From Reagan to Trump: Here's how stocks performed under each president

[gkishot]

I see no economic reason why stock market should perform better under business unfriendly democrats.

 

[newwurldmn]

Obama had 7 years of ZIRP and massive amounts of QE. Give the Fed credit for that.

Also, the consequences of policies can take years to unravel. Clinton followed 12 years of Republican administrations....it's not as if he totally re-engineered the economy the first day. In fact, he was quite the moderate.

There are also factors like the internet boom (totally outside any president's control--sorry Al Gore!)...or the industrial revolution many decades earlier.

So you are saying 100oercent of the rally under trump is Obama’s credit?

 

[MKTrader]

So you are saying 100oercent of the rally under trump is Obama’s credit?

Absolutely not. Where did I say anything like that? That's quite a non sequitur. The market has gone up with rising interest rates under Trump...Obama needed ZIRP and tons of QE.

I simply said the current president isn't 100% responsible for what goes in his administration...there's previous policies...as well as things completely outside their control (like Clinton getting to ride the internet/tech bubble).

 

[DaveV]

Were Clinton’s policies responsible for the 1990s' economic growth?

https://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/clinton-and-economic-growth-in-the-90s/

 

[Peter10]

If Trump see this, He will scream "FAKE NEWS"

 

[KeLo]

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/business/stock-market-by-president/index.html

Dems are clear winners

Yes, with the privately owned Federal Reserve at their backs.
Paul Volker jacked the rate up to 21% after Reagan got into office.
In the last election, 85% of Fed employees and officers donated to Hillary, according to Open Secrets, which they get from here. https://www.fec.gov/data/
And they claim to be apolitical. Ha!

 

[DaveV]

In the last election, 85% of Fed employees and officers donated to Hillary, according to Open Secrets, which they get from here. https://www.fec.gov/data/
And they claim to be apolitical. Ha!

The Democrats had been in power for 8 years. One would expect most of the Fed officers and employees to be Democrats.

 

[tommcginnis]

Yes, with the privately owned Federal Reserve at their backs.
Paul Volker jacked the rate up to 21% after Reagan got into office.
In the last election, 85% of Fed employees and officers donated to Hillary, according to Open Secrets, which they get from here. https://www.fec.gov/data/
And they claim to be apolitical. Ha!

Trolling again, eh?
Cite your numbers, Joker: show this "85%" -- YOU show the table.

 

[KeLo]

Correction: My 85% number for Fed donations to Hillary was incorrect. Actually 95% gave to Hillary, according to The Hill. Picture enlarged is poor quality.

Also see here:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000043326&cycle=2016

P.S. tommymcginnis:
Just in case you are here trolling me, I blocked you last night, so I cannot see your posts.

 

[Sig]

Correction: My 85% number for Fed donations to Hillary was incorrect. Actually 95% gave to Hillary, according to The Hill. Picture enlarged is poor quality.

Also see here:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000043326&cycle=2016

P.S. tommymcginnis:
Just in case you are here trolling me, I blocked you last night.

So a total of $83,270 (I know that's a lot of money to some folks, but it's a minute fraction of a fraction of a percent of total political donations). On a chart listing contributions of $2,000 or more, that makes what, a maximum of 41 people in an organization of 20,000+ employees. I'll do the math there, that's .205% of employees. And you're using that to make an inference of the political leaning of the entire organization? The only legitimate takeaway from that data is that Fed employees are pretty much completely un-involved in political donations. Any other conclusion is an abject failure to understand the most basic tenants of statistics.