Which Party Do You Think is Better for the Stock Market?

or it's possible there is zero correlation at all...kind of like the whole AFC/NFC affect on presidential elections. you know that the NFL actually controls which party wins, right? everytime the AFC wins, a Democrat is elected! (or something like that)

 

Right before the 2000 election the Washington Redskins played a game, if they won Bush would win the election. If they lost, then Al Gore would win. The redskins ended up winning that game.

 

They must have used an extra timeout they didn't have.

 

If it wasn't for Reagan, would our top marginal tax rate be around 70%? Would we have developed a European style economy if a liberal Democrat was president throughout the 80's?

 

and freaking Scalia was the coach of the other team, the Halliburton Hound Dawgs!!!

 

I hear Scalia throws some mean blocks at fullback!

What really happened is after the Redskins lost 21-20, they demanded a recount. The official Washington score keeper agreed and gave the win to the Rediskins! Tagliabue didn't bother overturning it, since the Redskins suck and didn't make the playooffs.

 

Mr. Clutch, there wouldn't be a U.S. The Sovs would've had already taken Europe while we cowered and browbeat us into isolationist submission. Our economy would be in ruins just like the Soviets, except of spending what was left like the Russkies did on weapons, we would've spent ours on social programs and let our military rot. It took years to rebuild the military after the dark days of the Carter admin, when our equipment was falling apart due to lack of money for spares, morale was terrible and if the Soviets invaded Western Europe, it would've been their's for the taking.

 

Nice try, Maynard. When someone is *convinced* that they're right and you're wrong, all the evidence in the world makes no difference. Your charts prove your point convincingly, but since Republicans can't retort, they're running with the football analogy.

I think history speaks for itself. But, spin on, my conservative brothers! Spin on!

 

Which party do I think would be better for the market?

Probably the one that most advocates laizzes-faire economics. Who would be the disciples of Milton Friedman? Of the Chicago-school of economics?

No Democrat of any stature in my lifetime.
Republicans talk a good game, but they like to spend taxpayer money too...and give plenty of it to their own corporate interests.

If I had to go elephant or donkey, I can come up with a few elephants, but not many.

I think its part of that whole problem of keeping constituents happy and keeping your job.


So if you want a serious answer, I think I'd have to go with Libertarian.

-Deji

 

what??? again...for like the third or fourth time recently...there is no causal connection. connect the dots for me, and then we'll talk. the constitution doesn't allow for the kind of president you think we have...

 

When you consider the fact that economic policy (both fiscal and monetary) takes years for its full effects to be manifested, the liberals are arguing against their own party and don't even know it. It is as if you have an investor who pours millions into a project, and shows a negative cash flow in the early years as a result of the investment. Then the investor moves along to a new project and new management takes over. That new management benefits from the investment of the original investor and is cash flow positive. Would you give full credit to the new manager for this phenomenon? Of course not. In a similar fashion, the stock market indicated to us in March 2000 that it was beginning a downward trend. As perhaps the best leading indicator of economic activity, the stock market told us that poorer times were ahead. It told us this throughout 2000, the final year of Clinton. The market was correct, as the business cycle came off its highs. Did Bush cause this? Of course not. Would there be budget deficits if Clinton were still in office right now? Of course. Business cycles run their course independent of who is in office. I commend Bush for the economic stimulus which he has provided (and which has received bi-partisan support). Bush has done the best he could with the economy, despite a horrible bubble bursting inherited from Clinton, a terror attack of never-before-seen proportions, corporate accounting scandals (infractions committed in the late 90's), and the ongoing War on Terror. It is amazing that we came out of the recession so quickly and that the market is currently making incredible gains.

 

and a copious supply of tax shelters would also still exist to counterbalance the high end marginal tax rate.

 

That was actually a decent post. I agree that Bush's short term effects on the economy have been minimal.

The long term effects are the problem. The misguided Republican attempt to return to Hooverism by forcing a gigantic budget crunch in the future by piling up massive long term debt (which coupled with government borrowing, will crowd out private borrowing and investment) is what is gong to be problematic.

So, I guess you could say that in the long term, democrats will indirectly be better for the stock market, if everything goes the way its going. However, this isn't anything that you can prove by analyzing the DJIA .

 

Pure and total rubbish. The bubble that burst was purely speculative, driven more "investors" than by raw economic data.

The recession that your comments are foreshadowing occurred in March 2001. If Gore had become President, it is not a foregone conclusion that we would have went into recession. Do recall that Bush spent the first six weeks or so in office bad mouthing the US economy to get his first tax cut package through. At that time the economy was not in recession. Is it a coincidence that after Bush daily dogged the US economy that we had a recession?

 

Actually, I believe that Bush's tax cuts (the first round) resulted in about half the deficit, about 2-300 b worth, or so the CBO says. THe other half of the 4-500b deficit is due to increased spending, mostly on defense, etc.

The fleeting nature of the budget surplus underscores all the wasted ink and hot air that was bandied about regarding how to "spend it" or "give it back" during the 2000 election. Who would have thought that the business cycle would have anything to say about it?

But you are correct in that the long term deficits are the real problem.

 

Maynerd, Bush's tax cuts came *after* the economy had begun its downward descent. Think of the economy as a huge ocean-liner. Once it gets moving in a direction, it takes quite a bit of time to change that direction. Beginning in March 2000, the stock market began a precipitous decline, as the tech bubble began unravelling. Access to capital for corporations shrunk like Costanza's package in a swimming pool. Without money to invest in capital expenditures, growth is severely restricted. Companies do not expand through new projects and jobs are not created. This cycle continues to play itself out today, although we have seen signs of rebounding growth. Regardless of Bush's tax policy, which by the way many economists believe has spurred demand, tax receipts would have been greatly diminished by the lower corporate taxes, lower income taxes, and lower taxes on capital gains. These tax receipts represent the bulk of the government's income. Bush's tax cuts are a drop in the bucket compared to the huge drop-off in tax receipts due to an overall level of economic decline. Bush has done everything within his power to spur demand for the economy. Wall Street agrees that the appropriate fiscal policy during an economic downturn is not to cut spending and raise taxes. This is economic suicide.

 

While I agree that one purpose is to restructure the tax code, I don't agree that there won't be a short term stimulus as a result. I think they are saying that it doesn't put enough cash into consumers hands. While that is true, you can't ignore the effects on business investment and the changes in decison making for consumers.