Today at 1053 AM EDT on NPR's On Point - "having 1 party in power is better than having the market lurching around" - or words to that effect. I guess my analysis on April 3 wasnt totally wacko.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Peter S <[email protected]> wrote: > Someone asked me recently about the major difference between the > Republicans and Democrats. I said that the Republicans wanted smaller > government. She said that the Republicans favored the rich. That got > me thinking. > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_government> > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses> > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500> - see 'total annual returns' chart > > I used those 3 sources to look at the relationship between "one party > rule" and the "rate of return from the Stock Market". > > Democrats controlled the White House, Senate, and House in 1993 1994 > 1995 (Bill Clinton) and 2009 2010 2011 (Barak Obama) > > Republicans controlled the White House, Senate, and House in 2003 2004 > 2005 2006 2007 (George W Bush) > > Stock market returns in the Clinton years were 10% 1% 37% > > Stock market returns in the Obama years were 26% 15% 2% > > Stock market returns in the George W Bush years were 28% 10% 4% 15% 5% > > If I was a billionaire - I think I would love BOTH of these partys > > (The flip side of the coin is - negative market years were - 1990 > minus 3% - 2000 minus 9% - 2001 minus 11% - 2002 minus 22% - 2008 > minus 37% - none of those were '1 party rule' years) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "massfire" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/massfire?hl=en.
