The stock market does better when a Democrat is a President than a Republican

[lpetrich]

Stocks perform better when a Democrat is in the White House. History proves it - CNN

President Donald Trump has warned of economic and financial Armageddon if Joe Biden and the Democrats retake the White House next year. But history paints a very different story.

Both the stock market and the real economy tend to do better when Democrats, not Republicans, are in charge.

Since 1945, the S&P 500 has averaged an annual gain of 11.2% during years when Democrats controlled the White House, according to CFRA Research. That's well ahead of the 6.9% average gain under Republicans.

"The market does do better under Democratic presidential control," said Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at CFRA Research.

The divide is even more pronounced in the earliest days of a new administration: During the first year of a Democratic presidential term, the S&P 500 has climbed an average of 16.7%, compared with 0.4% for Republicans.

This despite Trump screaming things like

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "Just In: Chinese State Media and Leaders of CHINA want Biden to win “the U.S. Election”. If this happened (which it won’t), China would own our Country, and our Record Setting Stock Markets would literally CRASH!" / Twitter

Another article: Stock market performance by president, from Reagan to Trump - CNN.com - shows that it does better under D's than R's.

Back to the first article. Ten of the last 11 recessions started during a Republican's Presidency, with the only exception being in Jimmy Carter's Presidency.

"Every Republican president since Benjamin Harrison, who served from 1889 to 1893, had a recession start in their first term in office, Stovall said. Trump was on track to break that streak -- until the pandemic ended the longest economic expansion in American history."

 

[Shadowy Man]

CNN? Fake news, obviously.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Old news. This was known long before the era of His Flatulence.

 

[Politesse]

The truth about American neoliberalism. Democrats are the ideological center, and the party of stability and maintenance of the status quo, Republicans are the radical Right, generally conservative but prone to unpredictable behavior that makes the markets nervous. There is no Left. An actual Left would be utterly deliterious to the health of the stock market, and pleased as punch about that fact.

 

[J842P]

The truth about American neoliberalism. Democrats are the ideological center, and the party of stability and maintenance of the status quo, Republicans are the radical Right, generally conservative but prone to unpredictable behavior that makes the markets nervous. There is no Left. An actual Left would be utterly deliterious to the health of the stock market, and pleased as punch about that fact.

Yes, precisely stated.

 

[Jayjay]

It would be interesting to see the same numbers for congress. Are republican presidents more or less likely than democrats to have a senate and/or house of the opposing party? Also, it's possible that there is an opposite causation in that people tend to vote for democrats in good times and republicans when they have grievances.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The truth about American neoliberalism. Democrats are the ideological center, and the party of stability and maintenance of the status quo, Republicans are the radical Right, generally conservative but prone to unpredictable behavior that makes the markets nervous. There is no Left. An actual Left would be utterly deliterious to the health of the stock market, and pleased as punch about that fact.

Good that it's out in the open! But this is one of the reasons why a majority does not vote far left. Most Americans need a healthy stock market to retire someday.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The truth about American neoliberalism. Democrats are the ideological center, and the party of stability and maintenance of the status quo, Republicans are the radical Right, generally conservative but prone to unpredictable behavior that makes the markets nervous. There is no Left. An actual Left would be utterly deliterious to the health of the stock market, and pleased as punch about that fact.

Good that it's out in the open! But this is one of the reasons why a majority does not vote far left. Most Americans need a healthy stock market to retire someday.

Sad but true as we moved from pension plans to the 401k. Now the median household age 55-64 has just two years income saved in a retirement account. And to think they once wanted to throw Social Security to the wolves too.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The truth about American neoliberalism. Democrats are the ideological center, and the party of stability and maintenance of the status quo, Republicans are the radical Right, generally conservative but prone to unpredictable behavior that makes the markets nervous. There is no Left. An actual Left would be utterly deliterious to the health of the stock market, and pleased as punch about that fact.

Wut?

Show your work.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...c-stock-markets-are-among-the-best-2016-03-24

 

[Politesse]

The truth about American neoliberalism. Democrats are the ideological center, and the party of stability and maintenance of the status quo, Republicans are the radical Right, generally conservative but prone to unpredictable behavior that makes the markets nervous. There is no Left. An actual Left would be utterly deliterious to the health of the stock market, and pleased as punch about that fact.

Wut?

Show your work.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...c-stock-markets-are-among-the-best-2016-03-24

Do you really want to have a conversation about the nature of Nordic socialism and what it is/is not allowed to touch, or was this just supposed to be a gotcha post?

