Fiscal Conservatism in Action

[Mani]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
OK Mani you stupid fuck - why don't you describe WHY those charts as you seem to think are true, are? Please, enlighten us as to HOW a president enables high stock market returns.

I eagerly await your next bout of stupidfuckishness.

Relax - wouldn't want you to suffer an aneurysm and possibly lose your lone brain cell. Tell you what, because I feel sorry for you, I'll take the time to educate you a little.

There's about a million ways a president can and does affect fiscal policy, which can and does affect stock market returns during his tenure. Just to give you an inkling: Taxation, free trade policy, running a deficit, appointees to treasury secretary and thus fed monetary policy, tax incentives, policy influence over GSEs like Fannie and Freddie, government investment into private industry, government subsidization of industry, and regulation/de-regulation tendencies. ALL of these things are either directly or indirectly influencable by Presidents, and ALL can and do have impacts on stock market performance within 4 years.

Now let's see if you're capable of comprehending this without responding with your usual verbal diarrhea.

The market tanked in 2001. Please explain which of these were implemented/altered by by Bush.

lol...picking an unprecedented and one-of-a-kind event in history and using it to attempt to disprove a president's affect on the economy is just ridiculous. Try actually disproving any of the points I made above.

You don't think 2008 is an unprecedented and one-of-a-kind event? Greenspan has called it exactly that.

You didn't make any points; that's just rattled off a list of nonsense.

If you think was I wrote was nonsense, that evidences that you don't understand it. What part of tax policy doesn't affect an economy in-term? How about fed policy?

Big difference between 2001 and 2008 - 2008 had entirely preventable economic causes. 2001 was an unprecedented attack on American soil. Do you really see no difference there?

S&P 500 in August 2000: 1517
S&P 500 on September 10, 2001: 1092

The markets were tanking well before 9/11. Unless you're referencing tax policy he had yet to implement, and a fed chairman he had yet to appoint for 4 years.

Well then if your question is if he was responsible for the what happened in the first half of 2001 prior to 9/11, obviously no. That was a correction for an irrational buying period during the tech boom.

He WAS responsible for the rest of the activity under his term however, including today. Solely responsible - obviously not, dems and congressional republicans were not exactly innocent bystanders to the Bush directive to increase home ownership artificially.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
OK Mani you stupid fuck - why don't you describe WHY those charts as you seem to think are true, are? Please, enlighten us as to HOW a president enables high stock market returns.

I eagerly await your next bout of stupidfuckishness.

Relax - wouldn't want you to suffer an aneurysm and possibly lose your lone brain cell. Tell you what, because I feel sorry for you, I'll take the time to educate you a little.

There's about a million ways a president can and does affect fiscal policy, which can and does affect stock market returns during his tenure. Just to give you an inkling: Taxation, free trade policy, running a deficit, appointees to treasury secretary and thus fed monetary policy, tax incentives, policy influence over GSEs like Fannie and Freddie, government investment into private industry, government subsidization of industry, and regulation/de-regulation tendencies. ALL of these things are either directly or indirectly influencable by Presidents, and ALL can and do have impacts on stock market performance within 4 years.

Now let's see if you're capable of comprehending this without responding with your usual verbal diarrhea.

I'm sorry, you said things that "can influence markets". I asked HOW a president enables high stock market returns. Obviously only democrats can do it, so obviously you can point directly to their policies that caused it. The burden of proof lies on you. Or do you believe correlation = causation?

I sure as hell don't believe the correlation is pure coincidence. I just listed out all the ways a president directly impacts an economy. I'm not going to waste my time on you explaining all the reasons - but here's a big one.

If you peel the layers off the economic performance, we do better when poorer/lower income spend. Contrary to popular republican wisdom, good economies generally do not coincide with a rise in incomes for rich people. Under Republican administrations, income growth is weak overall and is tilted heavily in favor of the rich - this does little to nothing to stimulate the economy.

To put it simply, it shows that bottom-up, not trickle-down economics works - which dems have been advocating for 60 years, and is reflected in their policies.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
OK Mani you stupid fuck - why don't you describe WHY those charts as you seem to think are true, are? Please, enlighten us as to HOW a president enables high stock market returns.

I eagerly await your next bout of stupidfuckishness.

Relax - wouldn't want you to suffer an aneurysm and possibly lose your lone brain cell. Tell you what, because I feel sorry for you, I'll take the time to educate you a little.

