Anyone notice how leftist websites like Vox, Vice, Huffpost, etc. tend to have really weak money/finance columns? Financial ignorance?

[EyeBRollin]

but its comes from a previous democrat goverment right?

You tell me. Is our current economic prosperity because of Trump or Obama?

 

[EyeBRollin]

I can and did.

Do you think congress and the senate has no impact on the market?

Or the Federal Reserve?

Indeed they do.

The reasons are very unclear. This is why analysis and the Scientific Method are so important.

Yes, they are unclear! However, the historical conclusion is not - the market performs better with a Democrat in the White House.

 

[EyeBRollin]

The conclusion is based off of very weak reasoning if it does not account for all the factors.

In fact, your faulty base assumption is that the Executive runs the economy, which would only be the case in a communist Government.

Stop the special pleading. You challenged the notion that Democrats are better for the market. The results are clear - historically, the market performs better under Democratic administrations.

 

[Kotaix]

Bernie and Warren have spent the last 6 months peddling economic snake oil, and they're losing to a demented old man because of it as we speak. There is no way to make their plans work without taxing everyone into oblivion. The left doesn't talk economics because they don't know d!ck about it.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I still challenge it, because you never answered my questions.

You’re free to do that in the face of the results.

Your base assumption is that the Executive seat is the primary driver of the market.

Wrong. The base assumption was that the market performs better under a Democratic President.

I asked about all of the other drivers.....and you avoided it like the plague.

The other drivers aren’t relevant. Through thousands of potential variables, the market consistently performs better under Democratic Presidents.

 

[Kotaix]

STEM school students are MORE conservative than art school students.

Men are more conservative than women.

Adults are more conservative than children.

Parents are more conservative than the childless.

Business owners are more conservative than employees.

Home owners are more conservative than the homeless.

Taxpayers are more conservative than welfare dependents.

This is entirely true

The mentally ill skew heavily to the left.

... embrace the facts, Missy.

This is entirely unnecessary. You can't change minds by insulting people. Hillary is proof.

 

[EyeBRollin]

My favorite is how you suggested the Federal Reserve is not relevant to Market Returns.

Now here come the lies and strawman arguments: (Typical right wing playbook)

- in the face of concrete evidence that the market is better under a Democratic President, you refuse to concede. Classic case of pleading

- you wrongfully frame my argument in terms you wish to attack (you falsely claim the President dictates the market)

—then you ask me to provide evidence in support of your false argument

My position is easy to understand. You can analyze 1000 different stock market related variables over the last 100 years and you will still reach the same conclusion - the market performs better under a Democratic President. If you invested $1 million, you made more under Democrats. Those are facts.

 

[EyeBRollin]

When I asked about the impact of the Federal Reserve, you said......



And now you are claiming you didn't say that. I LOVE IT!!!

Let’s cut through your bullshvt:

- you falsely claimed that President dictates the stock market

-you injected the Federal Reserve into the discussion

Neither addresses the premise: The market performs better under Democratic Presidents.

The Federal Reserve’s impact on the market does not change the stated premise, thus is not relevant. You can conjure up variables until you are blue in the face. The conclusion remains constant - The market performs better under Democratic Presidents.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

The evidence on this is conclusive.

Both Forbes and the Federal Reserve disagree with you. Forbes even showed that same chart.

Democrats Vs. Republicans: Who Is Better For The Stock Market?

Have you ever wondered whether the stock market does better when the President of the United States is a Republican or Democrat?

www.forbes.com

There is no conclusive evidence suggesting the president’s party has any statistically significant impact on U.S. equity market returns (see Campbell and Li 2004). Intuitively this makes sense, because stock returns are influenced by a myriad of factors such as valuations, corporate profits, business cycles, monetary policy, etc. In addition, the increasingly global economy (the S&P 500 generates more than 50% of revenues outside the U.S.) makes the actions of a single government less important.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2004/200469/200469pap.pdf

Abstract: Since the early 1980's much research, including the most recent contribution of SantaClara and Valkanov (2003), has concluded that there is a stable, robust and significant relationship between Democratic presidential administrations and robust stock returns. Moreover, the difference in returns does not appear to be accompanied by any significant differences in risk across the presidential cycle. These conclusions are largely based on OLS estimates of the difference in returns across the presidential cycle. We re-examine this issue using more efficient estimators of the presidential premium. Specifically, we exploit the considerable and persistent heteroskedasticity in stock returns to construct more efficient weighted least squares (WLS) and generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) estimators of the difference in expected excess stock returns across the presidential cycle. Our findings provide considerable contrast to the findings of previous research. Across the different WLS and GARCH estimates we find that the point estimates are considerably smaller than the OLS estimates and fluctuate considerably across different sub samples. We show that the large difference between the WLS, GARCH and OLS estimates is driven by differing stock market performance during very volatile market environments. During periods of elevated market volatility, excess stock returns have been markedly higher under Democratic than Republican administrations. Accordingly, the WLS and GARCH estimators are less sensitive to these episodes than the OLS estimator. Ultimately, these results are consistent with the conclusion that neither risk nor return varies significantly across the presidential cycle.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I didn't claim the President dictates the stock market. YOU DID, by implying the stock market is impacted by the ideology of the President.

