ONE....

1. Once again, are you even reading my posts? Have you registered a single fucking thing I've said?

2. Where is your post "debunking it"? I can't wait for your answer on this one.

3. Just where did you get your MBA from? And what the f*ck could you have majored in?

And I never claimed to be a CEO...though I do have Wharton and Kellogg MBAs that report to me. I think they'd be embarrassed to know that someone else with their degree could be this fucking dense though.

Direct quote from the forbes article:

However, no one, including Santa-Clara and Valkanov, seems to know why the market does better under Democrats. Another puzzle: There seems to be little correlation between economic performance and the market.

I'll keep coming back to the thread until you do the following:


POST ONE LINK, TO ANY STATISTICIAN OR ECONOMIST THAT DIRECTLY SUPPORTS YOUR ORIGINAL POST.

Feel free to come back and divert again.

Just one link.

That obviously biased Forbes article doesn't do shit. As I pointed out, the article contradicts itself in trying to say there's no trends with dems and the economy. I have shown a CLEAR correlation between dems and the economy, and then the economy and the stock market. If you don't see the A->B->C relationship here, you are either 1. being a complete fucking moron, or 2. refusing to cede an obvious point because you can't admit you are wrong. I'm thinking it may be both.

Please see my post from 10/14, and your reply:

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting. So you are promising a unsustainable rate of return under democrat presidents?

Correlation != causation.

Wow, you are pretty good at hallucinating arguments from the opposition that were never posed. Are you one of those guys who walks around always swatting at imaginary flies by chance?

Guess what. My position on my first post is the exact same as my last post. You're the one wandering all over the place making claims and backing up nothing with ANY LINKS!



Oh yay, the forbes article also discounts economy: "There seems to be little correlation between economic performance and the market. " Feel free to prove them wrong with a statistical study.

Forbes sees correlation between dem presidents and the market, but cannot find causation. Forbes does NOT see correlation between economy and the markets, therefore your premise is false.


So for the umpteenth time - where is your link that shows causation? The burden of proof of A>B>C lies on you, not me. You are the nitwit that thinks correlation implies causation

I guess even an elementary understanding of statistics would elude such a powerful figure as yourself, you're too busy managing all those Wharton MBA's and posting stupidity to P&N! :roll:

You claim to be a finance major - did you read the first chapter of your finance 101 book? You might want to try - because it says the stock market is the single best-known LEADING INDICATOR or a good economy. This should be common sense to anyone to follows the market. It is extremely rare that you will see the stock market act out of line with the economy (1987 was one example) but of course, the idiotic Forbes article you cited has absolutely no facts to back up its bullshit claim. Since you can't seem to grasp things without a link, here's a thorough statistical analysis of the stock market and economy, clearly establishing Granger causality between the stock market and the economy. link The obvious explanation they cite is that investors are forward looking, and buy stock when they anticipate a strong economy. This is common sense to anyone but you.

If that's not enough, here's an elementary table showing the effect of economic indicators on stock prices. Again, this should be common sense, and it shows how the stock market moves with the economy. link This was off a 30 second google search, you should try it sometime. Or you can always just get another MBA.

Here we go again. I never argued against LEI's.

Apparently you're a stubborn ass, and maybe I am too. But you refuse to answer the question, so I'm going to continue to call your ass on it until you answer "gee, I can't prove causation, my OP was because I'm a stupid partisan fuck" or go away.


Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.
Causation. Causation. Causation.


Did you read that part? The causation part?

one Link showing causation. ONE? ONE????

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
I read your posts looking for something supportive other than your stupid uneducated opinions...

For the 6th? 7th? Time

Is there a single economist or statistician that has studied your hypothesis? I presented mine debunking it, your time supporting it.

Sorry, some dude on P&N who claims to be a bigwig CEO doesn't cut it for me.

Just...ONE....

1. Once again, are you even reading my posts? Have you registered a single fucking thing I've said?

2. Where is your post "debunking it"? I can't wait for your answer on this one.

3. Just where did you get your MBA from? And what the f*ck could you have majored in?

And I never claimed to be a CEO...though I do have Wharton and Kellogg MBAs that report to me. I think they'd be embarrassed to know that someone else with their degree could be this fucking dense though.

Direct quote from the forbes article:

However, no one, including Santa-Clara and Valkanov, seems to know why the market does better under Democrats. Another puzzle: There seems to be little correlation between economic performance and the market.

I'll keep coming back to the thread until you do the following:


POST ONE LINK, TO ANY STATISTICIAN OR ECONOMIST THAT DIRECTLY SUPPORTS YOUR ORIGINAL POST.