There's about a million ways a president can and does affect fiscal policy, which can and does affect stock market returns during his tenure. Just to give you an inkling: Taxation, free trade policy, running a deficit, appointees to treasury secretary and thus fed monetary policy, tax incentives, policy influence over GSEs like Fannie and Freddie, government investment into private industry, government subsidization of industry, and regulation/de-regulation tendencies. ALL of these things are either directly or indirectly influencable by Presidents, and ALL can and do have impacts on stock market performance within 4 years.

Now let's see if you're capable of comprehending this without responding with your usual verbal diarrhea.

I'm sorry, you said things that "can influence markets". I asked HOW a president enables high stock market returns. Obviously only democrats can do it, so obviously you can point directly to their policies that caused it. The burden of proof lies on you. Or do you believe correlation = causation?

I sure as hell don't believe the correlation is pure coincidence. I just listed out all the ways a president directly impacts an economy. I'm not going to waste my time on you explaining all the reasons - but here's a big one.

If you peel the layers off the economic performance, we do better when poorer/lower income spend. Contrary to popular republican wisdom, good economies generally do not coincide with a rise in incomes for rich people. Under Republican administrations, income growth is weak overall and is tilted heavily in favor of the rich - this does little to nothing to stimulate the economy.

To put it simply, it shows that bottom-up, not trickle-down economics works - which dems have been advocating for 60 years, and is reflected in their policies.

Now you are talking economic performance and economics, rich people versus poor people? You do understand the difference between the STOCK MARKET (remember your OP?), the economy, and class warfare don't you? :roll:

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize
OK Mani you stupid fuck - why don't you describe WHY those charts as you seem to think are true, are? Please, enlighten us as to HOW a president enables high stock market returns.

I eagerly await your next bout of stupidfuckishness.

Relax - wouldn't want you to suffer an aneurysm and possibly lose your lone brain cell. Tell you what, because I feel sorry for you, I'll take the time to educate you a little.

There's about a million ways a president can and does affect fiscal policy, which can and does affect stock market returns during his tenure. Just to give you an inkling: Taxation, free trade policy, running a deficit, appointees to treasury secretary and thus fed monetary policy, tax incentives, policy influence over GSEs like Fannie and Freddie, government investment into private industry, government subsidization of industry, and regulation/de-regulation tendencies. ALL of these things are either directly or indirectly influencable by Presidents, and ALL can and do have impacts on stock market performance within 4 years.

Now let's see if you're capable of comprehending this without responding with your usual verbal diarrhea.

I'm sorry, you said things that "can influence markets". I asked HOW a president enables high stock market returns. Obviously only democrats can do it, so obviously you can point directly to their policies that caused it. The burden of proof lies on you. Or do you believe correlation = causation?

I sure as hell don't believe the correlation is pure coincidence. I just listed out all the ways a president directly impacts an economy. I'm not going to waste my time on you explaining all the reasons - but here's a big one.

If you peel the layers off the economic performance, we do better when poorer/lower income spend. Contrary to popular republican wisdom, good economies generally do not coincide with a rise in incomes for rich people. Under Republican administrations, income growth is weak overall and is tilted heavily in favor of the rich - this does little to nothing to stimulate the economy.

To put it simply, it shows that bottom-up, not trickle-down economics works - which dems have been advocating for 60 years, and is reflected in their policies.

Now you are talking economic performance and economics, rich people versus poor people? You do understand the difference between the STOCK MARKET (remember your OP?), the economy, and class warfare don't you? :roll:

Clearly this discussion is above your head because you lack any ability to collect the dots. Let me try to make it simple for you:

-The stock market a leading economic indicator, with higher prices correlating with a stronger economy.
-Democratic policies towards increasing incomes among poorer and middle-class incomes, benefit the economy.
->Therefore, democratic policies lead to greater stock market performance.

Is that simple enough for you? There isn't a damn thing in there about class warfare.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Mani

Clearly this discussion is above your head because you lack any ability to collect the dots. Let me try to make it simple for you:

-The stock market a leading economic indicator, with higher prices correlating with a stronger economy.
-Democratic policies towards increasing incomes among poorer and middle-class incomes, benefit the economy.
->Therefore, democratic policies lead to greater stock market performance.

Is that simple enough for you? There isn't a damn thing in there about class warfare.

