Apparently, Obama was better for your 401(k) than Trump

[Cypress]

Obama was better for your 401(k) than Trump has been
Stock markets generally perform better under Democrats

President Trump knows a lot of voters don’t like him. But detractors should vote for him anyway, Trump says, for one crucial reason: To protect their savings.

“If for some reason I wouldn’t have won the [2016] election, these markets would have crashed. That’ll happen even more so in 2020,” Trump told the crowd recently at a rally in New Hampshire. “You have no choice but to vote for me because your 401(k), everything is going to be down the tubes. So whether you love me or hate me, you’ve got to vote for me.”

The allegation is clear: Democrats are bad for the stock market, so if a Democrat beats Trump in 2020, stocks will tank and every American with a portfolio will lose money. Like many Trumpisms, however, the claim does not survive a comparison with the facts.

Democrats, in reality, are good for the stock market. The S&P 500 has risen by about 28% since Trump’s inauguration in 2017. That’s okay. But it rose 34% during the same period of time in Barack Obama’s first term, and 41% during the same period of time in Obama’s second term. Here are the numbers going back to Richard Nixon’s first term >>>

It’s well known among stock-market geeks that stocks do better under Democratic presidents than under Republicans. That’s probably just random, however. Many factors influence stocks—most importantly, the overall state of the economy and the business cycle. These days, the Federal Reserve has more power over the direction of stocks than any president does. Presidents, in fact, rarely change policies in ways that send stocks moving one direction or the other.


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-was-better-for-your-401k-than-trump-has-been-122241424.html

 

[Phantasmal]

Obama was better for your 401(k) than Trump has been
Stock markets generally perform better under Democrats

President Trump knows a lot of voters don’t like him. But detractors should vote for him anyway, Trump says, for one crucial reason: To protect their savings.

“If for some reason I wouldn’t have won the [2016] election, these markets would have crashed. That’ll happen even more so in 2020,” Trump told the crowd recently at a rally in New Hampshire. “You have no choice but to vote for me because your 401(k), everything is going to be down the tubes. So whether you love me or hate me, you’ve got to vote for me.”

The allegation is clear: Democrats are bad for the stock market, so if a Democrat beats Trump in 2020, stocks will tank and every American with a portfolio will lose money. Like many Trumpisms, however, the claim does not survive a comparison with the facts.

Democrats, in reality, are good for the stock market. The S&P 500 has risen by about 28% since Trump’s inauguration in 2017. That’s okay. But it rose 34% during the same period of time in Barack Obama’s first term, and 41% during the same period of time in Obama’s second term. Here are the numbers going back to Richard Nixon’s first term >>>

It’s well known among stock-market geeks that stocks do better under Democratic presidents than under Republicans. That’s probably just random, however. Many factors influence stocks—most importantly, the overall state of the economy and the business cycle. These days, the Federal Reserve has more power over the direction of stocks than any president does. Presidents, in fact, rarely change policies in ways that send stocks moving one direction or the other.


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-was-better-for-your-401k-than-trump-has-been-122241424.html

Yes, he was, he was better for us in so many ways.

 

[cawacko]

If this is all about politics and not all the factors that move markets then this is an interesting paragraph from the article:

""If a reformist Democrat such as Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders got elected president, it could depress stocks, since each favors a variety of policies that would essentially transfer wealth from corporate interests to lower- and middle-income Americans. But such a scenario is somewhat self-preventing, since Americans are unlikely to elect a candidate who might harm financial markets and by extension the broader economy, even if those candidates are popular in a liberal subset of the Democratic party.""

 

[Cypress]

Yes, he was, he was better for us in so many ways.

I never thought I would say this, but at this point I wish Pence would just take over and let Trump go back to chasing porn actors young enough to be his grand daughter.

I believe Pence is at least capable of presidential decorum, diplomatic tact, and will not willfully insult our allies or reflect poorly on America by acting like a man-baby.

