Markets crashing?

[Clay Buster]

And the Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007. It's just an historical fact that markets do poorly while Democrats control Congress. And now they've solidified their numbers and even have a Democrat as President. Put your money in bonds and gold.

This is simply not true.

I posted a response to this claim in another thread with details of why this is false.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...-post-worst-two-day-decline-since-1987-a.html

 

[xsited1]

When the market crashed in 1929 the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House.

That is true and you can blame it on Government interventions by the Federal Reserve. Sound familiar? And to think people actually want the government to do MORE. It's laughable.

 

[Article 15]

That is true and you can blame it on Government interventions by the Federal Reserve. Sound familiar? And to think people actually want the government to do MORE. It's laughable.

Those goalposts weighing you down?

 

[xsited1]

You may be right historically but I dont think thats whats doing it this time. The market was already too volatile to point fingers at anyone, just my opinion. Those stats dont hold weight because we are in the 2nd worst economic situation in history.

I disagree. Investors do not have faith in the Democratically controlled Congress to fix things. If anything, the market should be a bit up or flat, not way way down just after an election.

 

[xsited1]

This is simply not true.

I posted a response to this claim in another thread with details of why this is false.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...-post-worst-two-day-decline-since-1987-a.html

Uh, no. Here's the data. Your other link goes too far back. You have to remember that there has been a profound change in the Democrat and Republican Parties in the past 50 years. Besides, it's looking at the President. Spending is controlled by Congress.

Taking Stock of the Parties

 

[jschuck12001]

I disagree. Investors do not have faith in the Democratically controlled Congress to fix things. If anything, the market should be a bit up or flat, not way way down just after an election.

How can you have faith when companies are falling extremely short on earnings, that would be blind faith. You would basically be asking people to donate to charity.

 

[xsited1]

How can you have faith when companies are falling extremely short on earnings, that would be blind faith. You would basically be asking people to donate to charity.

And that's the point. If the government is going to make it harder to do business in America, speculators will take money out of the stock market.

 

[Care4all]

Uh, no. Here's the data. Your other link goes too far back. You have to remember that there has been a profound change in the Democrat and Republican Parties in the past 50 years. Besides, it's looking at the President. Spending is controlled by Congress.

Taking Stock of the Parties

the whole article is filled with mistruths or the incomplete truth, but setting that aside....this came from your article:

Was it because the markets had an increased fear of a Democrat majority, or have the poor performances of the markets driven more people to support the Democrats? This is a chicken-and-egg problem no one can prove for sure either way, but either hypothesis may well be true.

 

[Shogun]

oh looky. Another failure of capitalism. SHOCKER.


Hey, maybe we can just mandate that republicans stay in office so that punk bitch motherfucking capitalists don't have to bleed all over their lacey panties.

 

[xsited1]

the whole article is filled with mistruths or the incomplete truth, but setting that aside....this came from your article:

Was it because the markets had an increased fear of a Democrat majority, or have the poor performances of the markets driven more people to support the Democrats? This is a chicken-and-egg problem no one can prove for sure either way, but either hypothesis may well be true.

It's just data. The conclusion is obvious based on the data. The chicken and the egg problem you quoted is quite interesting. Either case may be true and the result is exactly the same.

 

[xsited1]

oh looky. Another failure of capitalism. SHOCKER.


Hey, maybe we can just mandate that republicans stay in office so that punk bitch motherfucking capitalists don't have to bleed all over their lacey panties.

Hilarious!!!! Do you realize you've got it backwards? Probably not. (Unless your post is a troll post. In that case, great troll post!)

 

[Clay Buster]

Uh, no. Here's the data. Your other link goes too far back. You have to remember that there has been a profound change in the Democrat and Republican Parties in the past 50 years. Besides, it's looking at the President. Spending is controlled by Congress.

Taking Stock of the Parties

The data I provided in the other thread actually listed party congressional control and average returns in those situations.

