After a wild ride in which it opened with a 700 point slide, the Dow see-sawed back and forth, eventually closing down only 128 points. So rather than redoing yesterday’s chart to reflect the decrease in the Bush-era return from -19% to -20%, I thought I’d take a stab at charting the NASDAQ, which actually closed slightly up today.
Let’s hear it for our “CEO President.”
Goldy,
Interesting post. Please do the same thing for who is control of congress from the years 1976-2008, would be interesting.
Farmer Fred
The Bush Economy.
An oxymoron if I ever heard one.
# 1: Measuring economic performance by a President using the different stock market indices is difficult enough. Certainly there are other factors at play, including whether or not his party is in control of Congress, how much of a majority either side has, the situation he inherited from his predecessor, outside factors beyond his control (foreign cartels, bad weather, economy of other nations, etc.). For those reasons I didn’t even begin to use it as a measure, in large part because many of the decisions made by a president aren’t felt until quite a few years later.
But trying to measure Congress by the stock market makes far less sense. Congress can only pass laws, if it’s not filibustered by the opposing party or vetoed by a president from the other party. It can’t do day-to-day investigation and management of economic affairs as the executive branch is tasked to do under existing legislation. It can’t really make economic policy in a broad sense, although it can make it difficult for a President to implement his own economic policy if it so desires. For those reasons tying Congress, by itself, to stock market performance is unlikely to yield any meaningful results.
However, if you have both the Congress and the President setting economic policies for six years in tandem, and the President continuing those policies for the next two years, it’s appropriate to measure the President’s economic performance during that entire eight-year period.
rhp @3,
I think what Fred is implying is the typical Republican line… that the performance during the Clinton Administration was the result of policies driven during the Reagan/Bush years, and/or the Republican Congress that came in in 1994 (except for the dot.com bust, which was all Clinton’s fault), yet that all of the problems of the current crisis are the result of Democrats taking a slight majority in 2006, because the crash occurred subsequently, but that the previous six years of Republican hegemony is entirely blameless.
Is that right Fred? Is that your theory?
Anyone see a pattern here?
Jobs created by modern presidents (as percentage of workforce)
Democrat Roosevelt 5.3%
Democrat Johnson 3.8%
Democrat Carter 3.1%
Democrat Truman 2.5%
Democrat Clinton 2.4%
Democrat Kennedy 2.3%
Republican Nixon 2.2%
Republican Reagan 2.1%
Republican Coolidge 1.1%
Republican Ford 1.1%
Republican Eisenhower 0.9%
Republican Bush Sr. 0.6%
Republican Bush Jr. (0.7%)
Republican Hoover (9.0%)
(Data through 2003.)
Anyone see a pattern here?
From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003:
Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs, Republicans 36,440,000.
Per Year Average: Democrats 1,825,200, Republicans 856,400.
Republicans had 9 presidents during the period of whom 6 presided over a depression or recession.
The Dow Average grew 52% more under Democrats.
GDP grew 43% more under Democrats.
“T. Boone Pickens Has A Plan To Break Our Addiction To Foreign Oil” — Pickens Ad
Here’s the plan: Build a bunch of wind turbines to replace some of the electricity generated by natural gas. Use the natural gas to power about 20% of our vehicle fleet. (The other 80% is still powered by oil.) Pickens sells you both the wind power and the natural gas. Oh, and he has oil interests, too.
Bad News And Good News
The bad news is Detroit may go bankrupt. The good news is without cars we won’t need highways or oil.
Roger Rabbit @ 7:
while what you are saying is true, there’s a much bigger and more important under current at work with T. Boone Picken’s ads.
And that is he creates a monumnetal shift in thinking for the lemmings on the right, in that we cannot sustain ourselves on oil, $700 billion dollars per year goes to terrorists nations, and we need alternatives.
Once that becomes the prevailing thought, and is has, more people are open to change. Particularly those on the right who are not intelligent enough to solve problems.
Change is here. It may have come later than we like, but it’s not TOO LATE.
And, that means WE WON!
WE WON! WE WON! WE WON! WE WON! WE WON! WE WON! WE WON! WE WON! WE WON! WE WON!
Yep, we KICKED conservative ASS. Beath their pea brains to the curb on K Street with the rest of the traitors and scum!!
Oh yeah, Randy “Duke” Cunningham wrote a letter to his wife. He mentioned he quite enjoys anal intercourse now, but his rectum is wrecked and he shits himself constantly.