 

[Cypress]

If this is all about politics and not all the factors that move markets then this is an interesting paragraph from the article:

""If a reformist Democrat such as Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders got elected president, it could depress stocks, since each favors a variety of policies that would essentially transfer wealth from corporate interests to lower- and middle-income Americans. But such a scenario is somewhat self-preventing, since Americans are unlikely to elect a candidate who might harm financial markets and by extension the broader economy, even if those candidates are popular in a liberal subset of the Democratic party.""

The article is a mixture of facts, and opinion.

The article is from Yahoo Finance, so not exactly a publication dedicated to Kenyan Marxism, and can generally be expected to two a moderate, pro-business line.

The opinion in the article is that Elizabeth Warren will crash the market.
There were also lots of opinions that Obamacare would crash the economy, or that Jerry Brown's tax hikes would tank California into the gutter. ]

Opinions can be taken with a grain of salt, depending on someone's track record of prognostication.

More importantly to me, is the factual information in the article.

There is basic math that cannot be disputed.

Stock markets generally do better under Democrats, and it did better under Obama than Trump.

Those are the facts, and they are backed up by hard math and statistical analysis.


Suggesting that Republican are just prone to back luck, or that Elizabeth Warren will crash the markets are merely opinions and guesses at best.

 

[Cypress]

We even take the stock market back further in time, and the results are still the same:
On average, the stock markets perform substantially better under Democratic administrations than Republican administrations
This is over a century worth of stock market data>>

The claim that Republicans just suffer from sheer bad luck is an unsubstantiated claim, and reeks of excuse-making, dog ate my homework, kind of stuff to me.
https://www.businessinsider.com/democrat-vs-republican-stock-market-returns-2015-12

To be fair, it is not clear that the arithmetic mean is the appropriate statistic to compare the Dems to Repubs.
Unfortunately, most stock analysts, most people, most economists put a lot of faith in the arithmetic mean, and that is what we are often stuck using.
If it were me, I would evaluate the distribution and spread of the data, and consider whether a geometric mean or median is a better and more appropriate measure of the central tendency of the data.

 

[zappasguitar]

Obama was better for your 401(k) than Trump has been
Stock markets generally perform better under Democrats

President Trump knows a lot of voters don’t like him. But detractors should vote for him anyway, Trump says, for one crucial reason: To protect their savings.

“If for some reason I wouldn’t have won the [2016] election, these markets would have crashed. That’ll happen even more so in 2020,” Trump told the crowd recently at a rally in New Hampshire. “You have no choice but to vote for me because your 401(k), everything is going to be down the tubes. So whether you love me or hate me, you’ve got to vote for me.”

The allegation is clear: Democrats are bad for the stock market, so if a Democrat beats Trump in 2020, stocks will tank and every American with a portfolio will lose money. Like many Trumpisms, however, the claim does not survive a comparison with the facts.

Democrats, in reality, are good for the stock market. The S&P 500 has risen by about 28% since Trump’s inauguration in 2017. That’s okay. But it rose 34% during the same period of time in Barack Obama’s first term, and 41% during the same period of time in Obama’s second term. Here are the numbers going back to Richard Nixon’s first term >>>

It’s well known among stock-market geeks that stocks do better under Democratic presidents than under Republicans. That’s probably just random, however. Many factors influence stocks—most importantly, the overall state of the economy and the business cycle. These days, the Federal Reserve has more power over the direction of stocks than any president does. Presidents, in fact, rarely change policies in ways that send stocks moving one direction or the other.


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-was-better-for-your-401k-than-trump-has-been-122241424.html

In one respect, I'm almost sad Cypress blocked all the usual Rightie trolls.

It would have been hilarious reading all the ignorant excuses they'd come up with to reject the very clear numbers that back up what Cypress says.

 

[Cypress]

In one respect, I'm almost sad Cypress blocked all the usual Rightie trolls.

It would have been hilarious reading all the ignorant excuses they'd come up with to reject the very clear numbers that back up what Cypress says.

The vast, overwhelming majority of my thread ban are not even established posters - mostly one-hit wonder trolls, sock puppets, and the like. I'm too lazy to go back and figure out who to pull out. Other than that, only truly terrible human beings - like overt racists, belligerent bigots, willful liars and libelers, and subhuman sociopaths - ever get added to the ban list.