Historically the stock market has performed better under a Congress controlled by Democrats.

Your point is well made, however, that in recent history Republican Congressional control has produced better returns.

the whole article is filled with mistruths or the incomplete truth, but setting that aside....this came from your article:

Was it because the markets had an increased fear of a Democrat majority, or have the poor performances of the markets driven more people to support the Democrats? This is a chicken-and-egg problem no one can prove for sure either way, but either hypothesis may well be true.

You beat me to the punch. My next comment was going to be that downturns in the economy usually leads to more Dems elected in response which makes it incredibly difficult to determine who caused what.

 

[Ravi]

One thing we know for sure. Voodoo economics don't work. Time for the Republicans to find a new meme.

 

[SwingVoter]

This is its worst post-election plunge on record. The losses narrowly surpassed the Dow’s 4.51% decline the day after Franklin Roosevelt’s win in 1932 during the Great Depression.

Actually a reassuring stat, because FDR's 1st term saw a major reversal of Hoover's job losses.

 

[Shadow]

actually, it is ALL ABOUT THE FACT that the banks, given a near $300 billion in bailout money so far, ARE STILL REFUSING TO LOAN THIS MONEY TO OTHERS.

They have decided to pay their own, huge bonuses and pay their own stock holders billions in dividends but they are NOT doing what paulson's bailout was suppose to do, and that is to loan money to wall street.

Well, you didn't seem to care when it was your buddy Obama and his buddies raking it in and being dishonest...but, oh NO....the banks are now hoarding money,and being careful about future loans....send out the troops.

 

[Toro]

Here is what happened:

1. Markets crashed in September and October because of the brutal de-leveraging that is occurring in the financial system and to a lesser extent fears about a bad recession.

2. Markets usually can only move so far without alleviating the pressure moving the market. The first three weeks in October were amongst the worst weeks ever and markets became cheap. That exhausted the sellers and brought in the buyers.

3. As the sellers exhausted themselves, selling pressure eased, causing a snap-back rally. Notice I have said nothing about politics yet.

4. The markets rallied in front of an Obama victory. Markets are forward-looking and move in front of events. The market did not necessarily want Obama to win - a McCain victory would have lead to a continued bounce - rather, the market was rallying because of clarity. In other words, the market hates uncertainty and was going to rally no matter who won.

5. The market "sold the news." Once the news hit that Obama won, traders sold. This is a natural Pavlovian response and occurs throughout the market commonly. However, two other things have pushed the market down 10% over the past few days. First, a giant hedge fund in Chicago named Citadel is liquidating investments as it has to put up more collateral to back its positions. This is forced selling having nothing to do with politics or economics. Second, investors are scared about this morning's nonfarm payrolls number, which will have hit by the time most of you have read this post. Economists are expecting a decline of 200k nonfarm payroll jobs. However, investors are thinking it could be much higher, perhaps 250k-300k. Since investors are worried about the jobs number, buyers have been stepping aside letting the sellers do their thing, causing a drop in the market.

 

[Care4all]

Well, you didn't seem to care when it was your buddy Obama and his buddies raking it in and being dishonest...but, oh NO....the banks are now hoarding money,and being careful about future loans....send out the troops.

talking out of that rear end of yours huh?

I lead the charge of being AGAINST the bailout on this site...sooooooo, try again!

care

 

[SwingVoter]

futures are up this am, as is the FTSE in London

but all will come crashing down if there's a bad jobs report at 8:30 Eastern

 

[Care4all]

futures are up this am, as is the FTSE in London

but all will come crashing down if there's a bad jobs report at 8:30 Eastern

which there is suppose to be...bad news on that, no? isn't that what toro said....instead of 200k lost jobs it might be 300k or something like that?

 

[SwingVoter]

which there is suppose to be...bad news on that, no? isn't that what toro said....instead of 200k lost jobs it might be 300k or something like that?

should clarify, a worse-than-expected jobs report

we'll know in 16 minutes