Face it, democratic presidents are good for the economy

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Well, Diss raises an interesting point....here's some data to toss into the mix for consideration:

When Carter (Dem) was elected, the Dow Jones slipped 4.4% over the next seven trading days (loss of 200% annually, had it continued)

Roosevelt's election in '32, the market dropped 13% (after it had already collapsed!)

Truman's election: Market loss of 10%

Kennedy: Largely unchanged

A brief look at immediate market reaction to the election of republican presidents:

Hoover ('28) +15%
Eisenhower ('52): +5%
Nixon ('68) +4%

However....

Before all you republicans out there start flag-waving, let's take a look at total market movements during the span of the administrations:

Net gains under Roosevelt: +165%
Under Truman: +71%
Under Kennedy/Johnson: +60%

and for the Rebublicans:
Hoover: -78%
Eisenhower: +120%
Nixon/Ford: +2%

Long term results, three big wins for the Dems, One win, one loss, and one push for the Repubs.

-=Vel=-

So the president are the ones buying and selling most of the stock? And since when was the stock market a reliable indicator of the economy, other than that of 1929.

[Kropotkin]

This is really not a very sound method. Just mixing together different presidents in different groups. As if it's obvious that the label on the presidents has anything to do with the performance on the economy.

[Velociryx]

The stock market's performance over any given span of time is an excellent indicator of the overall health of the economy. Look at the numbers and compare market performance with the economic performance of the USA as a whole. No, it does not provide the whole picture (you won't see any evidence of stagflation in the numbers, for example, so it won't tell you every little thing about what was going on), but as a general indicator, it's spot on.

-=Vel=-

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Fez
Do you know what the economic cycle is?

Democratic economic policies make Americans rich enough to become Republicans.

Republican economic policies make Americans poor enough to become Democrats.

[chequita guevara]

The unemployment rate dropp to 6.2% in the last month . . . because 447,000 people stopped looking for work. Things are not good.

[Imran Siddiqui]

While it rose to 6.4% earlier because 500,000 people entered the workforce... but you wouldn't know it from the Dems . According to them it rose because people were layed off and dropped because people stopped looking .

[Jack_www]

I think that local governments have a far greator effect on the economy then does the federal government. In terms of day to day life the State, county and city governments affect you more then the federal government. Just look at California governor Gray Davis and the far left legisature. I am not saying that all Democratics mess things up, but the things they have done in california has only cause Bussiness to run to near by states. Even a lot of Democratics hate Davis.

I think the that government can only really hurt the economy not help it out.

[mrmitchell]

It's best if the government is simply unable to do anything at all due to overpartisanship. That way, nothing can **** up.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by mrmitchell


It's best if the government is simply unable to do anything at all due to overpartisanship. That way, nothing can **** up.

I totaly agree. I think the reason California is so messed is because one party controlls state government. If it were more even I think that this would have been much better for the state.

[mrmitchell]

Then again, the mere size of California makes sure that it won't fiscally collapse or anything.

(Oh, and yes, Davis is a little ****head ratbastard.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's best if the government is simply unable to do anything at all due to overpartisanship. That way, nothing can **** up.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Well, Diss raises an interesting point....here's some data to toss into the mix for consideration:

When Carter (Dem) was elected, the Dow Jones slipped 4.4% over the next seven trading days (loss of 200% annually, had it continued)

Roosevelt's election in '32, the market dropped 13% (after it had already collapsed!)

Truman's election: Market loss of 10%

Kennedy: Largely unchanged

A brief look at immediate market reaction to the election of republican presidents:

Hoover ('28) +15%
Eisenhower ('52): +5%
Nixon ('68) +4%

However....

Before all you republicans out there start flag-waving, let's take a look at total market movements during the span of the administrations:

Net gains under Roosevelt: +165%
Under Truman: +71%
Under Kennedy/Johnson: +60%

and for the Rebublicans:
Hoover: -78%
Eisenhower: +120%
Nixon/Ford: +2%

Long term results, three big wins for the Dems, One win, one loss, and one push for the Repubs.

-=Vel=-

I love how the time-frame of your analysis goes back just far enough to include Hoover, but just misses Carter.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by mrmitchell


It's best if the government is simply unable to do anything at all due to overpartisanship. That way, nothing can **** up.

as Imram said,

[Jaguar]

BTW where did you get those stats? I find that sort of info quite illuminating.

[Velociryx]

Fill in the blanks JW!, I've been doing yard work all day. As I said earlier tho, the rest of the data is out there....go grab it and see what's what...

-=Vel=-