Harry's post is much more salient. We can talk about it as an ideology, but the real truth of capitalism is that it does not need powerful people to defend it; the fuel of capitalism is personal incentive, and it works without anyone driving the bus.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The truth about American neoliberalism. Democrats are the ideological center, and the party of stability and maintenance of the status quo, Republicans are the radical Right, generally conservative but prone to unpredictable behavior that makes the markets nervous. There is no Left. An actual Left would be utterly deliterious to the health of the stock market, and pleased as punch about that fact.

Wut?

Show your work.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...c-stock-markets-are-among-the-best-2016-03-24

Do you really want to have a conversation about the nature of Nordic socialism and what it is/is not allowed to touch, or was this just supposed to be a gotcha post?

Harry's post is much more salient. We can talk about it as an ideology, but the real truth of capitalism is that it does not need powerful people to defend it; the fuel of capitalism is personal incentive, and it works without anyone driving the bus.

This wasn't actually a gotcha. I would like to know your thoughts, because yes, my impression (I'm certainly not an economist, but did you read the link I provided?) is that there are plenty of countries well to the left of the US that do just fine with a stock market and other economic factors.

 

[J842P]

The truth about American neoliberalism. Democrats are the ideological center, and the party of stability and maintenance of the status quo, Republicans are the radical Right, generally conservative but prone to unpredictable behavior that makes the markets nervous. There is no Left. An actual Left would be utterly deliterious to the health of the stock market, and pleased as punch about that fact.

Wut?

Show your work.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...c-stock-markets-are-among-the-best-2016-03-24

The Scandinavian countries aren't socialist. Look, I would basically not take anything that marketwatch.com writes about socialism seriously.

The Scandinavian countries lean a lot to the left, but they are still capitalist. Essentially, they just have a large welfare state. That isn't socialism. Which is what The Left is. Politesse is just using terminology correctly.

 

[Politesse]

Do you really want to have a conversation about the nature of Nordic socialism and what it is/is not allowed to touch, or was this just supposed to be a gotcha post?

Harry's post is much more salient. We can talk about it as an ideology, but the real truth of capitalism is that it does not need powerful people to defend it; the fuel of capitalism is personal incentive, and it works without anyone driving the bus.

This wasn't actually a gotcha. I would like to know your thoughts, because yes, my impression (I'm certainly not an economist, but did you read the link I provided?) is that there are plenty of countries well to the left of the US that do just fine with a stock market and other economic factors.

Well, an economist I am not. But my general impression is that the Nordic nations, though invested very much culturally in the idea of a strong, supportive state that serves its citizens, nevertheless go to extreme lengths to preserve and support business interests as well, and maintain their control over former colonial relationships and capital flow. Like the US Democratic party, their "leftness" is more aesthetic than structural in character, though they do a much better job of actually coming through on the promises they make to their constituents, which they can do in part because your average, say, Swede, is not as averse to taxation as most US Americans would be provided they are convinced that the money generated is being well spent and they can personally see the positive outcomes from it. I would not say that these nations aren't socialist in some sense, but they are not strongly Leftist in the economic sense. Truly challenging the excesses of capitalism is a more daunting project than mere taxation can accomplish, and if anything high taxation would tend to encourage increased and diversified investment on the part of a corporation; they still have to balance their budget, yes? Also in the vein of structure, it's harder to build a pile of inherited wealth and just sit on it as a family if your government is specifically trying to discourage that very behavior. So you're going to see a very active market, in fact.

Overtly Leftist parties tend to have limited real political power; observe, for instance, the current estimation of the combined political power of the: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Green_Left_Alliance

And we should not pretend that policy is the only thing that affects wealth, either. I'm not naive about the unique character of the United States' history and the socioeconomic challenges it presents, that a Sweden or Norway are not faced with in the same way. Like a massive, frequently imprisoned and always economically alienated underclass, with limited social mobility and even less abillity to control the investment of their personal capital.

But as I said, there are probably others here who would know better than myself. In general, in any country, I tend to raise an eyebrow when a very wealthy man tells me he's a Leftist....

 

[Worldtraveller]

Ok. I think I get where you're coming from. So when you say an 'actual left' you mean economically (communistic?) left.

Has there, historically (or is there) a country with a more socialist/communist economic system that had or has a stock market? I can see how it would be different, but not necessarily disastrous, but I'd have to see how it's implemented in practice as opposed to just theory.

 

[Politesse]

Ok. I think I get where you're coming from. So when you say an 'actual left' you mean economically (communistic?) left.

Has there, historically (or is there) a country with a more socialist/communist economic system that had or has a stock market? I can see how it would be different, but not necessarily disastrous, but I'd have to see how it's implemented in practice as opposed to just theory.

