Originally posted by: Mani
Originally posted by: 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.
Wow, way to go into wounded animal mode and completely fly off the deep end. If you actually have a finance degree and an MBA, you should know Finance 101 teaches that the stock market is a leading indicator of the overall economy and historically has an extremely strong correlation this way. Try to google any REAL studies examining the market as a leading indicator of the market and you will find it is perhaps the most consistent leading indicator of a good market. Literally the only exceptions in the country's history was in the late 60s and 70s (where the economy grew but the S&P fell). But don't let that get in the way of your troll accusation tirade.
The fact that you have dig up an obviously biased source (Forbes - which commonlny has right-leaning opionin articles masquerading as fact) making an extremely tenuous point that the markets and the economy have "little correlation", shows you really lack a basic ability to do any thinking yourself. There are ZERO facts or figures relating the S&P 500 to GDP, and even that article's supposed "counterexamples" show that the stock market was good under dem presidents, and actually UNDERSTATED actual economic growth during their administrations. The fact that you supposedly have a finance background and MBA actually makes you look like even more of an idiot because you should know better. Next time you decide to get a college degree, you may want to actually pay attention.
Edit:and since you questioned my credentials, I solely manage a $350M P&L for a household name that sells into Consumer and B2B markets and is a bellweather for economic activity. I work on the front lines of EXACTLY how confidence in the stock market affects spending and GDP growth. I work directly with enough people with Wharton and HBS MBAs to know just how useless that "qualification" is.
Facebook
Twitter