The economy is not necessarily "better". I am moving to Liechtenstein (or just maybe Austria). I won't be working over there, and will hop around Europe on Easyjet. I would like one more good year of market returns here before I go. So far my timing has been very lucky, the last few years have been terrific. I'm not greedy, but please, just one more...
Flagpole (and Agip), I'll make a slightly different point.
I know that Flagpole has claimed in the past that presidents don't make much difference for the eonomy, but the historical data doesn't back you up. Last month LizAnn Sonders showed a graphic (it's on schwab.com) showing annual economic performance (DJIA) of +8% for democratic presidents and +3% for republican presidents going back to 1901, and this is roughly the same as I have in my own spreadsheet going back to 1970. So which party controls the White House does matter. It seems that control of congress is what doesn't matter (at least for market performance).
BTW, in terms of annualized market performance, Obama is the #1 President all-time to date.
Now, if you go back to 2009 when Obama took office, Republicans refused to go along with any kind of fiscal stimulus because they didn't want to help recovering from the mess (that the Republicans were responsible for making) because they didn't want it to happen on Obama's watch. So you have ZERO fiscal stimulus.
That being the case, the entire weight avoiding the Second Great Depression fell on Ben Bernanke's shoulders, and what he did worked out great for people like Flagpole and me who have been long all this time, and for the top 1%, and the Business Roundtable CEO types.
What I think you have here is evidence of the limits of monetary policy. It doesn't help the average guy on main street that much...but it's crack cocaine if you have investment capital.
So what you really have in the last election is the guy on main street voting into power EXACTLY the people who are responsible for making him worse off: The same Republicans who are precisely responsible for the ZERO fiscal stimulus to help the little guy.
I don't know if the Republicans planned things this way, but that's how they turned out.
Once again, in their own words... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg
coach d wrote:
recovering from the mess (that the Republicans were responsible for making)
coach d wrote:
Flagpole (and Agip), I'll make a slightly different point.
I know that Flagpole has claimed in the past that presidents don't make much difference for the eonomy, but the historical data doesn't back you up. Last month LizAnn Sonders showed a graphic (it's on schwab.com) showing annual economic performance (DJIA) of +8% for democratic presidents and +3% for republican presidents going back to 1901, and this is roughly the same as I have in my own spreadsheet going back to 1970. So which party controls the White House does matter. It seems that control of congress is what doesn't matter (at least for market performance).
BTW, in terms of annualized market performance, Obama is the #1 President all-time to date.
Now, if you go back to 2009 when Obama took office, Republicans refused to go along with any kind of fiscal stimulus because they didn't want to help recovering from the mess (that the Republicans were responsible for making) because they didn't want it to happen on Obama's watch. So you have ZERO fiscal stimulus.
That being the case, the entire weight avoiding the Second Great Depression fell on Ben Bernanke's shoulders, and what he did worked out great for people like Flagpole and me who have been long all this time, and for the top 1%, and the Business Roundtable CEO types.
What I think you have here is evidence of the limits of monetary policy. It doesn't help the average guy on main street that much...but it's crack cocaine if you have investment capital.
So what you really have in the last election is the guy on main street voting into power EXACTLY the people who are responsible for making him worse off: The same Republicans who are precisely responsible for the ZERO fiscal stimulus to help the little guy.
I don't know if the Republicans planned things this way, but that's how they turned out.
coach d,
Stats are deceptive. Doesn't necessarily matter who is in office at any particular time. Some measures of the economy are lagging indicators and others are leading. What the data says on a given day isn't necessarily the result of the current president or ANY president. The market performance we have had since 2009 is just the result of coming back from such a fall. It would have happened no matter who was president, Republican or Democrat. I agree with your stats, but as much as I would like to give the credit to those Democrats in office, I just can't. Economies don't react so quickly, and the President doesn't have the power to move the needle much in that way.
It's game over wrote:
Once again, in their own words...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqgcoach d wrote:recovering from the mess (that the Republicans were responsible for making)
In the video, why don't the spoken words of the Republicans match up with the video?
