Warren Buffett supports Hillary

Cypress said:
Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Such anger! Why does 100 years of data make you so angry? ;)

Of course you can conclude it's all bullshit, and that presumably, Democrats got "lucky"....time after time after time, over and over and over again.

And that Republicans just were "unlucky"...over and over and over again, time after time after time.


I understand that you've been trained with slogans, that the GOP is better for markets and business.

As for me? I make judgements and conclusions based on data, facts, and evidence....not on slogans.


:clink:
Click to expand...

Oh, and SF? One more thing.

I think that you stand virtually alone, when you say it's all bullshit, that presidents and goverment policies don't affect business and markets. And that the correlation between good market and democrats is just a random, lucky statistical artifact for democrats.

Ask any single on of the 18 GOP and Dem presidential nominees. Ask George Bush. ALL of them will say that Presidents, and goverment policies, do have an effect on markets and business. ;). That's what I mean, that you're standing virutally alone when you say that Presidents and goverment polcies can't affect business and markets.
 
"No, Cypress is right Sf. Because to discount this, you have to believe that is all one big coincidence, and one that lasted for a century? That doesn't pass the smell test here."

Darla... since Cypress refuses to discuss it... perhaps you will answer for me.

Take one period... the 1990's.... and tell me... Did Clinton cause this performance on his own? The boom started BEFORE he took office. The market downturn began BEFORE he left office. What did Clinton do to cause the upturn and downturn?

What effect did Clinton have on the telecom boom? The internet evolution? The technological advances in microchips etc...???

The answer is little. The answer if asked what did he do on his own... is NONE.

You can break down the economic conditions for any of the Presidents in a similar manner. There are other factors that are at play.

Is it Bush's fault that he inherited a recession? That 9/11 occurred and tanked the market?

Was it Reagans fault he inherited a mess from Carter with sky high inflation and interest rates?

Did FDR do anything to pull us out of the depression? Or was it WWII that kickstarted the industrial revolution?

By the way... if you dislike Big Business... please note, that by your "analysis"... BIG BUSINESS does better under Dems... not Reps.... ;)
 
"I understand that you've been trained with slogans, that the GOP is better for markets and business. "

Please show me where I stated that. YOU are the one pitching the idiotic belief that your party is somehow better for the market.

The market... if you want to look at the government as a whole... which you seem to refuse to do.... does BETTER, when their is a split in power... when one party controls the White House and the other both houses of Congress.

But you keep ignoring that little gem.... just as you ignore the fact that trying to correlate market performance solely to who is in the White House is ignorant at best.

You want a real analysis... break it down as a combination.... not as individual pieces.... and do TRY to include what is going on outside of politics. Because whether you want to admit it or not... the American workforce is what drives the market.... not a bunch of politicians.
 
It also proves that regulations are not all that bad for businesses....
People had long trusted highly regulated utility companies with their pension plan investments and such.
Did not work out so well with Enron did it.
 
Superfreak said:
"No, Cypress is right Sf. Because to discount this, you have to believe that is all one big coincidence, and one that lasted for a century? That doesn't pass the smell test here."

Darla... since Cypress refuses to discuss it... perhaps you will answer for me.

Take one period... the 1990's.... and tell me... Did Clinton cause this performance on his own? The boom started BEFORE he took office. The market downturn began BEFORE he left office. What did Clinton do to cause the upturn and downturn?

What effect did Clinton have on the telecom boom? The internet evolution? The technological advances in microchips etc...???

The answer is little. The answer if asked what did he do on his own... is NONE.

You can break down the economic conditions for any of the Presidents in a similar manner. There are other factors that are at play.

Is it Bush's fault that he inherited a recession? That 9/11 occurred and tanked the market?

Was it Reagans fault he inherited a mess from Carter with sky high inflation and interest rates?

Did FDR do anything to pull us out of the depression? Or was it WWII that kickstarted the industrial revolution?

By the way... if you dislike Big Business... please note, that by your "analysis"... BIG BUSINESS does better under Dems... not Reps.... ;)
Click to expand...