Feel free to come back and divert again.

Just one link.

That obviously biased Forbes article doesn't do shit. As I pointed out, the article contradicts itself in trying to say there's no trends with dems and the economy. I have shown a CLEAR correlation between dems and the economy, and then the economy and the stock market. If you don't see the A->B->C relationship here, you are either 1. being a complete fucking moron, or 2. refusing to cede an obvious point because you can't admit you are wrong. I'm thinking it may be both.

Please see my post from 10/14, and your reply:

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
Interesting. So you are promising a unsustainable rate of return under democrat presidents?

Correlation != causation.

Wow, you are pretty good at hallucinating arguments from the opposition that were never posed. Are you one of those guys who walks around always swatting at imaginary flies by chance?

Guess what. My position on my first post is the exact same as my last post. You're the one wandering all over the place making claims and backing up nothing with ANY LINKS!



Oh yay, the forbes article also discounts economy: "There seems to be little correlation between economic performance and the market. " Feel free to prove them wrong with a statistical study.

Forbes sees correlation between dem presidents and the market, but cannot find causation. Forbes does NOT see correlation between economy and the markets, therefore your premise is false.


So for the umpteenth time - where is your link that shows causation? The burden of proof of A>B>C lies on you, not me. You are the nitwit that thinks correlation implies causation

I guess even an elementary understanding of statistics would elude such a powerful figure as yourself, you're too busy managing all those Wharton MBA's and posting stupidity to P&N! :roll:

You claim to be a finance major - did you read the first chapter of your finance 101 book? You might want to try - because it says the stock market is the single best-known LEADING INDICATOR or a good economy. This should be common sense to anyone to follows the market. It is extremely rare that you will see the stock market act out of line with the economy (1987 was one example) but of course, the idiotic Forbes article you cited has absolutely no facts to back up its bullshit claim. Since you can't seem to grasp things without a link, here's a thorough statistical analysis of the stock market and economy, clearly establishing Granger causality between the stock market and the economy. link The obvious explanation they cite is that investors are forward looking, and buy stock when they anticipate a strong economy. This is common sense to anyone but you.

If that's not enough, here's an elementary table showing the effect of economic indicators on stock prices. Again, this should be common sense, and it shows how the stock market moves with the economy. link This was off a 30 second google search, you should try it sometime. Or you can always just get another MBA.

Here we go again. I never argued against LEI's.

Apparently you're a stubborn ass, and maybe I am too. But you refuse to answer the question, so I'm going to continue to call your ass on it until you answer "gee, I can't prove causation, my OP was because I'm a stupid partisan fuck" or go away.

Did you read that part? The causation part?

one Link showing causation. ONE? ONE????

DID YOU READ WHAT I POSTED, you fucking thick twat? Your "refutation" was based on that idiotic Forbes article saying there is no correlation between markets and the economy.
Once again, from the link I posted: "Investors are forward looking, and buy stock when they anticipate a strong economy" In other words, when EIs or LEIs indicate an improvement, investors buy stocks, showing clear CAUSATION between economic performance/indicators and stock market performance. Doubt these indexes are better under dem presidents? Then refer to the Krugman link I provided above. If you still do not have enough evidence here to establish causation, you are even more fucking stupid than I thought.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Mani

DID YOU READ WHAT I POSTED, you fucking thick twat? Your "refutation" was based on that idiotic Forbes article saying there is no correlation between markets and the economy.
Once again, from the link I posted: "Investors are forward looking, and buy stock when they anticipate a strong economy" In other words, when EIs or LEIs indicate an improvement, investors buy stocks, showing clear CAUSATION between economic performance/indicators and stock market performance. Doubt these indexes are better under dem presidents? Then refer to the Krugman link I provided above. If you still do not have enough evidence here to establish causation, you are even more fucking stupid than I thought.

Edited to say on point.

OK, you're presented your hypothesis. You've drawn causation in your feeble, narrow little brain.

Now, support that with a link to somebody who has also drawn that same conclusion. One economist, one statistician. Just one.

 

[heyheybooboo]

No offense, Mani, but this is is borderline moronic ....

Originally posted by: Mani
"Investors are forward looking, and buy stock when they anticipate a strong economy" In other words, when EIs or LEIs indicate an improvement, investors buy stocks...

There are all kinds of models for stock investment and as comfy as you may feel with this I'd say it falls well outside the norm.

