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=-

[Zkribbler]

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 must admit, I'd feel more more at ease about the economy if the government got off the back of the executives at Enron and Worldcom and left them alone to run things in peace. God bless our beneficient corporate executives!

[Velociryx]

JW, the stats came from a book by Fred J. Young, a financial advisor who wrote a book about maintaining wealth and economic security during the bizzare economic climate of the 70's. The rest of the data, however (for the missing presidents) should be easily accessible on the 'net. Since we know the dates each president took office, it'd be an easy enough proposition to go to the historical dow jones averages data and pull the numbers. I confess though, that I've not had the opportunity to do so (still unpacking at the new place!)

-=Vel=-

[sprucemoose3311]

The Great Depression occured because politicians refused to act on the economy. The economic principle of Hoover's advisors told him that the market would fix itself.

That is why keynesian's theory of economics is so widely used today.



Oh. Economic growth should be measured by wars and troop movement rather than Presidents

[Giancarlo]

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

So communism will work? Not!

[Straybow]

The economy depends on people making things. The key to economic growth is capital formation (buying goods or equipment to make more things).

Roosevelt: (skewed in comparison due to 3 full terms) huge boost supplying Britain in early WWII, enormous boost supplying our own forces in WWII.

Truman: sustaining WWII, then rebuilding in Europe including Marshall Plan.

Kennedy/Johnson: Vietnam buildup spurs defense industry to extent that Johnson and Congress implement a retroactive tax to "keep economy from overheating." (That's strange, they admit that taxes hurt the economy more than help.)

Nixon/Ford: collapse of Vietnam halts defense capitalization, "war on poverty" initiated by Johnson siphons a trillion dollars from economy, paying it out to people who aren't working. This period also marks the close of American steel which had been a key capital industry.

Hoover: final 2 years before Oct 1929 saw DJA P/E skyrocket to nearly 40. This kind of overvaluation means money is going into speculation instead of capital formation. Banking industry was glutted with speculative investments instead of solid capital, and the money was simply gone.

---

Dubya: 1999-2000, DJA P/E rose well above 20. Dot-com bubble burst. Market hasn't recovered because too many stocks are still overvalued. Tax cuts helping some sectors of economy with spending, but not spurring capital formation. Clinton legacies Kyoto and M$ prosecution viewed as anti-business. WTC attack inhibits capital buildup in aero and travel industry.

Can't change any of that with a magic Government wand.

[Kuciwalker]

The dot-com bubble started well before Bush, and be the time he was in office there was nothing he could have done.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by skywalker
The dot-com bubble started well before Bush, and be the time he was in office there was nothing he could have done.

No, but he could have done something in 2001.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Straybow
The economy depends on people making things. The key to economic growth is capital formation (buying goods or equipment to make more things).

The engine of economic growth is consumer spending. It's 2/3 of the economy.

[Velociryx]

Yes, but without goods to buy, there can be no spending. You two are simply looking at the same picture from two different angles.

-=Vel=-

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Yes, but without goods to buy, there can be no spending. You two are simply looking at the same picture from two different angles.

-=Vel=-

It has been repeatedly shown that business spending does not lead economic growth. It is too small of a portion of economic output and it just leads to inventory build up leading to further economic decline.

[Kidicious]

Anyway, with the new inventory control systems it is not a possibility for business spending to lead economic growth anyway. They are designed to follow changes in demand instead of anticipate them in advance.