What you are saying here, is exactly what Cypress says you are saying. That for one hundred years, the dems have been lucky, time and time and time again, AND, that for one hundred years, the Republicans have been unlucky time and time and time again.

If that seems reasonable to you, then that's fine. Personally, I find this theory to be highly doubtful.
 
"I think that you stand virtually alone, when you say it's all bullshit, that presidents and goverment policies don't affect business and markets. And that the correlation between good market and democrats is just a random, lucky statistical artifact for democrats. "

And AGAIN... your selective reading skills may make it appear that is what I said. I never said that government policies don't affect business and markets. I SAID... the President cannot create policies on his own that affect the market. Thus, it is important to factor into the Clinton numbers that it was the Reps that controlled Congress. Similarly for Reagan, it was the Dems that Controlled Congress for most of his two terms... Same for Bush Sr.

Ask any one of them and 100% will answer that the President cannot control policy on his/her own.
 
Darla said:
What you are saying here, is exactly what Cypress says you are saying. That for one hundred years, the dems have been lucky, time and time and time again, AND, that for one hundred years, the Republicans have been unlucky time and time and time again.

If that seems reasonable to you, then that's fine. Personally, I find this theory to be highly doubtful.
Click to expand...

but then again Darla, fools are generally pretty unlucky.
 
uscitizen said:
It also proves that regulations are not all that bad for businesses....
People had long trusted highly regulated utility companies with their pension plan investments and such.
Did not work out so well with Enron did it.
Click to expand...
What it proves is consistency is what is best for the market. If the rules are unlikely to change because there is a power split there is a higher likelihood for better stock performance. The perfomance was most enhanced during split government.

Politicians consistently want to change things, this mucks everything up and takes much of the efficiency out of business. There is a learning curve to each new rule, or how the removal of certain rules effect businesses. Each such change mucks the formula.

Just leave them alone if you want the market to do well. It won't be 100% effective, but it will certainly give a better result than constantly changing things to show that you are doing something.
 
Let's test SF's hypothesis, that for a century's-worth of Data, it's just a random statistical artifact, that the stock market did better - over and over and over again - under Democratic Adminstrations.


Surely, if it is a insignificant statistical artifact (no correlation between Dems and good markets), then if we look at a host of other economic metrics, we will see randomness: i.e., one party won't dominate the other party, decade after decade, in producing better economic metrics:


Real Disposable Income Growth (annual):

Dems: 3.65%
GOP: 3.08%

Employment Gains, per year:

Dems: 1.684/year
GOP: 1.279/year

Unemployment (average annual):

Dems: 5.1%
GOP: 6.75%

GDP Growth (annual):

Dems: 3.9%
GOP: 2.9%

Inflation

Dems: 4.26%
GOP: 4.96%

Growth in Federal Spending:

Dems: 6.96%
GOP: 7.57%

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm
Click to expand...

Wierd.

On every SINGLE economic metric, for decades and decades, economic perfomance under Democrats is superior.


The stock market/economic metric performance correlation to the Democrats doesn't seem to be random at all.

:clink:
 
That is why the Repubs power is based on marketing and spin.
They don't have the walk only the talk.

And fools keep getting sucked in.
 
"What you are saying here, is exactly what Cypress says you are saying. That for one hundred years, the dems have been lucky, time and time and time again, AND, that for one hundred years, the Republicans have been unlucky time and time and time again."

So again... Darla... you will also duck the issue.... what can a President do on his or her own? Without Congress??? Please answer just this one simple thing. IF the answer is that the President needs Congress to enact legislation... then the charts are pointless.... and yes, it was lucky for Clinton to be President during the bulk of the tech/telecom/internet boom. Just as Truman and Ike benefitted from the great run at the start of the industrial revolution.

But please continue to ignore the business cycle, the american workforce etc... The President is the sole contributor to the market performance... baaaaaa
 
Umm just because we cannot fully expalin something does not mean it is not true or does not exist. We knew about gravity for at least 6,000 years ( :D ) before we figured out a bit of what it is.

the corelation is there. to deny it is asinine.
 
welcome to SF name that policy responsible for the dems gain.