I'm sure it would be easier to "connect the dots" if I was a partisan hack such as yourself (or just stupid enough to look at a graph and say "wow, that must be true!). Here, I've got an even better graph:

It isn't presidents - SUNSPOTS cause market returns!
Holy crap, sunspots stop and look what the market does in 2008!
Superbowls are a great predictor as well!

Oh, and Forbes says you are full of shit also

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.

So my original comment, causation != correlation is of course still fundamentally correct. If you are too stupid to see that a sample size of about 10 presidents with binary designations is the causative factor behind something as complex as the stock market, then you're not only stupid (which can be helped), you're willfully ignorant (which cannot).

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Mani
Well then if your question is if he was responsible for the what happened in the first half of 2001 prior to 9/11, obviously no. That was a correction for an irrational buying period during the tech boom.

He WAS responsible for the rest of the activity under his term however, including today. Solely responsible - obviously not, dems and congressional republicans were not exactly innocent bystanders to the Bush directive to increase home ownership artificially.

So in the event we have a recovery in the first 6 months of 2009, will Bush be responsible for that too, or will that be a result of the Obamamessiah's presence on the throne?

For reference, the S&P 500 returns of the first 6 months of each President's office:

Bush: -11%
Clinton: 2.5%
Bush: 17.5%
Reagan: -1.6%
Carter: -1%
Nixon: -7%

Kind of curious, isn't it, how the worst 2 subjects on the initial post inherited the worst situation, and the best situations were passed on by Reagan and Bush 41.

To give another example, the S&P declined from 101.69 in January 1969 to as low as 90.21 in August 1969. Was that a result of the Democratic policies of the preceding 8 years?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Mani
Clearly this discussion is above your head because you lack any ability to collect the dots. Let me try to make it simple for you:

-The stock market a leading economic indicator, with higher prices correlating with a stronger economy.
-Democratic policies towards increasing incomes among poorer and middle-class incomes, benefit the economy.
->Therefore, democratic policies lead to greater stock market performance.

Is that simple enough for you? There isn't a damn thing in there about class warfare.

See previous post. Why did the markets take a nosedive after the Kennedy Johnson years? And if you want to talk about real rates of return when Reagan came into office with 10% inflation.....

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Clearly this discussion is above your head because you lack any ability to collect the dots. Let me try to make it simple for you:

-The stock market a leading economic indicator, with higher prices correlating with a stronger economy.
-Democratic policies towards increasing incomes among poorer and middle-class incomes, benefit the economy.
->Therefore, democratic policies lead to greater stock market performance.

Is that simple enough for you? There isn't a damn thing in there about class warfare.

I'm sure it would be easier to "connect the dots" if I was a partisan hack such as yourself (or just stupid enough to look at a graph and say "wow, that must be true!). Here, I've got an even better graph:

It isn't presidents - SUNSPOTS cause market returns!
Holy crap, sunspots stop and look what the market does in 2008!
Superbowls are a great predictor as well!

Oh, and Forbes says you are full of shit also

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.

So my original comment, causation != correlation is of course still fundamentally correct. If you are too stupid to see that a sample size of about 10 presidents with binary designations is the causative factor behind something as complex as the stock market, then you're not only stupid (which can be helped), you're willfully ignorant (which cannot).

Once again, you demonstrate your complete and utter lack of basic comprehension. Did you register a single thing I said? You asked a question, I answered, and now you are back to your moronic, parroted talking point of correlation and causation with some ridiculous examples suggesting that the president has absolutely zero effect on the economy (I'd love to see your arguments proving this by the way).

And did you even read your own Forbes article? It actually proves my point even more. It says there's not always a direct relationship between the market performance and the economy. The examples? George HW and Ford had crap economies but a good market, and then JFK and LBJ who actually had better economies than the stock markets indicated. Your article actually indicates the NYT charts actually understates the true difference between democrat and republican economies in the last 50 years. More proof of your complete lack of basic understanding of how markets and economies work. Great stuff though - thanks for proving my point.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Mani
Well then if your question is if he was responsible for the what happened in the first half of 2001 prior to 9/11, obviously no. That was a correction for an irrational buying period during the tech boom.

He WAS responsible for the rest of the activity under his term however, including today. Solely responsible - obviously not, dems and congressional republicans were not exactly innocent bystanders to the Bush directive to increase home ownership artificially.

So in the event we have a recovery in the first 6 months of 2009, will Bush be responsible for that too, or will that be a result of the Obamamessiah's presence on the throne?

