FACT: Stock market does much better under Democrats than Republicans
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting in that most Republicans here won't acknowledge that this current economy begn under the previous president.
I thought that during the GW Bush years, and the Occupy Wall Street protests, that a booming stock market was a sign that the president was feeding the greedy banksters and money grubbing stock market traders, and widening the gap between the haves, and the have-nots. Now it's reversed???
I cannot keep up with the left, what was bad during Bush, like increasing US military conflicts around the world, and a booming Wall Street, was suddenly great and wonderful under Obama, and now it's all bad again under Trump.
Of the 5 biggest market down turns of the last 100 years, 4 have been towards the end of or immediately following a Republican's term as president. One Democrat.
1929- Hoover- (R)
1961- Immediately following Eisenhower (R)
1980- End of Carter (D)
1987- End of Reagan (R)
2007- End of W. Bush (R)
"Breaking it down by the numbers, FT Alphaville also pointed to a study published by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business that shows, from 1927 up to 2015, the average excess market return with a Democrat in office is 10.7% vs. a -0.2% with a Republican."
Do you have facts that prove that one party actually caused certain swings in the market as a direct action of their policies and actions?
If not, its only a "fact" that there is correlation, but clearly no causation.
I gave multiple examples about Boeing, JnJ, 3M, and the Oxy manufacturers today that have nothing to do with politicians of the current administrations.
Do you have facts that prove that one party actually caused certain swings in the market as a direct action of their policies and actions?...
As I've said many times on this forum, I personally do not believe the president has much control over the stock market or economy.
However, many people on this forum DO. So what I'm doing is holding them to their own standard, and pointing out to them what they must believe if they're to be consistent. That is all.
As I've said many times on this forum, I personally do not believe the president has much control over the stock market or economy.
However, many people on this forum DO. So what I'm doing is holding them to their own standard, and pointing out to them what they must believe if they're to be consistent. That is all.
Got it. I do find it disturbing how many people believe the POTUS does have that kind of control over the market, especially in the short term during their time in office. Major political decisions sometimes have waves that impact things for years if not decades after implemented.
Interesting in that most Republicans here won't acknowledge that this current economy begn under the previous president.
People keep repeating this.
Understand - the reason HRC lost the election was because of the economy, not the Russians. I have noted through various ways since 2016.
If you are making this statement based on the creative math from the OP's article, you will continue to be ignorant about this, and you will continue giving Obama credit when the overwhelming majority of articles during election season 2016 lamented Obama's economy. That's not a Republican viewpoint - that's just the truth.
I posted articles about black folks in the north staying home because they were not included in the economy. That's not partisan propaganda... that's truth.
Presidents do have an effect on the economy through their regulations. But they can't control how people respond to those regulations.
Understand - the reason HRC lost the election was because of the economy, not the Russians...
No, that is some fanciful imagining of yours.
Hillary lost the election because she is personally unpopular.
If Obama had been eligible for a 3rd term, he would have won easily. And that would have demonstrated that the economy was not an issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.