Regardless of LEIs investors buy stocks generally on models based upon Fair Value or Target Price.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

DID YOU READ WHAT I POSTED, you fucking thick twat? Your "refutation" was based on that idiotic Forbes article saying there is no correlation between markets and the economy.
Once again, from the link I posted: "Investors are forward looking, and buy stock when they anticipate a strong economy" In other words, when EIs or LEIs indicate an improvement, investors buy stocks, showing clear CAUSATION between economic performance/indicators and stock market performance. Doubt these indexes are better under dem presidents? Then refer to the Krugman link I provided above. If you still do not have enough evidence here to establish causation, you are even more fucking stupid than I thought.

Edited to say on point.

OK, you're presented your hypothesis. You've drawn causation in your feeble, narrow little brain.

Now, support that with a link to somebody who has also drawn that same conclusion. One economist, one statistician. Just one.

It's not a hypothesis, moron. Nothing here is my opinion. I provided quotes establishing A->B and B->C. If you know a thing about causation, you should know it is transitive. Now see if your brain can digest that thought, because I'm not going to scour around the internet for an exact quote stating the obvious.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
No offense, Mani, but this is is borderline moronic ....

Originally posted by: Mani
"Investors are forward looking, and buy stock when they anticipate a strong economy" In other words, when EIs or LEIs indicate an improvement, investors buy stocks...

There are all kinds of models for stock investment and as comfy as you may feel with this I'd say it falls well outside the norm.

Regardless of LEIs investors buy stocks generally on models based upon Fair Value or Target Price.

No offense heyhey, but don't try to jump into an argument you are not equipped to enter into. Obviously investors buy stocks based on FV - I don't need a lesson from finance 101. My statement was not exclusive of that.

It is also a fact that stock markets correlate heavily with the economy due very large part to anticipation of good economies. FV goes down significantly in bad economies, partly due to earnings performance of companies, and partly due to anticipation of future earnings, in the case that fundamentals are strong. If you don't buy that, maybe you should be paying more attention to the current mood on wall street, including what happened today.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

DID YOU READ WHAT I POSTED, you fucking thick twat? Your "refutation" was based on that idiotic Forbes article saying there is no correlation between markets and the economy.
Once again, from the link I posted: "Investors are forward looking, and buy stock when they anticipate a strong economy" In other words, when EIs or LEIs indicate an improvement, investors buy stocks, showing clear CAUSATION between economic performance/indicators and stock market performance. Doubt these indexes are better under dem presidents? Then refer to the Krugman link I provided above. If you still do not have enough evidence here to establish causation, you are even more fucking stupid than I thought.

Edited to say on point.

OK, you're presented your hypothesis. You've drawn causation in your feeble, narrow little brain.

Now, support that with a link to somebody who has also drawn that same conclusion. One economist, one statistician. Just one.

It's not a hypothesis, moron. Nothing here is my opinion. I provided quotes establishing A->B and B->C. If you know a thing about causation, you should know it is transitive. Now see if your brain can digest that thought, because I'm not going to scour around the internet for an exact quote stating the obvious.

Can't find one, can you moron.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

DID YOU READ WHAT I POSTED, you fucking thick twat? Your "refutation" was based on that idiotic Forbes article saying there is no correlation between markets and the economy.
Once again, from the link I posted: "Investors are forward looking, and buy stock when they anticipate a strong economy" In other words, when EIs or LEIs indicate an improvement, investors buy stocks, showing clear CAUSATION between economic performance/indicators and stock market performance. Doubt these indexes are better under dem presidents? Then refer to the Krugman link I provided above. If you still do not have enough evidence here to establish causation, you are even more fucking stupid than I thought.

Edited to say on point.

OK, you're presented your hypothesis. You've drawn causation in your feeble, narrow little brain.

Now, support that with a link to somebody who has also drawn that same conclusion. One economist, one statistician. Just one.

It's not a hypothesis, moron. Nothing here is my opinion. I provided quotes establishing A->B and B->C. If you know a thing about causation, you should know it is transitive. Now see if your brain can digest that thought, because I'm not going to scour around the internet for an exact quote stating the obvious.

Can't find one, can you moron.

I'm not falling into your idiotic fool's errand. No economist is going to come out and say "the market directly changes because of dem presidents" - there's no way to prove it directly. Fortunately for me, causation can be proved by being transitive. Unfortunately for you, you lack the ability to grasp this.

Just admit you're wrong already. You are looking for a direct quote because you realize your "refutation" was bullshit and your argument is lost.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Mani
I'm not falling into your idiotic fool's errand. No economist is going to come out and say "the market directly changes because of dem presidents" - there's no way to prove it directly. Fortunately for me, causation can be proved by being transitive. Unfortunately for you, you lack the ability to grasp this.

Just admit you're wrong already. You are looking for a direct quote because you realize your "refutation" was bullshit and your argument is lost.

