Warren Buffett supports Hillary

I've seen a lot more than one article that's for dam sure, SF Lucy keeps trying to splain away. LOL

Nobody said main reason except you, to say Presidents policies don't have anything to do with markets is comical. thanks for the laughs Lucy!!!:clink:
 
"You might want to check that list again, SF. You got it totally backwards. "

ok... market performance rankings went....

Clinton, Ford, Truman, Ike, Reagan, Bush Sr.

Yep... four of the top six were REPS and two were DEMS.
 
"Nobody said main reason except you, to say Presidents policies don't have anything to do with markets is comical"

God you are a fool... NOWHERE did I say a Presidents policies don't have anything to do with the markets. NOT once. YOU and CYPRESS keep trying to act as though I did. I continue to point out the fact that NOT ONE of the Presidents policies can be implemented WITHOUT CONGRESS. You fucking idiot. Do try to grasp that simple little fact this time.
 
"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."

Now, what your Forbes article doesn't tell you is that the economic numbers were good under Ford. They were consistently improving. But again, they are taking average numbers rather than looking at the DIRECTION of the numbers. Improving economic numbers stimulate investor confidence. Also factor in that when you have improving economic numbers, projections for future growth also tend to be more optimistic, which also drives stock prices higher.

But again, they are comparing averages and in that case, yes, there is not going to be as much of a correlation. Because they are saying the economic numbers were below average and thus the improving market didn't correlate. But when you look at the direction the numbers were moving, there most certaily IS a correlation. Why the hell do you think the market pays so much attention to the economic indicators when they come out? Because there is little correlation?

But please, continue trying to argue economics with your cut and paste strategy.
 
Superfreak said:
"You might want to check that list again, SF. You got it totally backwards. "

ok... market performance rankings went....

Clinton, Ford, Truman, Ike, Reagan, Bush Sr.

Yep... four of the top six were REPS and two were DEMS.
Click to expand...

Oh I thought you were talking about the performance ranking on the economy overall. Where 4 of the top 6 were Dems.

Spin all you want. The fact is that on average stock market does better under dems, for a century's worth of data. You can't dispute the numbers:


More interesting stuff from Forbes Magazine:

Republican wins give the stock market a short-term boost. Stocks tend to do better right after a Republican is elected President than after a Democratic victory. This makes sense, because most investors expect--rightly or wrongly--that Republicans will be better for the market and so bid up stocks in anticipation. Wharton School finance professor Jeremy Siegel finds that since 1888 the market has risen an average of 0.7% the day after a Republican win and dropped an average of 0.5% after a Democratic win.

Longer term, stocks do better under Democrats. While stocks get a short-term boost from Republicans, over the course of an entire presidency they tend to do better under Democrats. That's especially true for small caps. Part of the reason is that small caps respond more sharply than large caps to economic ups and downs, and Republicans have presided over many more downs. Since 1929, 30% of the months under Republicans have been spent in recession, compared with just 10% under Democrats.
Click to expand...
 
Lucy freak to the moon with you.
It's going to be a long 8 yrs of Clintonomics for you.
Do yourself a favor and stay in the market.
Cypress and I'll will be here to ruby your Lucy Limbaugh face in it each year she beats bush:pke:
 
"The fact is that on average stock market does better under dems, for a century's worth of data. You can't dispute the numbers:"

Actually, I can and have... because the "averages" don't hold up when you look at the BEST performers now do they? Your own site showed that.
 
But regardless, I am done trying to explain economics to you two. You clearly are not capable of grasping the concepts.

So let me speak in a language you will understand....

baaaaaaaaaaaaa
 
freak your the one acting like a two year old.
The fact was presented to you several time by different economist, that holds more weight than your general business/used car salesman degree.:clink:
 
top...

Which one of us is presenting reasons why the other is wrong and which of us is simply attempting to spout off one liners?

Also, no one really gets upset with your attempts to belittle their education. It simply makes you look all the more foolish, as well as shows us all how truly insecure you really are.
 
At least you gave up your foolish argument against the numbers LUCY

I don't tout my MBA as any better than another good school MBA, it's eduction vs not. I'm pro education.

Just like martial arts I'm trained, if you are not; we'll even a churn and burn used car salesman like you can do that math.:clink:
 
top... an MBA does not mean a damn thing when it comes to real world application. That is what morons like you simply cannot understand. Yes, an education can further build upon your foundation of knowledge. But it is most definitely not the be all end all. Bill Gates would make most people look ignorant when it comes to software design... yet he is a college dropout.

I will put my economics background against your precious MBA anyday.

Anyone who has read this thread understands which of us has provided evidence against the others views.

But please, use that special little MBA to justify your insanely simplistic views of how the markets work. It just goes to further the belief that you are an economic moron.
 
Let me take a wild guess lucy you don't have an advanced degree?
Do you even have a bachelors.
I'll put my MBA market trained returns against your churn and burn used cars sales attitude any day.
 
You really do think way too highly of your "degrees" top. Again.... over the course of your life, do you think you have learned more from actual real world experience or from your college degrees? Recent college grads may say they learned more from college... but most people in the real world will tell you that a degree is simply a foundation. It does not dictate your ability to apply what you know to the real world situations that you will face.

Intelligence is also relevant only to the topic being currently discussed. As I stated before... on economics or finance, I can go toe to toe with anyone. With regards to rebuilding a car engine, I am an idiot.

The answer to your question is no, I do not have an MBA. Nor do I feel the need for one. There is little an economics or finance professor can share with me that I do not already know or that I cannot learn on my own. You on the other hand should ask for a refund. For they ripped you off. You are proof that an MBA in and of itself is meaningless if the person with it fails to possess the ability to apply what they have "learned".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top