For reference, the S&P 500 returns of the first 6 months of each President's office:

Bush: -11%
Clinton: 2.5%
Bush: 17.5%
Reagan: -1.6%
Carter: -1%
Nixon: -7%

Kind of curious, isn't it, how the worst 2 subjects on the initial post inherited the worst situation, and the best situations were passed on by Reagan and Bush 41.

To give another example, the S&P declined from 101.69 in January 1969 to as low as 90.21 in August 1969. Was that a result of the Democratic policies of the preceding 8 years?

The cyclical nature of economies means that with every boom, there will be a correction. The correction may be exacerbated or mitigated slightly by policy. Bush II's tax cuts admittedly did help the economy recover - credit where credit is due. Where he f*cked up is a complete lack of any foresight beyond them and a string of idiotic policy decisions leading to the housing collapse.

It's also worth noting that "inherited" situations also reflect confidence in leadership. Even the most republican economists have admitted for example that the current economic crisis is exacerbated by a complete lack of trust in the Bush admin's ability to navigate through this mess in the short term. If you want a shining example of how presidential policy affects the market, see Bush-appointment Paulson's idiotic decision to let Lehman die, the move which may have cost us the $700B.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: winnar111

Well, if you're going to give him 2 years, the S&P was at around 850 in Jan 2003, 2 years after Bush took office. That's about 150 lower than it is today.

LOL. It was sarcasm, and even it weren't, 17% over 6 years is a really stellar return, isn't it? Dollar cost average over those years and see what your "real" rate of return is.

Trying to make the douchebag look good is making you look bad! :laugh:

So let me get your thinking straight. If Bush had been shot in October 2007, would his policies have been a success?

I don't know. I guess it depends on when you conveniently define the start of his "fiscal" term (like I said above, sarcasm). Whoever took over would have had to shovel the shit from the WH though.

1,342 to 1,565 during that span. 16.6% in 6.5 years. Great returns there too.

My INGDirect account has averaged a better return by far over the last 6.5 years.

Now kindly compare the Carter years to inflation at the time.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Mani
Well then if your question is if he was responsible for the what happened in the first half of 2001 prior to 9/11, obviously no. That was a correction for an irrational buying period during the tech boom.

He WAS responsible for the rest of the activity under his term however, including today. Solely responsible - obviously not, dems and congressional republicans were not exactly innocent bystanders to the Bush directive to increase home ownership artificially.

So in the event we have a recovery in the first 6 months of 2009, will Bush be responsible for that too, or will that be a result of the Obamamessiah's presence on the throne?

For reference, the S&P 500 returns of the first 6 months of each President's office:

Bush: -11%
Clinton: 2.5%
Bush: 17.5%
Reagan: -1.6%
Carter: -1%
Nixon: -7%

Kind of curious, isn't it, how the worst 2 subjects on the initial post inherited the worst situation, and the best situations were passed on by Reagan and Bush 41.

To give another example, the S&P declined from 101.69 in January 1969 to as low as 90.21 in August 1969. Was that a result of the Democratic policies of the preceding 8 years?

The cyclical nature of economies means that with every boom, there will be a correction. The correction may be exacerbated or mitigated slightly by policy. Bush II's tax cuts admittedly did help the economy recover - credit where credit is due. Where he f*cked up is a complete lack of any foresight beyond them and a string of idiotic policy decisions leading to the housing collapse.

It's also worth noting that "inherited" situations also reflect confidence in leadership. Even the most republican economists have admitted for example that the current economic crisis is exacerbated by a complete lack of trust in the Bush admin's ability to navigate through this mess in the short term. If you want a shining example of how presidential policy affects the market, see Bush-appointment Paulson's idiotic decision to let Lehman die, the move which may have cost us the $700B.

Ah, so now you've shifted your policy theory of a million ways the President can influence fiscal policy to a boom and bust cycle theory which may or may not be influenced by policy decisions.

And now you bring up confidence in leadership....well, the market did pretty well in 1993-1994 while Clinton was failing at everything he tried and tanked in 2002 when Bush was the most popular President in history. And does that mean the great returns in the Bush 41 years were a result of great confidence in Ronald Reagan's leadership?

 

[shira]

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

Correlation != causation.

You're absolutely correct. But it's completely fair to ask: why is it that Republicans so strongly believe that THEIR party is better for the economy when the 76 years worth of empirical evidence we have strongly indicates just the opposite? What can possibly be the basis of their claim?

Come on, alchemize, please provide a cogent answer?

