Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Stock Market does better under DEMOCRATS


Recommended Posts

Just going by personal history....

I've been laid off during both democrat and republican administrations, but more time off during republicans than democrats. 

Sepiatone 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

Just going by personal history....

I've been laid off during both democrat and republican administrations, but more time off during republicans than democrats. 

Sepiatone 

I can remember the only time my father was laid-off was when a Republican was president.  

I remember when Reagan was president and I was essentially laid off, along with about 15% of employees where I worked.  Fortunately, we were able to transfer to another division, but with a loss of seniority.  For some, it meant 60 mile commutes each day or actually moving to another county.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dow%2BInflation-Adjusted%2BClosing%2BPrices.jpg

The Market Watch article is behind a paywall, but here is a chart of the Dow in both raw valuation and inflation adjusted dollars up to 2012 in 2012 dollars. Notice if you invested your money in 1929 right before the crash that it would be the early 1950s before you were back to where you started.  Also, the market went down in inflation adjusted dollars starting in 1965 until 1982.  So if you invested your money in 1965 it would be 30 years before you got it all back in inflation adjusted dollars.  Then it goes up for twenty years.  So this is why I have never believed that the market is ultimately safe over the long haul. If this is 1929 and I am 63 - that is my age - I don't have 25 years to wait to get it all back. 

But as to the stock market doing better under Democrats - looking at the inflation adjusted chart it looks like a 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans.

1920-1933 = GOP rule, stock market goes straight up and then straight down and then some.

1933-1938 - Democratic rule, stock market goes up under the New Deal but then falters.

1945-1965 - 8 years GOP rule, 12 years Democratic rule - post WWII boom.

1965-1982 - 9 years GOP rule, 8 years Democratic rule - stock market falls in inflation adjusted dollars starting with Great Society and build up of the Vietnam War

1982-2000 - 11 years GOP rule, 7 years Democratic rule - stock market goes straight up. 

By "rule" I mean the party in the White House. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few observations from an old investor:

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is not the best indicator of stock market performance, since it only comprises a relatively small number of stocks. Also, the stocks which make up the index change over time. Most people conflate the Dow with the market. The S&P 500 is a better indicator.

While it's true that you would have had to wait a long time to recoup your money had you invested just before the crash of 1929, you would have made money had you invested after the crash. Crashes are buying opportunities. Most people are afraid to put their money into stocks when prices are going down. That is incorrect investment thinking. People will go out and look for a bargain on a car, or house, of whatever, but they won’t use that same approach when purchasing stocks.

As for which party is better for the stock market, it really doesn’t matter if you invest for the long haul. I still own stocks I purchased almost forty years ago because they are solid companies and continue to outperform other forms of investment. Have I ever lost money in the market? Hell yes. But those were in the early days when I was inexperienced (and relying on “advice” from others). Then I learned to do my own research and rely on my own instincts. Now that approach won’t work for everyone, but it has for me.

Of course, the stock market is not safe, and if you are going to lose sleep every night, you don’t want to be in it. I guess we could all play safe and just keep our money in our homes. At least that will keep the IRS from snooping on us every time we make a transaction of at least $600!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm mostly in it  today for the dividends and I don't look at whether a Dem or a Republican is  POTUS. Of  course dividends are occasionally

reduced, sometimes quite a bit. No problemo. Just sell the stinker and buy another stock with a good dividend. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hamradio said:

The stock market is falling. Here's what to do, and what to avoid

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/19/the-stock-market-is-falling-heres-what-to-do-and-what-to-avoid.html

 

Panic selling is often people's first reaction when stocks are going down and there's a drastic drop in the value of their hard-earned funds.

Buy low, sell high. 

Actually I heard experts say there is usually a slump in summers.  Also have a friend who does a fair amount of trading and following the market.  He believes Octobers are always low months for stock prices.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ElCid said:

  Also have a friend who does a fair amount of trading and following the market.  He believes Octobers are always low months for stock prices.

That's because a lot of the financial institutions traditionally sell holdings in October.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ElCid said:

I can remember the only time my father was laid-off was when a Republican was president.  

I remember when Reagan was president and I was essentially laid off, along with about 15% of employees where I worked.  Fortunately, we were able to transfer to another division, but with a loss of seniority.  For some, it meant 60 mile commutes each day or actually moving to another county.

I endured a 6 month lay-off during the last few months of the Carter administration, a plant closing during Reagan, and avoided a big lay-off at the engine plant I worked at during Bush 41 by the seat of my pants(JUST enough seniority).    But to be fair,  it all could have been due more to corporate incompetence than who from what party was president. 

Sepiatone

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a good chance there would had been very little anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, not staying home, not keeping social distancing without an Insurrectionist Media Channel. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, hamradio said:

The theory is there would had been no anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, not staying home, not keeping social distancing under a different president.

 

Well a President Hillary Administration would not have slashed the program looking for early signs of a potential pandemic across the globe, would have  heeded the first rumblings coming out of China about the coronavirus, would have closed our airports in a fair way Fromm flights coming from Europe as well as Asia, would have cooperated with the World Health Organization etc, with exchange of information and resources, would have mobilized all our resources, agencies, and knowledge both scientific  and logistical , to prepare for the potential spread of covid-19 here, ALL of this done much earlier than when Trump finally attempted to act on this threat.  AND  the Dem admin would not have seen this through the prism of the next election,  or politicized this to make it about two sides, and would have been truthfull to the American people throughout, instead of lying about it being no worse the the flu, that it would magically go away in a few days, etc.  And we would likely have substantially less than 700,000 plus deaths now.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, hamradio said:

The theory is there would had been no anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, not staying home, not keeping social distancing under a different president.

 

Would have to have been a Republican president since vast majority of anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, etc. are also Republican supporters.  Not all, but vast majority.

35 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

There is a good chance there would had been very little anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, not staying home, not keeping social distancing without an Insurrectionist Media Channel. 

Don't rule out the negative influence of multiple social media outlets.

3 minutes ago, Arturo said:

Well a President Hillary Administration would not have slashed the program looking for early signs of a potential pandemic across the globe, would have  heeded the first rumblings coming out of China about the coronavirus, would have closed our airports in a fair way Fromm flights coming from Europe as well as Asia, would have cooperated with the World Health Organization etc, with exchange of information and resources, would have mobilized all our resources, agencies, and knowledge both scientific  and logistical , to prepare for the potential spread of covid-19 here, ALL of this done much earlier than when Trump finally attempted to act on this threat.  AND  the Dem admin would not have seen this through the prism of the next election,  or politicized this to make it about two sides, and would have been truthful to the American people throughout, instead of lying about it being no worse the the flu, that it would magically go away in a few days, etc.  And we would likely have substantially less than 700,000 plus deaths now.

True, but you would still have had the anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, anti-social distancing, etc. Republican leaning people.  They would have resisted because a Democrat was president and Hillary to boot.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...