That looks like you.FFS. Hopeless old man.
That looks like you.FFS. Hopeless old man.
You catch the irony there?Funny how some folks focus on the graphic, and not the subject matter
Usually under democratic governments the stock markets perform much better at least in the US.
Conservatives as investors take low risk decisions in personal investing but go for high risk and illogical decisions on the collective i.e. governmental basis.
Some background statistics:
![]()
Well, I used the presidency because it's considerably easier information to come by. And I argued nothing, nor would I conflate causation with correlation.You're not listening...or reading. It doens't matter who is sitting in the oval office. It matters who writes the laws, that's the congress sir. However, even if we use the congress as our base, are you going to seriously tell me that laws passed in the US Congress affect stock returns in say, Spain? Are you? Because if you are, I have some cool stats on the Super Bowl winner that does a nice job predicting forward returns as well (it's garbage as well).
Well, I used the presidency because it's considerably easier information to come by. And I argued nothing, nor would I conflate causation with correlation.
But I actually do agree with you to some extent--in fact I've argued on this site many times that a preoccupied congress and paralyzed presidency is the best thing for the economy...there's no government like no government. Usually you get this with split control of legislative and administrative branches (like Clinton years), but at the moment the Republicans seem to be doing just fine at doing nothing.
Although I agree with what the chart (D vs R congressional spending patterns) is expressing I believe a similar pattern could be found for spending on our "Military Industrial Complex".This is the bottom line, you wanna find the profligate spenders go to the source. Congress is the ones who draw up bills, presidents just sign them........