If you're peeved about your stock portfolio right now -- and who isn't -- you may be interested in some data The New York Times pulled together on the correlation between the party in the White House and the returns of the market. Click here to check out the all too compelling graphics. A quick summary:
Since 1929, Democrats have been in power for 39.9 years -- over that time, an investment of $10,000 in the S&P Market Index has grow to $300,671. Over the 39.7 years the Republicans have had the White House, a $10,000 investment has grown to just $11,733.
So basically, it's not guns or butter and it's certainly not guns and butter. It's cat food or caviar. So take your pick and punch your ballot. I know it's not really that simple: a correlation does not prove a causal effect and there are many, many factors affecting the market far more than the political affiliation of the guy who pardons the turkey. It's still interesting.
The market really does fare better with Democrats in the White House
Posted Oct 16th 2008 9:45AM by Zac Bissonnette
Filed under: Politics, Presidential elections
Will Rich Ross really have a positive impact on Disney's movie operations?
Consumers sick of recession, may spend extra on holidays
Corrections, seasonality and Santa Claus
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-17-2008 @ 1:28PM
Iridium said...
That could quite possibly be the worst chart ever made to try and prove a point. Those figures are filled with more BS than Obama.
It includes 15% Clinton but does not tell the story that the economic policies of the Clinton administration created one of the biggest stock bubbles in history. While the crash intensified during the Bush years it began while Clinton was still in office. The first loss under Bush should have been attributed to Clinton, rather than give him a 15% gain.
Even the current crash has more to do with the policies put in place by Clinton and Rubin than the policies passed through by GB.
What you see in the chart is that the Democrats preside over more market bubbles than Republicans. Fake money rather than real money. I'd also take the economy under Eisenhower, Bush, and Reagan than Johnson, Roosevelt, and Carter.