Nice story. There's only ONE explanation for it:OBAMA (and his Democrat pals) HAS BEEN A FAILURE. No, I mean that seriously.He has failed in his goal to "destroy america", to "turn the USA into a socialist country", to "make everyone equal", to "destroy the rich", to "collapse capitalism in the US", to "punish the job creators", to "make sharia law US law", "to punish all whites (for whom he has a 'deep-seated hatred of')"etc, etc, etc.Yes, he has failed in all of these goals of his (well, at least these were his goals according to many, MANY right wingers I've heard discussing the topic the past several years).Obama has failed. Thank you Republicans! (Or......maybe those were never his goals at all? Hmmmm..........I wonder.......)
agip wrote:
this one is very sweet:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/01/05/3607810/ceo-fire-obama-raise-wage/In the lead-up to the 2012 presidential election, David Siegel, billionaire chief of Florida timeshare company Westgate Resorts, sent an email to all employees. “Of course, as your employer, I can’t tell you whom to vote for,” Siegel wrote, but offered “a few facts that might help you decide what is in your best interest.” These included that re-electing Obama would “threaten your job” and result in “less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.”
Just over two years after penning that company-wide email, Siegel informed Westgate employees that instead of layoffs, he would boost their minimum wage to $10 per hour beginning in 2015.
In fact, according to Siegel, 2014 was a banner year. “We’re experiencing the best year in our history and I wanted to do something to show my gratitude for the employees who make that possible,” Siegel said in announcing the wage hike. He also recently told the Orlando Business Journal that “things have never been better.”
Westgate currently employees about 12,000 people. Though the minimum wage increase won’t impact all workers, including those who receive tips, commissions, or work under a collective bargaining agreement, a company spokesman told Vegas Inc. that thousands of employees will receive a raise because of the move.
Despite writing in 2012 that any tax increases on the wealthy would mean job losses — “Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back,” he said at the time — Siegel has been extraordinarily successful growing Westgate in the two years since taxes were modestly increased on the wealthy. In 2014 alone, Siegel and Westgate bought a hotel in Las Vegas for $180 million, began constructing a new $11 million retail center in Orlando, and purchased the Cocoa Beach Pier. Siegel also acquired the Orlando Predators Arena Football team and continued constructing his 90,000 square-foot mansion, which will be the biggest in America once completed.
Of course, Siegel isn’t the only conservative to predict economic doom if Obama won re-election. Among others were Mitt Romney, who argued that unemployment would be stuck above eight percent, and Donald Trump, who foresaw a crash in the stock market. Since November 2012, the unemployment rate has dropped to 5.8 percent while the stock market has jumped 4,500 points to record highs.
Flagpole wrote:
coach d wrote:Flagpole (and Agip), I'll make a slightly different point.
I know that Flagpole has claimed in the past that presidents don't make much difference for the eonomy, but the historical data doesn't back you up. Last month LizAnn Sonders showed a graphic (it's on schwab.com) showing annual economic performance (DJIA) of +8% for democratic presidents and +3% for republican presidents going back to 1901, and this is roughly the same as I have in my own spreadsheet going back to 1970. So which party controls the White House does matter. It seems that control of congress is what doesn't matter (at least for market performance).
BTW, in terms of annualized market performance, Obama is the #1 President all-time to date.
Now, if you go back to 2009 when Obama took office, Republicans refused to go along with any kind of fiscal stimulus because they didn't want to help recovering from the mess (that the Republicans were responsible for making) because they didn't want it to happen on Obama's watch. So you have ZERO fiscal stimulus.
That being the case, the entire weight avoiding the Second Great Depression fell on Ben Bernanke's shoulders, and what he did worked out great for people like Flagpole and me who have been long all this time, and for the top 1%, and the Business Roundtable CEO types.
What I think you have here is evidence of the limits of monetary policy. It doesn't help the average guy on main street that much...but it's crack cocaine if you have investment capital.
