Warren Buffett supports Hillary

boo yahh and neither are you
your just a warhawk lite, soon jetti you'll be man enough to shed your warmaking tendencies.

Yoda
 
Topspin said:
boo yahh and neither are you
your just a warhawk lite, soon jetti you'll be man enough to shed your warmaking tendencies.

Yoda
Click to expand...

One of us - you or I - voted for George W. Chimp in 2004, thereby sanctioning his illegal war on iraq.

Guess what? It wasn't me that voted for the primate.


:clink:
 
"The stock market traditionally does better under Democratic leadership. "

This is such a bullshit comment.

Tell me genius... do politicians control the market? NO.

Do they have some effect on the market with their policies? Yes. But those policies are done by the White House AND Congress. It cannot be done without those two components.

Those idiotic charts that show what the market did based on who was the President are pointless.... other than to give meaningless talking points to the sheep.
 
Since the data go back over a century (to 1900), the statisical correlation that Democratic policies are better for the market, is unlikely to be a random artifact. It's statistically significant.



Democrats, it turns out, are much better for the stock market than Republicans. Slate ran the numbers and found that since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the S&P 500, but Republicans only an 8 percent return.

In 2000, the Stock Trader's Almanac, which slices and dices Wall Street performance figures like baseball stats, came up with nearly the same numbers (13.4 percent versus 8.1 percent) by measuring Dow price appreciation. (Most of the 20th century's bear markets, incidentally, have been Republican bear markets: the Crash of '29, the early '70s oil shock, the '87 correction, and the current stall occurred under GOP presidents.)

According to almanac editor Jeffrey Hirsch, the presidential party figures are among the most significant he's found. If the stock market were random, we'd expect such a result only one-quarter of the time. "I don't know why people are convinced Republicans are good for the stock market," Hirsch says.

http://www.slate.com/id/2071929/
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
Since the data go back over a century (to 1900), the statisical correlation that Democratic policies are better for the market, is unlikely to be a random artifact. It's statistically significant.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. That would make quite a "coincidence".
 
"Since the data go back over a century (to 1900), the statisical correlation that Democratic policies are better for the market, is unlikely to be a random artifact. It's statistically significant."

So basically you are going to ignore everything I wrote. Tell me Cypress... just what is it that the President can do on his/her own that effects the market in any significant way?

The ANSWER.... is NOTHING. NADA.
 
Superfreak said:
"Since the data go back over a century (to 1900), the statisical correlation that Democratic policies are better for the market, is unlikely to be a random artifact. It's statistically significant."

So basically you are going to ignore everything I wrote. Tell me Cypress... just what is it that the President can do on his/her own that effects the market in any significant way?

The ANSWER.... is NOTHING. NADA.
Click to expand...

So basically you are going to ignore everything I wrote. Tell me Cypress... just what is it that the President can do on his/her own that effects the market in any significant way

If you don't think the public sector, public policies, government regulation (or lack thereof), public debt, trade policies, tax and fiscal policies don't have an affect on the overall health of the business and consumer climate, we really have nothing to discuss.

It's statistically significant that for 100 years, the market has done better under Democratic Policies, according to the publisher of Wall Street's own trade publication.

It might piss you off. It might make you question your ideology. But, facts are facts, and data is data ;)
 
Also... the next mistake.... the returns you are looking at only measure the Dow. 30 companies. Out of the thousands of American companies on the exchange.
 
"If you don't think the public sector, public policies, government regulation (or lack thereof), public debt, trade policies, tax and fiscal policies don't have an affect on the overall health of the business and consumer climate, we really have nothing to discuss. "

That was not my question Cypress. I do believe all of those have an effect. Now tell me... how can the President effect it on his own? How can he do any of that without Congress Cypress????
 
Darla said:
Hmmm. That would make quite a "coincidence".
Click to expand...


Yes. For the last 100 years, Democratic adminstration just got "lucky". "Lucky" in the sense that most economic indicators, including the stock market, do better on average under democratic policies. ;)
 
Superfreak said:
"If you don't think the public sector, public policies, government regulation (or lack thereof), public debt, trade policies, tax and fiscal policies don't have an affect on the overall health of the business and consumer climate, we really have nothing to discuss. "

That was not my question Cypress. I do believe all of those have an effect. Now tell me... how can the President effect it on his own? How can he do any of that without Congress Cypress????
Click to expand...


If you click on my link, it also explains how the market does better, on average, under Democratic congress's, too.
 
from the article:


Republicans are no doubt muttering that that's just the stock market, not the whole economy. But real GDP growth follows the same pattern. Since 1930 (the first year decent data is available), GDP growth was 5.4 percent for Democratic presidents and 1.6 percent for Republicans.
Click to expand...


:clink:
 
All of the stories are based on the same letter that selects all of its data from only one indicator. Basically all of the sources are sourced from the one letter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top