Warren Buffett supports Hillary

Nope still do not like Jane Fonda, although she did look pretty good in Barbarella :)
I just wanted to survive to get back. I had nothing against charlie.
Those poor people and my government was forcing me to give them yet more grief. I speak mainly of the people who were trying to live in the middle of a war. I did develop intense hatred of charlie for a long while though, but that too was our governments fault.
 
Battleborne said:
and for the record you are the one who does all the sexual innuendo in here...your numerous past post are your history...This has nothing to do with me flirting with you...I detest Communists and their sypathizers...you can run dodge, hide and try your best to discredit me...but when all else fails...get a clue! You are a Communist! and I will continue the fight against my country being taken over by the likes/ilk of you and yours!
Click to expand...

Yep she is a bit flirty, but you sometimes respond very crudely...
I sort of figured you to be the age to be of the old school about Gentlemen and Ladies ?
Guess I was wrong...
 
"freak who's the moron,"

Well, on this topic, that would of course be YOU.

"I'm with Cypress 100% on this one."

Yeah, he is flat out wrong on this as well. Good time to side with him 100%

"Read this, NEITHER ONE OF US SAID IT WAS 100% DUE TO THE DEM PRES."

My god you are an idiot.... THE CHARTS that you keep posting showing the performance of the market under Dem Presidents vs. Rep Presidents does just that. It states the markets do better under Dem Presidents. Which leads idiots like you to claim the market will do better under Dems. It does not take into account who was controlling Congress. Nor does it consider any other factors.

So please... tell me how the boom of the 90's was due to the Dem President... you don't give two shits about other factors because you want to cling to your idiotic belief that the markets are better simply by having a Dem in the White House.

"8 years more Clintonomics @ 15% average"

Fine, then by your "logic"... you should also have a Rep controlled Congress.

"vs 8 yrs more fat old white fossil @8%"

I thought you said you WANTED Clinton in the White House????
 
you sound like a churn and burn broker!!!

Facts have been laid out, and all you do is pout!!

rising tide mr churn rising tide:clink:
 
"you sound like a churn and burn broker!!!"

WTF??? Man you are an idiot.

"Facts have been laid out, and all you do is pout!!"

For the final time. You are trying to attach causation to correlation with no justification. THAT does not equate to facts.
 
I hear economist giving credit to Reagan and Clinton all the time.
I'll go with that over a churn and burn brokers misguided politacal hackness.:pke:
 
Yes, you can give them credit top... and should. But to state that one party is better than another simply based on average returns of the market is WRONG. Because to be honest, you would have to note that Reagan, Clinton, Ike and Truman all benefited from either the tech revolution or the industrial revolution. More so than other Presidents. The market performance under those four thus had an advantage.

Add to that the fact that all three of the four worked predominantly with Congress controlled by the opposing party. Meaning their was a balance of power in DC. Which means extreme views were moderated by compromise when policies were set in place.

Side note: how in your warped little mind did you jump to the conclusion that somehow I am a churn and burn broker just because I tried to get you to understand economics?... you know... that subject you proclaim to know so much about?
 
I pulled it out of my bag titled slams that will piss them off. zing!!

splain away all you want Lucy, dems da facts:clink:
 
Hmm spinner rags on me about mis being the master of finance...

Nice to see his ass handed to him by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
 
"I pulled it out of my bag titled slams that will piss them off. zing!!"

Didn't piss me off.... just shows your ignorance.

"splain away all you want Lucy, dems da facts"

Hmmmm... you have now lost all credibility with your claims of economic analytical abilities. You clearly have no grasp on economics.
 
blow me I haven't lost shit
your the one out of line with consensus
Cypress post some article from an ECONOMIST, many dimes duplicated and these guys are on the talk shows commenting frequently on Clinton and Reagans effects on the economy.
Again what kind of analyst are you that you can piss away what top economist say. Hence the churn and burn comment, one not respected by many
 
Topspin said:
blow me I haven't lost shit
your the one out of line with consensus
Cypress post some article from an ECONOMIST, many dimes duplicated and these guys are on the talk shows commenting frequently on Clinton and Reagans effects on the economy.
Again what kind of analyst are you that you can piss away what top economist say. Hence the churn and burn comment, one not respected by many
Click to expand...
It wasn't many times duplicated. I have made the point that each link pointed to the original Economist article as a source.
 
Ok... top... lets try this this way... based on the idiotic assumptions that returns are caused by the President alone... the list would go

1) Clinton
2) Truman
3) Ford
4) Reagan
5) Kennedy
6) Bush Sr.

The above are the top six performers... Goes 2 dem, 2 rep, dem, rep... so even using the same idiotic logic... it still doesn't show that Dems are better for the market. The only reason the averages look the way they do is that the markets got hammered during the oil crisis of 73-74... which tanked Nixon's numbers... and GW Bush got hammered by the tech collapse (that began prior to his taking office)
 
"blow me I haven't lost shit"

No I won't... and yes you have.

"your the one out of line with consensus"

There is no "consensus" that a Dem President is better for the market. Not even close. Do you know what consensus means?

