And how can you just decide to throw out 1929 Hoover….just because it helps the Socialist cause?

Sarbynes Oxley Regtns brought on by Enron is placing a penalty on the economy of 100 billion……and didnt prevent a dang thing.

Get the Govt out of the way….capitalism will fix this thing if given the chance. Obama’s meddling will cause a calamity….but then of course you would throw that out of the long term study also.

Previous: Carter and all Dem Congress: Not good
Nixon/Ford and all Dem Congress: Terrible
LBJ and progressive Congress following 1964 blowout: Dow peaks adjusted for inflation about 1965.
Eisenhower/Kennedy/LBJ through Jan 1965): Conserv Congress (often nominally all Dem but southern Dems are today’s Repubs): Best sustained bull perhaps ever
(Not sure of HST’s Congress 1949-53)
FDR (+HST through 1949): Little net movement in Dow for 15 years. Worst year in Dow history was 1931, down about half; began year near 1929 low. Dems ran House from 1931 on.

Also note: Dec 31, 1920-Jan 2 1931 (all Repub Pres and Congress: major LT bull: from 72-170 in those 10 years, at a time of no inflation and high dividend payouts. (NB 1929 a flat year and move down in 1930 only reversed a part of the LT bull)

Democratic/liberal Congresses tend to be associated with less strong stock returns than Repub/conserv Congresses, it would appear. The 3 great bull mkts of the 20th C (1920s, 1948-65, 1982-take yr pick for ending date) all involved Repub/conserv Congresses, often w Repub Pres. Liberal Congresses from 1931-late 1940s; 1965-Carter; and current Congress all assoc w poor markets. The liberal Congress of 1987-94 was assoc w a strong market, however.

Could it be that Repub/conserv Congresses spend less money, leading to better free market/stock market returns than more liberal Congresses? I am not arguing that the price of stocks should determine social and tax policy; just making observations and hypotheses of specific relevance to investors. Perhaps in reality “bull” markets are really not such good things, as they always go to excess and cause much bad after the bear takes over. Perhaps BO can mandate 5% gains every yr plus 3% dividend yields; Milton Friedman might approve!

“When you have a deflationary event, it usually bodes well for the Democrats, because they are the ones that are associated with better hourly wage for the worker” and other economic aid, said Quincy Krosby, chief investment strategist at The Hartford, and a former assistant secretary of Commerce.

Through 401(K)s and otherwise, the majority of Americans now own stocks. A study cosponsored by trade group the Securities Industry Association estimated 57% of Americans owned stocks in 2005. Since the 1980s, the incumbent party has done better when the stock market was strong.

Conversely, some of the strongest election-year market returns recently correspond with victory for incumbents: the Dow was up 11% in 1988 when George H.W. Bush held the White House for the Republicans, and it was up 18% when Bill Clinton held it for the Democrats in 1996. Jimmy Carter is a notable exception to this rough correlation: he unseated a Republican in a strong year for the stock market, 1976, then lost it on another strong year for stocks, 1980.

Has anyone ever looked at it that way?

You are absolutely correct in your above post. And someone has numbers to prove it for you. Check http://blog.wolfram.com/2008/10/16/stock-market-returns-by-presidential-party/

Interesting Points:
1. The original Times OpEd ignored inflation. If you consider inflation, Republicans are ahead by 100% margin.

2. Start measuring performance from 1932 instead of 1897, once again Republicans are away ahead.

3. Most important of them all, if you ignore the party in charge and invested in market continously, you would become a millionaire.

Starting Investment: 10,000$ in 1897

Investing during only Republican parties: $156017
Investing during only Republican parties: $217,202
Investing in market regardless of parties:
(hold your breath) $3,388,713.

Well, you have your answer. I would suggest that you make another post and link to this important nugget from your highly popular blog and spread some more awareness.

Thanks,
RJ.

“So?” is rhetorical.

You speak of “inequity”, but “inequity” is an outcome, not a precondition. Is it fair that Bill Gates is n-times more wealthy than me? I would say yes, a liberal would say no. Bill Gates OWES me nothing. Bill Gates OWES the poorest soul on earth nothing. Ethically and morally, Bill Gates should help the less fortunate, but ethically and morally, government has no right to confiscate his wealth.

There’s a huge difference between voluntary giving and forcible confiscation. Spreading SOMEONE ELSE’S wealth around is immoral, arrogant and economically imprudent. A society where the majority votes themselves wealth and services derived from the forcible plunder of a minority is doomed.

Please tell me how Obama’s economic policies differ from Marx’ ‘from each to each’ mantra? He absolutely supports the spirit and meaning of this statement.

btw, when it comes to voluntary giving, have you read about Biden’s pathetic record of charitable contributions? I would love to see how much Obama supporters earning over $250,000 give to charity.