So what you really have in the last election is the guy on main street voting into power EXACTLY the people who are responsible for making him worse off: The same Republicans who are precisely responsible for the ZERO fiscal stimulus to help the little guy.
I don't know if the Republicans planned things this way, but that's how they turned out.
coach d,
Stats are deceptive. Doesn't necessarily matter who is in office at any particular time. Some measures of the economy are lagging indicators and others are leading. What the data says on a given day isn't necessarily the result of the current president or ANY president. The market performance we have had since 2009 is just the result of coming back from such a fall. It would have happened no matter who was president, Republican or Democrat. I agree with your stats, but as much as I would like to give the credit to those Democrats in office, I just can't. Economies don't react so quickly, and the President doesn't have the power to move the needle much in that way.
I've seen that stat - and I've read some debunking of it. There are two main debunks:
1) oil shocks, just by dumb luck, have ocurred during 2 or 3 repub admins. These were exogenous shocks and very damaging to the economy. it's like blaming Bush 2 for 9-11 - just not fair
2) the economy operates with a lag - things done by one admin often affect the next admin harder. Something like 3 GOP prezes took office during recessions or right before them - that's clearly not their fault. You could even argue that the stat has an opposite meaning - that the dems have consistently set the economy on an unsustainable course, so they are voted out and the GOP comes in to clean up the mess. But the recession was during their presidency. I don't believe this - but it is possible.
I'm with flagpole - it's too hard to separate out all the threads of economic performance - giving credit to a sitting president is not meaningful.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
Nice story. There's only ONE explanation for it:
OBAMA (and his Democrat pals) HAS BEEN A FAILURE. No, I mean that seriously.
He has failed in his goal to "destroy america", to "turn the USA into a socialist country", to "make everyone equal", to "destroy the rich", to "collapse capitalism in the US", to "punish the job creators", to "make sharia law US law", "to punish all whites (for whom he has a 'deep-seated hatred of')"etc, etc, etc.
Yes, he has failed in all of these goals of his (well, at least these were his goals according to many, MANY right wingers I've heard discussing the topic the past several years).
Obama has failed. Thank you Republicans!
(Or......maybe those were never his goals at all? Hmmmm..........I wonder.......)
VERY nice job Tyrannosaurus Rexing.
coach d wrote:
Flagpole (and Agip), I'll make a slightly different point.
I know that Flagpole has claimed in the past that presidents don't make much difference for the eonomy, but the historical data doesn't back you up. Last month LizAnn Sonders showed a graphic (it's on schwab.com) showing annual economic performance (DJIA) of +8% for democratic presidents and +3% for republican presidents going back to 1901, and this is roughly the same as I have in my own spreadsheet going back to 1970. So which party controls the White House does matter. It seems that control of congress is what doesn't matter (at least for market performance).
BTW, in terms of annualized market performance, Obama is the #1 President all-time to date.
Now, if you go back to 2009 when Obama took office, Republicans refused to go along with any kind of fiscal stimulus because they didn't want to help recovering from the mess (that the Republicans were responsible for making) because they didn't want it to happen on Obama's watch. So you have ZERO fiscal stimulus.
That being the case, the entire weight avoiding the Second Great Depression fell on Ben Bernanke's shoulders, and what he did worked out great for people like Flagpole and me who have been long all this time, and for the top 1%, and the Business Roundtable CEO types.
What I think you have here is evidence of the limits of monetary policy. It doesn't help the average guy on main street that much...but it's crack cocaine if you have investment capital.
So what you really have in the last election is the guy on main street voting into power EXACTLY the people who are responsible for making him worse off: The same Republicans who are precisely responsible for the ZERO fiscal stimulus to help the little guy.
I don't know if the Republicans planned things this way, but that's how they turned out.
obvi there have been millions of words written on the weirdness of how joe the plumber types vote republican despite how on the surface the dems seem to want to help them more.
it's a rich stew of motivation - not really directly related to economics. In that stew are religion, rural vs city, regional issues. racial bias, history...it's meaningless to say that working class gop voters have been duped by the rich folks - it's not that simple.
