Stocks,Clinton: how much stocks rise under Clinton?

[oscar111]

pls tell me the change, Clinton in to clinton retire? Not the peak, which might have been midstream.

bush will end, with a thousand point loss it seems.

need for flyer

[derrald]

1. it was about 9000 points towards the peak

and it was about 3000 at the start to leaving office at about 10,000.

Here's the graph on Bartcop: it's a bit down the page, the figures are from the CBO, you can tell whoever doubts you to doublecheck.

Adding on, I think you can find the numbers at the NYSE site better. I dont have the time to look, but they're located at www.nyse.com

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

2. Jan 1993: ~3200, Jan 2001: ~10,800

Total rise: 7600

That's for the DOW obviously.

[snippy]

3. The stock market always performs better under democratic presidents.

From one study:

The excess return in the stock market is higher under Democratic than
Republican presidencies:nine percent for the value-weighted and 16 percent
for the equal-weighted portfolio.The difference comes from higher real stock
returns and lower real interest rates,is statistically significant,and is robust
in subsamples.The difference in returns is not explained by business-cycle
variables related to expected returns,and is not concentrated around election
dates.There is no difference in the riskiness of the stock market across
presidencies that could justify a risk premium.The difference in returns
through the political cycle is therefore a puzzle.

http://www.personal.anderson.ucla.edu/rossen.valkanov/P...

This analysis covers the years 1927-1998 and separately examines the years from 1927-1962 and 1963-1998. Results which included the years from 1999-2004 would show an even greater difference. Their are several other studies, all of which show the same outperformance under democratic presidents.

[oscar111]

4. you guys are great! Q for snip

snip, wondering how much dems are better than r's at lifting the stocks. thanks in advance.

you 3 were all great! fast, concise! Like Clinton in his best days.
Your humble servant and etc,
oscar111

[snippy]

5. Between 9 and 16% per year according to this study.

Using data since 1927,we find that the average excess return of the value-weighted CRSP
index over the three-month Treasury bill rate has been about two percent under Republican
and 11 percent under Democratic presidents —a striking difference of nine percent per year!
This difference is economically and statistically significant.A decomposition of excess returns
reveals that the difference is due to real market returns being higher under Democrats by
more than five percent,as well as to real interest rates being almost four percent lower under
Democrats.The results are even more impressive for the equal-weighted portfolio,where
the difference in excess returns between Republicans and Democrats reaches 16 percent.
Moreover,we observe an absolute monotonicity in the difference between size-decile portfolios
under the two political regimes:From seven percent for the largest firms to about 22 percent
for the smallest firms.

http://www.personal.anderson.ucla.edu/rossen.valkanov/Politics.pdf

Other studies have found smaller differences, but still show better performance under democratic presidents. This link shows a smaller difference but includes two charts showing the actual performance under republicans and democrats. http://www.frbsf.org/images/pdfcharts/el98-19a.pdf

[Rapier2]

6. notes

The stock and financial asset mania which occurred under Clinton represented the total abandonment of modern Democratic principals. Along with the 'free trade' agenda Clinton managed to eliminate every conceivable economic alternative message upon which Democrats could run.

Not only were the Rubin/Wall Street Paradigm financial excess policies and free trade agreements poor economic policy they were astoundingly bad politics. As we all well know, there is no longer any substantive Democratic policy alternative to corporate/financial power and its relentless concentration of wealth at the top.

If Gore could have run against the loss of jobs to China he would have won in a cakewalk. Clinton took the Democrats in congress kicking and screaming along with him to fulfill the pseudo Republican New Democrat agenda and left us in the hands of so called Democrats who while occasionally talking the talk against big money feed at the trough just as readily as the GOP.

I won't go too far in the "not a dimes worth of difference between the parties" thing because of course there are differences but now days they amount to only token words. THERE IS NO POLICY alternative offered now, partly I suppose because there no conceivable way out of our economic mess that doesn't mean incredible pain. It didn't have to be that way, perhaps. I will admit that without Clinton's adoption of Wall Stree finance as the basis of economic 'growth' he probably would not have been elected in the first place.

Maybe it had to be this way, a culmination of half a century or more of American/dollar hegemony built upon a financial system designed by us with the obvious goal of benefiting us.

The stock market is now days almost surreal. Much like the now famous Suskind quote about the administrations "creating reality" Wall Street has created a reality which veers ever further from anything that would be recognized as reality by Adam Smith or any capitalist older than 60 years old who is honest.

Measuring economic well being by the stock market makes sense now only to the extent that the current system represents something worth a damn. The system as it exists now does depend upon stocks at least keeping steady in this area and rising strongly in the future. I suppose it could happen but only by the ever more overt manipulation of the markets by the government along with I fear foreign policies which are meant bring damage our competitors, and even our friends, such as they are, so as to establish America as the only refuge for capital.