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Mani
Well then if your question is if he was responsible for the what happened in the first half of 2001 prior to 9/11, obviously no. That was a correction for an irrational buying period during the tech boom.

He WAS responsible for the rest of the activity under his term however, including today. Solely responsible - obviously not, dems and congressional republicans were not exactly innocent bystanders to the Bush directive to increase home ownership artificially.

So in the event we have a recovery in the first 6 months of 2009, will Bush be responsible for that too, or will that be a result of the Obamamessiah's presence on the throne?

For reference, the S&P 500 returns of the first 6 months of each President's office:

Bush: -11%
Clinton: 2.5%
Bush: 17.5%
Reagan: -1.6%
Carter: -1%
Nixon: -7%

Kind of curious, isn't it, how the worst 2 subjects on the initial post inherited the worst situation, and the best situations were passed on by Reagan and Bush 41.

To give another example, the S&P declined from 101.69 in January 1969 to as low as 90.21 in August 1969. Was that a result of the Democratic policies of the preceding 8 years?

The cyclical nature of economies means that with every boom, there will be a correction. The correction may be exacerbated or mitigated slightly by policy. Bush II's tax cuts admittedly did help the economy recover - credit where credit is due. Where he f*cked up is a complete lack of any foresight beyond them and a string of idiotic policy decisions leading to the housing collapse.

It's also worth noting that "inherited" situations also reflect confidence in leadership. Even the most republican economists have admitted for example that the current economic crisis is exacerbated by a complete lack of trust in the Bush admin's ability to navigate through this mess in the short term. If you want a shining example of how presidential policy affects the market, see Bush-appointment Paulson's idiotic decision to let Lehman die, the move which may have cost us the $700B.

Ah, so now you've shifted your policy theory of a million ways the President can influence fiscal policy to a boom and bust cycle theory which may or may not be influenced by policy decisions.

And now you bring up confidence in leadership....well, the market did pretty well in 1993-1994 while Clinton was failing at everything he tried and tanked in 2002 when Bush was the most popular President in history. And does that mean the great returns in the Bush 41 years were a result of great confidence in Ronald Reagan's leadership?

Dude, you do realize it is possible for there to be a cyclical economy that IS impacted by policy decisions, right?

All you've done is cherry pick examples to try to prove a counterpoint. And they're not even good examples. Bush being the most popular prez in history had nothing to do with the economy - he was riding high on 9/11 and it was 9/11 that tanked the economy in 2002. And Clinton was "failing at everything he tried"? Please.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Engineer

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

Correlation != causation.

Nobody is promising anything (that I saw), but the numbers are pretty damn clear. The bullshit about pro growth trickle down economics being better for the market...well....

This comparison is pretty weak. I think this link proves one thing. When good times are good minus Clinton, a republican will return more in the stock market.

You're wrong yet again:

Excluding Hoover, Republicans are +4.7% annually.

Now look at all of the Democratic presidents OTHER than Clinton: Every one is 6.5% or higher. The midpoint looks to be approximately 7.4%.

Thus, excluding the WORST Republican result and the BEST Democratic result, Democrats are still WAY ahead.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Craig234
This is way too limited. Over the same time frame, I checked the numbers for a variety of economic indicators - unemployment, GDP growth, etc.

For pretty much all the indicators, the rankings of the presidents mostly had the democrats in the top spots and the Republicans in the bottom spots. It was very clear.

The one thing you can pretty much count on with the Republicans is increased concentration of wealth.

Concentration of wealth is not done at the expense of another group of people, so if thats the best argument you have you're standing on very, very thin ice.

Concentration of wealth IS fundamentally done at the expense of another group of people.

The distribution of wealth is a snapshot function. Since wealth is always either being created or destroyed, the distribution of wealth is only good at the point in time that the sample is taken.

The concentration of wealth (or, more accurately, the re-distribution of wealth) is easily explained away by saying that new wealth is being created and so that is to blame. Unfortunately it's not that simple. Since wealth is created or lost by an incredibly small amount when it is compared to the existing amount of wealth, it is possible to re-distribute the existing wealth while at the same time creating some new wealth.

The concentration of wealth is the re-distribution of existing wealth from a group of many (each having a moderate share) to a group of few (each having a massive share). It is not mutually exclusive with the creation of some new wealth (or the destruction of some of the existing wealth).