It doesn't really prove my point - maybe even the opposite - but seems relevant here that because how it shows the complexity of voting patterns - because of geology and history, a strip of democratic voting counties exists to this day in the deep south - blue islands in a sea of red - fascinating read:
http://deepseanews.com/2012/06/how-presidential-elections-are-impacted-by-a-100-million-year-old-coastline/man I need to get back to work
but Coach D - you say the GOP refused to go along with the stimulus because they didn't want Obama to succeed.
I'd challenge that - I'd say the tea party zealots who were running the GOP at the time genuinely thought that the best way to solve the recession was to cut taxes, cut regulation, let the bad companies go bankrupt and start over clean.
that's basic republican thought - they don't think stimulus works, and they certainly dont think, in theory, that the gov't should be bailing out companies. Even now, they will say the bailouts were wrong policy and hurtful in the end.
It was the same in the 1930s depression- the GOP wanted the gov't out of all these issues.
I think you are wrong to think that the repubs secretly thought that Obama was doing the right thing with bailouts and stimulus but voted against them b/c they wanted obama to fail.
"the weirdness of how joe the plumber types vote republican"
Man, the dems live on promising free sh*t to the ever-growing masses... and you cannot deny this. Remember the 'no mortgage, no worries about gas in my car' lady after the '08 election? Very very dumb people.
And as for ivory-tower dems? It doesn't get any better this beautiful piece of hypocritical limousine-leftist exposure... And yes, it's zerohedge! But wait, it was actually the NYT...
And speaking of zerohedge, they out CNBC, and CNBC goes into damage control mode...
agip wrote:
I think you are wrong to think that the repubs secretly thought that Obama was doing the right thing with bailouts and stimulus but voted against them b/c they wanted obama to fail.
It didn't matter if the Republicans thought Obama was right or wrong. They had vowed to vote against him no natter what.
The ONLY thing that matters is that the stupid dow is now down 125 and falling, 2 hrs after open, and all the news is bad, even into the mid-term. Fvck.
I need my 401k wrote:
The ONLY thing that matters is that the stupid dow is now down 125 and falling, 2 hrs after open, and all the news is bad, even into the mid-term. Fvck.
chill! the us hit all time highs LAST WEEK!
take a nap, have a drink
the world has not ended in the last 7 days
Yeah, but that was around xmas, and all the facts had a good spin. Now it's just winter, and all the same facts have a bad spin. Unlike some of you guys, I don't have extra money to buy when the market is down. I don't want to have to drink until spring!
Now down around 140, but look at GOLD! Maybe the end IS near, finally.
hmmm, gold...
Somewhere upthread somebody said that 401k's are less tradeable and therefore buffer the markets through these downturns. According to this link, at mid-2014, 401k assets constituted only 18% of "US retirement assets", whatever that means. 18% is probably not enough to make any sort of meaningful buffer, even if you could only rebalance once every month or two.
My $.02
Smart money now heading for the exits...down 190 and falling
InVes wrote:
hmmm, gold...
Somewhere upthread somebody said that 401k's are less tradeable and therefore buffer the markets through these downturns. According to this link, at mid-2014, 401k assets constituted only 18% of "US retirement assets", whatever that means. 18% is probably not enough to make any sort of meaningful buffer, even if you could only rebalance once every month or two.
My $.02
then you add IRAs
then you add pensions
then you add 403bs
then you add annuities
and other retirement vehicls
and that is a ton of relatively steady money
no idea of the percentage of the total
InVes wrote:
Smart money now heading for the exits...down 190 and falling
hah
the 'smart money' does awfully, so pay no attention to it. hedge funds made 3%l ast year while US stocks were up 13%.
remember that there was a steep fall in January 2014 too - around 6% from top to bottom. And the year wound up +13%.
So far the US is down 4.6% from its recent highs
globally around 8%, I think.