But does this really mean anything? The current problems with the economy can easily be blamed (and are, by Republicans) on real and supposed excesses committed during the Clinton administration. The economic downturn during Nixon's presidency can be traced to social unrest caused by aftereffects of the civil rights movement, Vietnam and domestic unease with the Watergate revelations.
A downturn that occurs during a specific party's term is not necessarily an indication that that party's policies are at fault. Jon GSV We called it "Sadistics" in college. :) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Erik Reuter Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 10:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Plus the NY Times Re: The Washington Post Editorial on Iraq On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:31:54PM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote: > The 1990's represented an unprecedented economic phenomenon, and > there appears to have been a 50-50 chance of it occuring underneath a > Republican or Democratic President, Over a longer period, from 1948 to 2001, the average annualized real US stock market return was 11.25% during Democratic Presidential terms and only 6.11% during Republican Presidential terms.[1] + 8.64 Truman +13.42 Eisenhower +13.88 Kennedy + 7.42 Johnson - 6.93 Nixon + 9.27 Ford + 0.93 Carter +10.26 Reagan + 9.81 Bush +16.01 Clinton -17.38 Bush, G.W. (through Dec 2001) > or for that matter, a Republican or Democratic Congress. I don't have data on Congress. Maybe Congress even has a stronger effect on the market than the President, I don't know. But apparently the market performance is not 50-50 based on party of the President over the post WWII period. [1] Jeremy Siegel, _Stocks for the Long Run_ -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