Well, that's the thing. A stock market is basically a casino for the very wealthy, by any other name; you would not expect it to flourish under a goverment whose express purpose is to dismantle the plutocracy. Communism is not the only possible Leftist platform, but it seems strange to me to call a party, politician, or coalitiion Leftist if it is not on some level intending to dismantle structures of extreme wealth disparity and classism. Looking for a socialist nation with a healthy stock market sounds like looking for a vegetarian nation with a healthy dairy industry. Which, okay, describes Gujarat pretty well, so I suppose the world is just weird sometimes.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The truth about American neoliberalism. Democrats are the ideological center, and the party of stability and maintenance of the status quo, Republicans are the radical Right, generally conservative but prone to unpredictable behavior that makes the markets nervous. There is no Left. An actual Left would be utterly deliterious to the health of the stock market, and pleased as punch about that fact.

Good that it's out in the open! But this is one of the reasons why a majority does not vote far left. Most Americans need a healthy stock market to retire someday.

Sad but true as we moved from pension plans to the 401k. Now the median household age 55-64 has just two years income saved in a retirement account. And to think they once wanted to throw Social Security to the wolves too.

There are quite a few on the right who would dismantle SSN if they could. I agree with your post. I will say that one advantage of the 401k is that it's mobile nature is better suited for the mobile workers of today. I think that government needs to encourage people to invest more in their 401k (and more companies need to offer it.). The last that I heard, only about 55% of Americans own stocks or 401ks.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Sad but true as we moved from pension plans to the 401k. Now the median household age 55-64 has just two years income saved in a retirement account. And to think they once wanted to throw Social Security to the wolves too.

There are quite a few on the right who would dismantle SSN if they could. I agree with your post. I will say that one advantage of the 401k is that it's mobile nature is better suited for the mobile workers of today. I think that government needs to encourage people to invest more in their 401k (and more companies need to offer it.). The last that I heard, only about 55% of Americans own stocks or 401ks.

I guess this is why I was so confused by Poli's initial post. So much of our savings/retirement is tied up in the market that even those without a large 'investment' want the market to do well in general. I'm not exactly wealthy, but I have a six figure 401k/investment. In the last year, I've seen that lose a chunk of change and only barely gain most it back. A whole year to break even sucks. It's worse for those with less.

I still think it would be better if we had some kind of actual pension like SS that we could take with us that was more secure.

 

[Politesse]

Sad but true as we moved from pension plans to the 401k. Now the median household age 55-64 has just two years income saved in a retirement account. And to think they once wanted to throw Social Security to the wolves too.

There are quite a few on the right who would dismantle SSN if they could. I agree with your post. I will say that one advantage of the 401k is that it's mobile nature is better suited for the mobile workers of today. I think that government needs to encourage people to invest more in their 401k (and more companies need to offer it.). The last that I heard, only about 55% of Americans own stocks or 401ks.

I guess this is why I was so confused by Poli's initial post. So much of our savings/retirement is tied up in the market that even those without a large 'investment' want the market to do well in general. I'm not exactly wealthy, but I have a six figure 401k/investment. In the last year, I've seen that lose a chunk of change and only barely gain most it back. A whole year to break even sucks. It's worse for those with less.

I still think it would be better if we had some kind of actual pension like SS that we could take with us that was more secure.

Of course people want, even need, the stock market to do well. But those people are not, in general, friendly to Leftist politics, in part for that very reason. People who actually are on the left sometimes get frustrated that "the workers" who they see themselves as representing often show little support for their projects. But for the average citizen, trading the perception of certain security in exchange for a proposed utopia that they didn't ask for and don't really understand does not sound like a winning proposition.

Even people who do have traditional pensions are still caught up in the stock market to large extent; how do you suppose "traditional" pensions are funded?

 

[Worldtraveller]

I guess this is why I was so confused by Poli's initial post. So much of our savings/retirement is tied up in the market that even those without a large 'investment' want the market to do well in general. I'm not exactly wealthy, but I have a six figure 401k/investment. In the last year, I've seen that lose a chunk of change and only barely gain most it back. A whole year to break even sucks. It's worse for those with less.

I still think it would be better if we had some kind of actual pension like SS that we could take with us that was more secure.

Of course people want, even need, the stock market to do well. But those people are not, in general, friendly to Leftist politics, in part for that very reason. People who actually are on the left sometimes get frustrated that "the workers" who they see themselves as representing often show little support for their projects. But for the average citizen, trading the perception of certain security in exchange for a proposed utopia that they didn't ask for and don't really understand does not sound like a winning proposition.

Even people who do have traditional pensions are still caught up in the stock market to large extent; how do you suppose pension funds are funded?

I guess this is getting a little off on a tangent from the OP now, but what does a 'true' left (for lack of a better term) look like in terms of how it deals with workers/retirement. I'm willing to read if it's easier to just post links.

 

[James Brown]