Uhhh, how bout the one that puts more money in the little guys pocket to spend thereby helping the majority of businesses which equals the market outperform. I'll let some political dork put a name to one of many such policies like the soon to take affect higher minimum wage or the unionization of many moons ago.
Grasshopper your have gone to the darkside
 
"On every SINGLE economic metric, for decades and decades, economic perfomance under Democrats is superior. "

Imagine that.. you use the same error and it produces the same result. Once again you are failing to look at any other factor than who was President.

YOUR OWN SOURCE... stated that the BEST... the BEST years for the market were when one party controlled the WH and the other controlled both houses of Congress.

So as Damo and I have both said...the market does BEST when the politicians are stalemated.

But please... continue to ignore my points on the industrial revolution. Continue to act as though Clinton had anything to do with the internet/tech/telecom boom of the 90's. yeah... his policies that he somehow enacted without Congress had a great impact on the market. Right???
 
"welcome to SF name that policy responsible for the dems gain."

What are you talking about??? Their claim is that somehow there is a market correlation based on who is in the White House. Not one policy has been implemented by the White House WITHOUT CONGRESS. What part of this is so hard for you to comprehend?

"Uhhh, how bout the one that puts more money in the little guys pocket to spend thereby helping the majority of businesses which equals the market outperform. I'll let some political dork put a name to one of many such policies like the soon to take affect higher minimum wage or the unionization of many moons ago."

What is the above? You smoking crack? Somehow it is I that am mistaken because NONE of you can provide one shred of evidence to suggest that somehow the President can implement policy that significantly affects the market and that he does so without Congress.

"Grasshopper your have gone to the darkside"

You need to re-think your whole "grasshopper" jargon... for you are completely wrong on this issue.
 
Lets try it this way...

1) Did the Industrial Revolution begin due to WWII or due to some policy that FDR or Truman passed without Congress?

2) Did Ike do anything on his own (again, without Congress) to keep the Industrial revolution going?

3) Did Reagan create Apple computers? Microsoft? IBM?

4) Did Bush Sr create Intel or Dell?

5) Did Clinton create the internet? did he create some policy that led to the expansion of broadband? If so, did he do it with or without Congress?

6) was the tech boom of the 90's created by a President? Or was it due in large part to new innovations coupled with a desire to upgrade technology to avoid any potential Y2K problems?

7) Was it just a coincidence that the SAME President who resided over the boom was also President when the tech market began its collapse? Was it Clintons fault? or was is simply that everyone upgraded tech prior to Y2K and then afterwards reduced tech spending, sending the performance of those tech stocks into a spin?

8) Was the market overly euphoric during the 90's? In 99 especially, the market prices of stocks were largely ignoring their fundamentals....

But please... continue to ignore the economic and business environment... it is the President alone that causes the market to go up. No other factors come into play.
 
Superfreak said:
"What you are saying here, is exactly what Cypress says you are saying. That for one hundred years, the dems have been lucky, time and time and time again, AND, that for one hundred years, the Republicans have been unlucky time and time and time again."

So again... Darla... you will also duck the issue.... what can a President do on his or her own? Without Congress??? Please answer just this one simple thing. IF the answer is that the President needs Congress to enact legislation... then the charts are pointless.... and yes, it was lucky for Clinton to be President during the bulk of the tech/telecom/internet boom. Just as Truman and Ike benefitted from the great run at the start of the industrial revolution.

But please continue to ignore the business cycle, the american workforce etc... The President is the sole contributor to the market performance... baaaaaa
Click to expand...

SF, I'm not an economist. I don't fully understand gravity either, but I make no claims that it doesn't exist.

Just because I am not economically educated enough to explain this, does not mean that I can dismiss what, over one hundred years, becomes something that is obvious. Maybe Paul Krugman could explain it. But I'm not him.
 
hey neocon cracker

the reference is whose in the whitehouse tool
get rid of the crutch of congress for this agrument, for a lot of our time a popular President strong arms the congress and gets his way. Just not with your Boy GW!!!:pke:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top