And, yes, the stock market has not done as well for the year as a whole. The AP continued:
However that runup followed a dismal August, and the Dow is still only up 3.5 percent for the year and is 3.7 percent below its closing high for 2010 reached on April 26.
Still, as has been well documented, the financial markets do better under Democrats than Republicans.
Please share widely!
eaboclipper says
is betting on a Repbulican landslide and pro-growth policies being enacted. There’s always that.
david says
maybe the market really likes autumn, and is just so happy that the dog days of summer are finally over. You know how awful that humidity can be.
<
p>Seriously, EaBo, this
<
p>
<
p>is beyond silly, for two reasons. First, the Republican fantasy that Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, hate capitalism and growth is just that – a fantasy – as the numbers in the post and elsewhere clearly show. Fixing the excesses of Wall Street that brought down the economy is about as pro-growth as you can get. Second, let’s even say you’re right about the policies. What’s going to change after November? Best case for you guys, you get the House and maybe a more or less break-even Senate. That means you can accomplish exactly nothing at least until you get the White House. So what you call “pro-growth policies” (we call them “welfare for the wealthy”) are a long, long way off. Thank God.
joets says
joets says
just checked CBO. $260,000 per job. If the “may have created” is closer to the projection that not.
<
p>Bye money!
stomv says
he’s going to pay other dudes $260,000 to destroy the bridges, roads, and rail he just had built.
<
p>Don’t tell anyone, it’s a secret.
centralmassdad says
It is already certain, beyond doubt that the Democrats will lose both houses, in a debacle that exceeds Congressman Suntan’s wildest dreams.
christopher says
It appears you linked an article arguing that Dems will HOLD both houses. Also, this site continues to give Dems a slight edge.
sco says
Bob Shrum is always wrong. Therefore, if he’s saying the Dems will hold the house & Senate, they will lose them in the most humiliating and catastrophic way possible.
<
p>I’m holding out hope that this is one of Shrum’s ‘stopped clock’ moments, myself.
lightiris says
mike-from-norwell says
and we’re all trying to spin whatever we can for our side, but you are kidding right? In my little neck of the world I focus on around 200 clients and their monthly asset statements (not in the investment business but monitor assets for actuarial calculations). You’re pointing at Dow performance in September as “evidence?”
<
p>As others point out on this thread, markets move on expectations; an argument of expected gridlock for the next 2 years is as equally valid an argument as to movement in the stock market as anything else.
<
p>More sobering if you really want to look at the numbers is that the average investor has pretty much abandoned the stock market; look at mutual fund market flows into equities v.bonds right now (proving once again that the typical investor consciously or unconsciously likes to follow that “buy high, sell low” mantra into the ground). So I don’t know how much one can read into the market right now as evidence of anything.
<
p>Perhaps you noticed that fine print of 3.5% for the Dow for the year; 2010 hasn’t been anything to write home about.
<
p>
sabutai says
The stock market has no relation to reality as far as I can tell. It’s not a matter of raising capital for public companies, investing in companies that are valued too low, or even investing in companies that other investors will pay more for in the future. Any game were a player (Goldman Sachs) can make money on every single day and the number of trades has increased threefold in a decade is using arcane systems that a wise person would steer clear of. Frankly, the fact that the financial class that almost ruined this country’s economy likes Obama is not a good thing, in my book.
asnys says
Seriously. What actual connection does the performance of the stock market on a month-to-month basis have with the real economy? Year-to-year, perhaps, but the stock market goes up and it goes down all the time for reasons that no man can know-remember the flash crash? We should regard the stock market’s behavior as being like the weather-yes, its behavior tends to eventually correlate with long-term trends, but one warm week doesn’t mean it’s summer.
<
p>That side, if you want real evidence that Democrats manage the economy better, look at average yearly real GDP growth since World War II. The table I’m using goes from 1948 to 2006. Average yearly GDP growth under Democrats is 4.19%, 3.88% if you don’t count Truman (who was in kind of a unique situation, what with the demobilization). For Republicans, it’s 2.35%. Also, the economy has had one year of negative GDP growth under Democrats during that time period; it has had six such years under Republicans. If we’d elected only Democratic presidents, and this trend had continued-rather a questionable assumption, but a fun thought experiment-the GDP of the US would today be 50.7% greater.
<
p>(I’m not including data from the recession deliberately, because data from 2009-2010 will not be very reliable-it takes a few years for the “final” figure to be reached-and it seems unfair to exclude that without excluding the period of the recession under Bush).