To say that it is not possible is asinine. It is possible, and it is easy. It is best done when the momentum changes in the economy (good -> bad, or bad -> good economy). When going from good -> bad, Corporations intentionally over-constrict in order to assure a strong bottom line, and in doing so extract more value from the labor of their remaining people (the many), who feel lucky to have a job at that point. Profits go up due to the over-constriction, and large bonuses / raises / incentives are paid to the executives (the few). When going from bad -> good, the company is already at a constricted state, so as revenues begin to rise due to the economic improvement, the company only needs to hold off expanding as long as possible, and then they only need expand at a slower rate than their revenues are expanding, and in doing so, they extract more value from their existing employees (the many). Profits go up due to increased revenue with minimal increase in cost, and large bonuses / raises / incentives are paid to the executives (the few).

Case in point: Oil spot prices vs. average Gasoline prices. Good -> Bad (price of oil going up), average gasoline prices rise almost immediately (often literally overnight). Bad -> Good (price of oil going down), average gasoline prices fall at an incredibly slower rate than the rate at which oil is falling. Businesses make money on the up-side (by quickly and drastically increasing prices long before their materials costs actually go up), and they make money on the down-side (by reducing prices slowly and methodically, only after their materials costs have gone down and stayed down).

Believe what you want. However, the concentration (re-distribution) of wealth is indeed possible, and it has been happening extensively, in a purple america wearing a worn and tattered red suit.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Mani
Well then if your question is if he was responsible for the what happened in the first half of 2001 prior to 9/11, obviously no. That was a correction for an irrational buying period during the tech boom.

He WAS responsible for the rest of the activity under his term however, including today. Solely responsible - obviously not, dems and congressional republicans were not exactly innocent bystanders to the Bush directive to increase home ownership artificially.

So in the event we have a recovery in the first 6 months of 2009, will Bush be responsible for that too, or will that be a result of the Obamamessiah's presence on the throne?

For reference, the S&P 500 returns of the first 6 months of each President's office:

Bush: -11%
Clinton: 2.5%
Bush: 17.5%
Reagan: -1.6%
Carter: -1%
Nixon: -7%

Kind of curious, isn't it, how the worst 2 subjects on the initial post inherited the worst situation, and the best situations were passed on by Reagan and Bush 41.

To give another example, the S&P declined from 101.69 in January 1969 to as low as 90.21 in August 1969. Was that a result of the Democratic policies of the preceding 8 years?

The cyclical nature of economies means that with every boom, there will be a correction. The correction may be exacerbated or mitigated slightly by policy. Bush II's tax cuts admittedly did help the economy recover - credit where credit is due. Where he f*cked up is a complete lack of any foresight beyond them and a string of idiotic policy decisions leading to the housing collapse.

It's also worth noting that "inherited" situations also reflect confidence in leadership. Even the most republican economists have admitted for example that the current economic crisis is exacerbated by a complete lack of trust in the Bush admin's ability to navigate through this mess in the short term. If you want a shining example of how presidential policy affects the market, see Bush-appointment Paulson's idiotic decision to let Lehman die, the move which may have cost us the $700B.

Ah, so now you've shifted your policy theory of a million ways the President can influence fiscal policy to a boom and bust cycle theory which may or may not be influenced by policy decisions.

And now you bring up confidence in leadership....well, the market did pretty well in 1993-1994 while Clinton was failing at everything he tried and tanked in 2002 when Bush was the most popular President in history. And does that mean the great returns in the Bush 41 years were a result of great confidence in Ronald Reagan's leadership?

Dude, you do realize it is possible for there to be a cyclical economy that IS impacted by policy decisions, right?

All you've done is cherry pick examples to try to prove a counterpoint. And they're not even good examples. Bush being the most popular prez in history had nothing to do with the economy - he was riding high on 9/11 and it was 9/11 that tanked the economy in 2002. And Clinton was "failing at everything he tried"? Please.

In his first 2 years, yeah, he did. Except for FMLA and a couple other token pieces of work.

Kind of curious, though, how everything bad that happens in or due to a D administration (the early Nixon years, the early Bush years, Carter's entire term) is due to the cyclical nature of the economy. And kind of curious how various Republican administrations have borne the burden of this cyclical nature, yet you make this statement:

"-Democratic policies towards increasing incomes among poorer and middle-class incomes, benefit the economy. "

Out of all the booms and busts that the market has seen since the 1950s, you've attributed exactly 1 to any of the 'million ways a president can and does affect fiscal policy' (the current one), and attributed all the others to something else.