This behavior is that of an accomplished liar. But thanks for admitting you made up a faulty premise to attack me with.

Are you now saying the President is not the driver of the stock market?

Let me know when you finally pick a position.

This is another lie. Never said the President drives the market. What I said was:

The market performs better under Democratic Presidents.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Both Forbes and the Federal Reserve disagree with you. Forbes even showed that same chart.

Democrats Vs. Republicans: Who Is Better For The Stock Market?

Have you ever wondered whether the stock market does better when the President of the United States is a Republican or Democrat?

www.forbes.com

There is no conclusive evidence suggesting the president’s party has any statistically significant impact on U.S. equity market returns (see Campbell and Li 2004). Intuitively this makes sense, because stock returns are influenced by a myriad of factors such as valuations, corporate profits, business cycles, monetary policy, etc. In addition, the increasingly global economy (the S&P 500 generates more than 50% of revenues outside the U.S.) makes the actions of a single government less important.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2004/200469/200469pap.pdf

Abstract: Since the early 1980's much research, including the most recent contribution of SantaClara and Valkanov (2003), has concluded that there is a stable, robust and significant relationship between Democratic presidential administrations and robust stock returns. Moreover, the difference in returns does not appear to be accompanied by any significant differences in risk across the presidential cycle. These conclusions are largely based on OLS estimates of the difference in returns across the presidential cycle. We re-examine this issue using more efficient estimators of the presidential premium. Specifically, we exploit the considerable and persistent heteroskedasticity in stock returns to construct more efficient weighted least squares (WLS) and generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) estimators of the difference in expected excess stock returns across the presidential cycle. Our findings provide considerable contrast to the findings of previous research. Across the different WLS and GARCH estimates we find that the point estimates are considerably smaller than the OLS estimates and fluctuate considerably across different sub samples. We show that the large difference between the WLS, GARCH and OLS estimates is driven by differing stock market performance during very volatile market environments. During periods of elevated market volatility, excess stock returns have been markedly higher under Democratic than Republican administrations. Accordingly, the WLS and GARCH estimators are less sensitive to these episodes than the OLS estimator. Ultimately, these results are consistent with the conclusion that neither risk nor return varies significantly across the presidential cycle.

Let’s see: A right wing publication and a Fed Publication under a Republican President disagree with the historical fact that the market returns are better under Democratic President. Shocking!

 

[Alvafe]

This behavior is that of an accomplished liar. But thanks for admitting you made up a faulty premise to attack me with.




This is another lie. Never said the President drives the market. What I said was:

now now, you are acting with disonesty, you now very well wha tyou are doing, saying you don't don't make it true or fool anyone

 

[Mike32ct]

I think they are catering to a largely female audience. Women are typically less interested detailed investment stuff than men.

Women certainly invest, but they are less likely to be traders/speculators. Most will just use mutual funds and leave the fine details to someone else.

 

[EyeBRollin]

No, they said ....There is no conclusive evidence suggesting the president’s party has any statistically significant impact on U.S. equity market returns.

You agreed with this a post ago when you said....

The conservative brain doesn’t seem to allow for precision or nuance. What is the definition of “conclusive?”

You seem very confused on your position and the intent of the statement you are making.....

No confusion whatsoever.

Do you or do you not believe the President drives the market?

Be clear - what specifically do you mean by “drives” the market?

So what is your point in making this statement below then? Why is it relevant if you are saying they are not linked?

Another false implication. Where did I say the President and the market are not linked?

 

[EyeBRollin]

now now, you are acting with disonesty, you now very well wha tyou are doing, saying you don't don't make it true or fool anyone

Danger challenged a fact, got proven wrong, and has spent four pages try to delve into the intricacies of why the said fact should not be accepted.

 

[Alvafe]

Danger challenged a fact, got proven wrong, and has spent four pages try to delve into the intricacies of why the said fact should not be accepted.

fact about a half data you posted who can't prove anything? come on if you are so sure send more data, plus like I pointed out I could show numbers here who could prove my point but it would lack any fallback point.

plus datas and info on internet should never be taken as true unless you can provide at least 4-5 others sources

 

[EyeBRollin]

The logical fallacy you have here is that you have not demonstrated the supporting evidence which proves your assertion that there is a direct relationahip here..

No additional evidence needed. You claimed Democrats are not better for the market. Evidence says the contrary - the market performs better under Democrats. You are wrong.

 

[EyeBRollin]

fact about a half data you posted who can't prove anything? come on if you are so sure send more data, plus like I pointed out I could show numbers here who could prove my point but it would lack any fallback point.

plus datas and info on internet should never be taken as true unless you can provide at least 4-5 others sources

You tell me. Is our current economic prosperity because of Trump or Obama?

What’s your answer?

 

[EyeBRollin]

You haven't proven me wrong anywhere.

You have yet to demonstrate that the President is the reason these markets behaved as they did.

So where is your analysis on this?

Don’t have to. Over the last hundred years, the market performs better under Democratic Presidents.

 

[EyeBRollin]

You have only just restated your assertion, but you have no data or analysis to prove they are linked.

You don’t think Democrats are better for markets. The historical returns say the opposite. The market performs better Democratic Presidents. Go chew on it. Think on it. Rationalize it some more.