"Cypress post some article from an ECONOMIST, many dimes duplicated and these guys are on the talk shows commenting frequently on Clinton and Reagans effects on the economy."

Right I understand he did.... and I pointed out why that economist was wrong in making such a simplistic view of what effects the market.

You are also confusing what people say about Reagan and Clinton with equating the market returns to their policies. I have stated that their policies do deserve praise (for the most part), but that their are other factors other than their policies that affect market returns. Not to mention the fact that both Reagan and Clinton had the opposing party in control of Congress for the majority of their terms. (a fact you continue to ignore... which simply shows ignorance) Which means their policies CANNOT be put in place without the aide of the opposing party... so even if you think their policies are solely responsible for market performance, you have to give credit for the performance to BOTH parties for BOTH of those Presidents. So again, just looking at average returns tells you NOTHING.

"Again what kind of analyst are you that you can piss away what top economist say. Hence the churn and burn comment, one not respected by many"

The kind of analyst who actually looks at ALL of the FACTORS that effect the market and not some simplistic piece of cherry picking like this "top" economist did.
 
Oh, found yet another independent study, that confirms that markets on average do better under democrats, and that the differences between democrats and republicans is much too large and pronounced, to be due to randomness

From the not-so-liberal Forbes Magazine:


NEW YORK - Does the president affect your portfolio? Candidates would certainly like you to think that the answer is yes, and that the particular candidate doing the talking is better than the other guy.

Over the years, several studies have shown that the stock market has fared markedly better under Democrats than Republicans. (see: "The Presidential Portfolio") The difference, according to Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov, both professors at the University of California Los Angeles Anderson School of Business, is much too large to be random and cannot be explained by fluctuations in the business cycle. Nor can it be explained by higher interest rates in Republican administrations.

The UCLA professors looked at data going back to 1927. Our own study of the post-World War II presidencies confirms their results.

We found that the S&P 500 has averaged a total return of 14.1% per year under Democratic presidents since April 1945, and 11.8% under Republicans.


http://www.forbes.com/strategies/2004/07/21/cx_da_0721presidents.html
Click to expand...


Not that they also, they used a broad range of economic metrics, to ranks the presidents, from best to worst, on the economy:


1) Bill Clinton
2) LBJ
3) JFK
4) Reagan
5) Ford
6) Carter
7) Truman
8) Nixon
9) Eisenhower
10) Poppy Bush.


Note how, on average, the economy as a whole does better under democrats.
 
:wall:

My God... another simplistic look. AGAIN... the economic numbers should correlate to the market performance. When the economy is strong, market will also tend to be strong.

WHAT YOU ARE CONTINUALLY FAILING TO COMPREHEND IS THIS....

The Industrial revolution did not come about because of Trumans policies.

The Tech revolution of 1982-2000 had little to do with the policies of Reagan, Bush Sr. or Clinton.

Clinton had little to do with the internet expansion or broadband expansion.

NONE of their policies can be implemented without Congress. So WHY would you look at JUST the occupant of the White House? WHY would you not include Congress when you are looking at government policies?

Oh... right... because it would interfere with your fantasy.
 
Note also from your forbes link (which does get a plus for at least looking at the S&P 500 rather than the Dow)

Out of the top 6.... FOUR are Reps. TWO are Dems. How does that fit into your "the Dems are better" line of thought?
 
Superfreak said:
:wall:

My God... another simplistic look. AGAIN... the economic numbers should correlate to the market performance. When the economy is strong, market will also tend to be strong.

WHAT YOU ARE CONTINUALLY FAILING TO COMPREHEND IS THIS....

The Industrial revolution did not come about because of Trumans policies.

The Tech revolution of 1982-2000 had little to do with the policies of Reagan, Bush Sr. or Clinton.

Clinton had little to do with the internet expansion or broadband expansion.

NONE of their policies can be implemented without Congress. So WHY would you look at JUST the occupant of the White House? WHY would you not include Congress when you are looking at government policies?

Oh... right... because it would interfere with your fantasy.
Click to expand...


-Anonymous poster SuperFreak: "My God... another simplistic look. AGAIN... the economic numbers should correlate to the market performance."

VERSUS....

-Professional economists at the not-so-liberal Forbes Magazine:

"Another puzzle: There seems to be little correlation between economic performance and the market. "

Under Ford, for example, the economy was middling but the market enjoyed a 17% total annualized return (share price gains coupled with reinvested dividends). This result may be a fluke as the market fared very poorly just before him under Richard M. Nixon (0.6% return) and continued at sub-par levels under Jimmy Carter. The Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower economies were underwhelming, but the market averaged a total annual return of better than 15% during their years in office.
 
Superfreak said:
Note also from your forbes link (which does get a plus for at least looking at the S&P 500 rather than the Dow)

Out of the top 6.... FOUR are Reps. TWO are Dems. How does that fit into your "the Dems are better" line of thought?
Click to expand...


Out of the top 6.... FOUR are Reps. TWO are Dems.


You might want to check that list again, SF. You got it totally backwards.

One=Best
Rank Ten = worst
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top