Shrug.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: shira

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

Correlation != causation.

You're absolutely correct. But it's completely fair to ask: why is it that Republicans so strongly believe that THEIR party is better for the economy when the 76 years worth of empirical evidence we have strongly indicates just the opposite? What can possibly be the basis of their claim?

Come on, alchemize, please provide a cogent answer?

You do understand that the S&P 500 is not a perfect indicator of a strong economy.

From 1993 to 2000 real GDP grew 3.86%
From 2001 to 2007 real GDP grew 2.5%.

Certainly a slower rate, but not a terrible growth rate.

Now look at the stock market.
From 1993 to 2000 it grew 17%
From 2001 to 2007 it only grew 4%

Bush's record in the stock market suffers because of the Tech Bubble that burst at the start of his term. The last few years of the Clinton Presidency saw insane growth in the stock market. Way beyond reasonable and sustainable growth. From 1996 to 1999 the Dow grew at 22% a year. In 1998 the S&P rose 25%!!!! The next year it grew another 18%. Then in 2000 it lost 12% and in 2001 it lost another 12% and in 2002 another 20%.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that conservative fiscal policies are a bad thing for our economy. The argument is that Republican Party has not historically carried through on that promise, and further that the Democratic Party has done a better job fiscally. The evidence is there for all to see, Republicans are good at deflecting blame but the reality is when people are losing their homes and seeing gas prices go through the roof while oil companies are making billions it's hard for them to hide from that record.

Conservatism in THIS country as "implemented" by the Republican Party has UTTERLY FAILED. It has been a disaster of epic proportions. All that's left are the millions of brainwashed Republicans who cannot see the reality in front of them. They would likely vote for a pair of tennis shoes over a Democratic President.

 

[ProfJohn]

^ I hope you understand that it is congress that controls the budget process.

So let's compare the track record of a Democratic to the Republican congress.

From 1955 to Jan 1995 the Democrats controlled congress. During that time the Dow grew at 5.7% per year.
From 1995 to Jan 2007 the Republican controlled congress. During that time the Dow grew at 10% per year.

It is obvious from these figure that we need Republicans in charge of congress because they are better at handling the economy that Democrats.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: winnar111

In his first 2 years, yeah, he did. Except for FMLA and a couple other token pieces of work.

At least make an attempt at being objective on this. UHC did not go well, and don't ask don't tell went over like a lead balloon with the Joint Chiefs, but that's it. He still had over 60% approval ratings his first 2 years - it wasn't until the GOP propaganda machine went into full gear in 1994 that his approval ratings dropped. Then they promptly recovered, and he won handily in 96.

Kind of curious, though, how everything bad that happens in or due to a D administration (the early Nixon years, the early Bush years, Carter's entire term) is due to the cyclical nature of the economy.

Where the hell did I say this?

And kind of curious how various Republican administrations have borne the burden of this cyclical nature, yet you make this statement:

"-Democratic policies towards increasing incomes among poorer and middle-class incomes, benefit the economy. "

Out of all the booms and busts that the market has seen since the 1950s, you've attributed exactly 1 to any of the 'million ways a president can and does affect fiscal policy' (the current one), and attributed all the others to something else.

Shrug.

Ok, you need to get a handle on what actually happened in this argument. Alchemize came in and demanded evidence that a president can have an impact on the market. I provided that example in that context. Nowhere did I state republican admins have only benefited from the cyclical nature of markets, nor did I state that democrats are universally better stewards of the economy. I pointed out that the trends disprove a commonly held myth that fiscal conservatives benefit the markets and thus the economy, and then addressed alchemize's silly notion that presidents have absolutely no effect on the stock market. You then jumped in mid-argument, attributed a bunch of arguments to me that I never made, and we ended up here.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The bottom line is the evidence does not support the notion that Republicans are fiscally conservative. In fact, it shows just the opposite.

The simplest solution is often the correct answer. Stop trying to justify and rationalize this.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ I hope you understand that it is congress that controls the budget process.

So let's compare the track record of a Democratic to the Republican congress.

From 1955 to Jan 1995 the Democrats controlled congress. During that time the Dow grew at 5.7% per year.
From 1995 to Jan 2007 the Republican controlled congress. During that time the Dow grew at 10% per year.

It is obvious from these figure that we need Republicans in charge of congress because they are better at handling the economy that Democrats.