LOL...I only had to post it about 25 times before you'd admit it.

"No economist is going to come out and say "the market directly changes because of dem presidents" - there's no way to prove it directly."

In other words, causation != correlation*

*except in Mani's addled tiny brain, where in his fantasy world he's smarter than all the statisticians and economists on the planet, and he manages a big company with lots of wharton MBA's, when he's not busy making McCowen look like Milton Friedman on ATP&N

But I'll even call you on your continued bullshit. So let's find a economist or statistician that has examined transitive casuation of the (D) President = increased market return? Just one link please? Oh that's right, we're in Maniland, where he's the only one capable to make the connection. :roll:

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani
I'm not falling into your idiotic fool's errand. No economist is going to come out and say "the market directly changes because of dem presidents" - there's no way to prove it directly. Fortunately for me, causation can be proved by being transitive. Unfortunately for you, you lack the ability to grasp this.

Just admit you're wrong already. You are looking for a direct quote because you realize your "refutation" was bullshit and your argument is lost.

LOL...I only had to post it about 25 times before you'd admit it.

"No economist is going to come out and say "the market directly changes because of dem presidents" - there's no way to prove it directly."

In other words, causation != correlation*

*except in Mani's addled tiny brain, where in his fantasy world he's smarter than all the statisticians and economists on the planet, and he manages a big company with lots of wharton MBA's, when he's not busy making McCowen look like Milton Friedman on ATP&N

But I'll even call you on your continued bullshit. So let's find a economist or statistician that has examined transitive casuation of the (D) President = increased market return? Just one link please? Oh that's right, we're in Maniland, where he's the only one capable to make the connection. :roll:

Wow are you a toolbox. Tell me alchemize, where the hell did I ever say the causation was a direct one? Why haven't you addressed any of the points I've put forward? Or tried to refute them? Or support your position? You of course can't, because you realize you were wrong the whole time and your desperate "gotcha" attempt is to try to get me to find an exact quote. Shit, I can play this game too - alchemize, find me an EXACT QUOTE from an economist saying that democratic presidents conclusively have had no effect on the economy or stock market. If you don't, I will ignore anything you put forward. Seriously, how fucking stupid do you have to be to argue like this?

By the way, I don't manage a big company. I manage a P&L in a big company. Maybe it's killing you that your MBA hasn't done shit for you, but that's not a degree problem, it's an intelligence problem.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Mani

Wow are you a toolbox. Tell me alchemize, where the hell did I ever say the causation was a direct one? Why haven't you addressed any of the points I've put forward? Or tried to refute them? Or support your position? You of course can't, because you realize you were wrong the whole time and your desperate "gotcha" attempt is to try to get me to find an exact quote. Shit, I can play this game too - alchemize, find me an EXACT QUOTE from an economist saying that democratic presidents conclusively have had no effect on the economy or stock market. If you don't, I will ignore anything you put forward. Seriously, how fucking stupid do you have to be to argue like this?

By the way, I don't manage a big company. I manage a P&L in a big company. Maybe it's killing you that your MBA hasn't done shit for you, but that's not a degree problem, it's an intelligence problem.

*sigh*

I apologize, he's a wharton teacher, we know your disdain for that school already. But he did get his PhD at MIT.
Are Republicans or Democrats Better for the Stock Market?

He puts out the exact same numbers you did. Yet, here is his interpretation.

Who's to Blame?

The poor performance of the stock market during these two Republican administrations cannot be pinned solely on the president. Nixon inherited a war in Vietnam that was escalated by Lyndon Johnson. Furthermore, the market endured increasing inflation that was due to bad Federal Reserve policy. Nixon however is to blame for appointing Arthur Burns as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, a man who did nothing to curb the rampant inflation.


On the contrary, George W is largely blameless for the poor stock returns under his watch. Stocks were in an unsustainable bull market that peaked in March 2000 and then broke just before he was elected President. Bush was sworn in near the top of one of the greatest bubbles in history.

In fact Bush's policies have been very favorable for the market. The reduction in the tax on capital gains and on dividends was a most welcome development for stockholders. Certainly the excessive government spending under this administration, including sizable deficit spending in Iraq has absorbed a lot of saving that could otherwise be put to work in the stock market. One can blame a bad outcome of the War in Iraq squarely on George W, but the poor stock returns under his administration were almost completely beyond his control.

There's one.

Now, this next one is a little older, but the quote is just as relevant.
Does the Stock Market Prefer Republican Administrations?

