Skip to main content

Investors: What is better Democrats or Republicans

Off the top, you have to say that the past three administration are a case and point that a Democratic president are better than a republicans for investors; During Clinton's 8 years and during Obama's 8 years the S&P 500 has been a very very strong performer, no su much for both Bushs

In 2015 DILJ did a study, their conclusion was:

There really shouldn't be any debate; on a historical basis, Democratic presidents are better for the stock market. The saying that Republican Presidents are better than Democrats for investors continues to be one of the bigger misconceptions there is in the investment world.
Yet, most investors (and a good portion of Wall Street) is for the Republican?  So there has to be something that the GOP offers that the Dems don't.  One thing for sure, GOP has been a big tax cutter for the richer parts of the electorate.  Again and again you see GOP elected at the state level lowering taxes on the wealthiest (often creating massive fiscal imbalance), but all that these "rich folks" gain from lower taxation they seem to lose from the market.

An excellent example is the impact of ACA (aka Obamacare) granted there are still massive problem with the law as it is written, with the GOP in congress doing everything to block it  (instead of amending) or even in some case making it even more difficult to function, there is no doubt that for the country as a whole it has been a very good thing, it has reduce medical expenses growth rate dramatically.   However, it is very far from being perfect.  Unfortunately the GOP's decision to delegitimize the White House and its occupant make any reasonable reform impossible.  Yet it has been very good for the US economy -- it has absolutely reduced medical costs as a percentage of GDP.  That is good for overall economic wellbeing and for the markets.

So what's up now with the options of Trump and Clinton.  To say that Trump had a bad two weeks would be an understatement of massive proportion.  The right tried, and failed, to imply that Clinton had done the same thing -- except she had not.  Yes she took a US$ 700,000 hit on her portfolio, but the tax reduction is only in her capital gains which was apparently $3,000 -- in 2015 her and her husband paid almost US$ 3 million in taxes.  This scandal is different because Trump has not paid taxes for 20 years -- he has not yet said that he actually paid taxes -- he was very careful to not imply that he did!!!

Clinton is doing well, sure she's not liked but then she was associated with Bill so has no ability to make any Republican happy.  Moreover, as Secretary of State she made mistakes -- it comes with the job.

Aside from all that its all good, it would see that Clinton will win the elections.  

We can only hope, 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ok so I lied...a little (revised)

When we began looking at farming in 2013/14 as something we both wanted to do as a "second career" we invested time and money to understand what sector of farming was profitable.  A few things emerged, First, high-quality, source-proven, organic farm products consistently have much higher profit margins.  Secondly, transformation accounted for nearly 80% of total profits, and production and distribution accounted for 20% of profits: Farmers and retailers have low profit margins and the middle bits make all the money. A profitable farm operation needs to be involved in the transformation of its produce.  The low-hanging fruits: cheese and butter.  Milk, generates a profit margin of 5% to 8%, depending on milk quality.  Transformed into cheese and butter, and the profit margin rises to 40% (Taking into account all costs).  Second:  20% of a steer carcass is ground beef quality.  The price is low, because (a) a high percentage of the carcass, and (b)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Spray painting Taylor Swift G650 aircraft (updated)

 First, a bit of paint will not harm anyone.  These climate activities are going to learn two things in the next few days:  (1) Trespassing at an airport is a felony almost anywhere in the world.  That means criminal prosecution.   (2) removing paint from an aircraft is expensive.   So these climate activists are about to find out the reach of the British criminal system and it will not be pleasant, the UK has very strict laws about that, I would be surprised if cleaning the aircraft of all the paint will cost less than $100,000.     I am sure that when they planned (premeditation) this little show they had a very valid logic to doing this.  Tonight, they are probably realizing the depth of their troubles.   I understand that in the UK it's a minimum one-year jail sentence.    Also, good luck travelling with a criminal trespass charge against you.  I am relatively certain that the airline industry will ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Janet Yellen from China supporter to Hawk...

There is rarely serious news in the world these days, it seems that most newspapers are filled with headlines and little else, and then Ms Yellen went to China.  Secretary Yellen has long been known in the Biden administration as the voice of moderation when dealing with China, yet as her trip which concluded yesterday a hawk was born:  She warned the Chinese against dumping goods in the United States.    fighting words! The American administration is very concerned about the lack of Chinese domestic consumption.   Even before the COVID-19 epidemic, there were already the beginning signs of a slowdown, automobile sales were off.   China is facing domestic deflation (a clear sign of collapsing demand) China imports few consumer goods, they import raw materials and intermediary goods.   It seems that the American administration is concerned that the Chinese administration will dump consumer goods abroad to keep its manufacturing machinery ...
Post a Comment
Read more