So the GOP gets credit for the tech Bubble that was unreasonable for Clinton just a few posts ago? :laugh:

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Bush's record in the stock market suffers because of the Tech Bubble that burst at the start of his term. The last few years of the Clinton Presidency saw insane growth in the stock market. Way beyond reasonable and sustainable growth. From 1996 to 1999 the Dow grew at 22% a year. In 1998 the S&P rose 25%!!!! The next year it grew another 18%. Then in 2000 it lost 12% and in 2001 it lost another 12% and in 2002 another 20%.

You do understand that the S&P 500 is not a perfect indicator of a strong economy.

And then you cherry pick DOW stats for your previous example which is a much less indicator than the S&P500! :laugh:

By the way, your counterparts in this thread suggest that the Democrat Presidents "inherited" their great numbers? Do you believe that? If that's the case, did the GOP Congress inherit their 1995-1999 numbers from the previous Democrat congress?

How did the GOP Congress do under a GOP President during the 1995-2008 timeframe? Why choose the DOW vs the S&P?

You guys are spinning all over yourselves on this one.

Here's the real graph of true "fiscal non-conservatism".

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ I hope you understand that it is congress that controls the budget process.

So let's compare the track record of a Democratic to the Republican congress.

From 1955 to Jan 1995 the Democrats controlled congress. During that time the Dow grew at 5.7% per year.
From 1995 to Jan 2007 the Republican controlled congress. During that time the Dow grew at 10% per year.

It is obvious from these figure that we need Republicans in charge of congress because they are better at handling the economy that Democrats.

The PJ 'Congress sets the government's ecoomic policy' lie yet again. He never tires of it no matter how many times it's explainted to him at great length why he's wrong.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Mani

Clearly this discussion is above your head because you lack any ability to collect the dots. Let me try to make it simple for you:

-The stock market a leading economic indicator, with higher prices correlating with a stronger economy.
-Democratic policies towards increasing incomes among poorer and middle-class incomes, benefit the economy.
->Therefore, democratic policies lead to greater stock market performance.

Is that simple enough for you? There isn't a damn thing in there about class warfare.

I'm sure it would be easier to "connect the dots" if I was a partisan hack such as yourself (or just stupid enough to look at a graph and say "wow, that must be true!). Here, I've got an even better graph:

It isn't presidents - SUNSPOTS cause market returns!
Holy crap, sunspots stop and look what the market does in 2008!
Superbowls are a great predictor as well!

Oh, and Forbes says you are full of shit also

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.

So my original comment, causation != correlation is of course still fundamentally correct. If you are too stupid to see that a sample size of about 10 presidents with binary designations is the causative factor behind something as complex as the stock market, then you're not only stupid (which can be helped), you're willfully ignorant (which cannot).

Once again, you demonstrate your complete and utter lack of basic comprehension. Did you register a single thing I said? You asked a question, I answered, and now you are back to your moronic, parroted talking point of correlation and causation with some ridiculous examples suggesting that the president has absolutely zero effect on the economy (I'd love to see your arguments proving this by the way).

And did you even read your own Forbes article? It actually proves my point even more. It says there's not always a direct relationship between the market performance and the economy. The examples? George HW and Ford had crap economies but a good market, and then JFK and LBJ who actually had better economies than the stock markets indicated. Your article actually indicates the NYT charts actually understates the true difference between democrat and republican economies in the last 50 years. More proof of your complete lack of basic understanding of how markets and economies work. Great stuff though - thanks for proving my point.

MARKET, not ECONOMY. Find me a single quote where I said the president has no impact on the economy, fucktard.

You are the stupidest fucking troll to wander in P&N in a LONG time, congrats that's saying a lot. I've got a finance degree and an MBA - what's your financial education? Oh that's right, you learned everything you needed to know from the Opinion section in the NYT. :roll:

Bring back a single economist who buys into your the MARKET CAUSATION theory and we'll talk. Until then, the sunspots theory is more accurate than yours and you can DIAF troll.

PS: you're also a fucking liar. The Forbes article does not "prove your point". The article states:
There seems to be little correlation between economic performance and the market.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
The bottom line is the evidence does not support the notion that Republicans are fiscally conservative. In fact, it shows just the opposite.

The simplest solution is often the correct answer. Stop trying to justify and rationalize this.

I haven't seen anyone disagree with that. I don't disagree with that. Of course, that's not what the OP said. Making the leap from "republicans take us more into debt" to "if the president is a Dem, then you'll have great stock returns!" is silly and partisan.