Conclusion

Over the years, stock analysts have suggested that the market prefers Republicans in the White House. This apparently arises from the view that Republican administrations are more favorable toward business than Democratic administrations. Most studies attempting to document this have focused on the stock returns around elections, and find weak evidence for this in the behavior of the stock market. In this study, we examine the returns on the market over the Democratic and Republican terms in office from 1871 to 1997. We find, contrary to earlier belief, that there is no support for returns being different under one political party versus the other. The old adage that the market prefers Republicans is not evidenced. On the contrary, the evidence indicates a slightly, but not statistically significant, higher returns during Democratic administrations.

There's two.


Why would I bother refuting anything else you say? Some of it might even be correct. It's your original premise that's stupid. Correlation != causation.

I await your next bout of stupidfuckishness.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Wow are you a toolbox. Tell me alchemize, where the hell did I ever say the causation was a direct one? Why haven't you addressed any of the points I've put forward? Or tried to refute them? Or support your position? You of course can't, because you realize you were wrong the whole time and your desperate "gotcha" attempt is to try to get me to find an exact quote. Shit, I can play this game too - alchemize, find me an EXACT QUOTE from an economist saying that democratic presidents conclusively have had no effect on the economy or stock market. If you don't, I will ignore anything you put forward. Seriously, how fucking stupid do you have to be to argue like this?

By the way, I don't manage a big company. I manage a P&L in a big company. Maybe it's killing you that your MBA hasn't done shit for you, but that's not a degree problem, it's an intelligence problem.

*sigh*

I apologize, he's a wharton teacher, we know your disdain for that school already. But he did get his PhD at MIT.
Are Republicans or Democrats Better for the Stock Market?

He puts out the exact same numbers you did. Yet, here is his interpretation.

Who's to Blame?

The poor performance of the stock market during these two Republican administrations cannot be pinned solely on the president. Nixon inherited a war in Vietnam that was escalated by Lyndon Johnson. Furthermore, the market endured increasing inflation that was due to bad Federal Reserve policy. Nixon however is to blame for appointing Arthur Burns as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, a man who did nothing to curb the rampant inflation.


On the contrary, George W is largely blameless for the poor stock returns under his watch. Stocks were in an unsustainable bull market that peaked in March 2000 and then broke just before he was elected President. Bush was sworn in near the top of one of the greatest bubbles in history.

In fact Bush's policies have been very favorable for the market. The reduction in the tax on capital gains and on dividends was a most welcome development for stockholders. Certainly the excessive government spending under this administration, including sizable deficit spending in Iraq has absorbed a lot of saving that could otherwise be put to work in the stock market. One can blame a bad outcome of the War in Iraq squarely on George W, but the poor stock returns under his administration were almost completely beyond his control.

There's one.

Now, this next one is a little older, but the quote is just as relevant.
Does the Stock Market Prefer Republican Administrations?

Conclusion

Over the years, stock analysts have suggested that the market prefers Republicans in the White House. This apparently arises from the view that Republican administrations are more favorable toward business than Democratic administrations. Most studies attempting to document this have focused on the stock returns around elections, and find weak evidence for this in the behavior of the stock market. In this study, we examine the returns on the market over the Democratic and Republican terms in office from 1871 to 1997. We find, contrary to earlier belief, that there is no support for returns being different under one political party versus the other. The old adage that the market prefers Republicans is not evidenced. On the contrary, the evidence indicates a slightly, but not statistically significant, higher returns during Democratic administrations.

There's two.


Why would I bother refuting anything else you say? Some of it might even be correct. It's your original premise that's stupid. Correlation != causation.

I await your next bout of stupidfuckishness.

To call your refutation incomplete would an understatement. Still, I'm going to try to take a less combative tone. I've wasted a lot of time with this argument and it looks like neither of us are going to change the others' minds.

First off, Siegel's article does nothing to refute what I've claimed. Your first quote, that "the poor performance of the stock market during these two Republican administrations cannot be pinned solely on the president". Well duh. Noone is arguing that the president has sole responsibility for a stock market under his watch. He then goes on to blame Nixon for his appointment of Burns. Maybe you didn't notice this, but it backs up my argument, not yours. Then Siegel can only conclude that Bush was largely blameless for the stock market directly, but could not do the same for any other presidents. He does not even consider his economy's affect on the stock market as he is only examining a president's most direct effect on the economy, something I never pointed to.

On to the next - this data set is irrelevant. Let's start with the time period - including data going back to 1871 will draw absolutely no meaningful conclusions about either party policies, because they actually switched in the early-mid 1900s. The democratic party was actually the conservative party and the two parties flipped platforms before Roosevelt. That's why the NYT article starts around that time. Obviously this article will draw no conclusions on policy/administrations on the stock market because it's not even comparing apples to apples.