Newsweek Poll
1. Voting Blocs
Overall: Obama leads McCain, 52% – 41%
Male Voters: Obama leads McCain, 54% – 40%
Female Voters: Obama leads McCain, 50% – 41%
Independent Voters: McCain leads Obama, 45% – 43%
Voters Over 65: Obama leads McCain, 49% – 43%
Hillary Supporters: Obama leads McCain, 88% – 7%
Catholics: Obama leads McCain, 47% – 46%
2. Favorability Ratings
Obama: 60% favorable, 36% unfavorable
McCain: 51% favorable, 36% unfavorable
Shares values with Obama: 59% yes, 37% no
Shares values with McCain: 47% yes, 49% no
Palin qualified to be president: 39% yes, 55% no
3. Issues
Best On National Security: McCain leads Obama, 50% – 40%
Best On Economy: Obama leads McCain, 54%- 35%
Best On Iraq War: Obama leads McCain, 47% – 46%
Best On Energy Policy: Obama leads McCain, 53% – 36%
Best On Health Care: Obama leads McCain, 56% – 30%
Best On Taxes and Spending: Obama leads McCain, 50% – 39%
Best On Financial Crisis: Obama leads McCain, 50% – 34%
Best On Social Issues (Abortion, Guns, Gay Marriage): Obama leads McCain, 46% – 39%
(Source: Newsweek)
Roger Rabbit Commentary: If Republicans want to know why they’re losing they should look past Bill Ayers and ACORN at the unpopularity of their candidates and policies. Republicans are losing because they’re indifferent to citizens’ problems and out of step on what direction the country should go. That, not imaginary voter fraud or McCain’s failure to attack Obama more aggressively, is the root cause of their electoral misfortune.
@9 Any service Pickens is rendering to alternative energy is unintended and accidental.
Why McCain Is Certain To Lose
McCain is under heavy pressure from the rabid GOP base to attack Obama in the final debate. This will backfire and cost him independent votes. He knows it, but has no choice — he has to pacify the wolves in his own party. The forces now in motion guarantee that Obama will win.
Goldy @ # 4: I guessed that was what he was getting at. I decided to give him a scholarly answer. But I guess he didn’t want to stick around long enough to actually deal with it, it was more of a drive-by shooting.
One point I wanted to make (but never really got around to it) was that although the DJIA is a pretty poor measure of any particular president’s economic performance, the Republicans started using it, so I thought I would hold them to their same standard.
I started the whole project of keeping track of it because so many wingnuts were claiming (quite misleadingly) that the stock market approaching 13,000 some 2-3 years ago proved the superiority of Bush Economics. What I wanted to do was to place the DJIA performance in comparison with it under other presidents (as you did), and to show it as a multi-year average compared with other investments. Thus even a 20% rise in the stock market, over eight years, isn’t such a great investment when averaged annually and compared against other investments. I never dreamed at the time it would actually get into negative figures, however.
@7 Here is a man doing the work of ten thousand democrats and you’re still not
happy. I hope you cocksuckers abort yourselves
into oblivion. Oh, by the way, your kind is
coming to an end.
Re: Mark who spews, I am totally at a loss as to why the morons on the right are so utterly and out of control angry. They’ve been in power for lo these long merciless years, have cynical leaders who have laughed at their professed agendas and ripped the living shit out of them yet they are angry at who????Democrats. They need classes all of ’em.
25 Classes? I think not. More like strait jackets, rubber rooms and lots and lots of Thorazine.
I believe the Nasdaq began its crash in March 2001, about a month after Bush had taken office and presumably before his policies were enacted, much less had a chance to kick in. Arguably the catalyst for the tech crash was the decision by the Clinton admin to sue Microsoft.
The microelectronics revolution that fueled the Nasdaq started in the late 70’s under Carter when Intel invented the mpu, continued under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and W Bush. Electrons don’t care which party has the WH.
Correction: the 8008 microprocessor dates to 1972, which I guess would have been Nixon.
Goldy and rhp6033,
Thats exactly what I was getting at. Sorry for the long delay, but being a farmer I have longer hours and an erratic schedule.
Congress appropriates all funding, and I agree with rhp6033 that it is a POOR evaluation of a presidency. Just as today you have irrational pessimism in todays market, 2 years ago it was irrational optimism. The market has been fundamentally overvalued since the late 1990’s. Housing values 2 years ago were grossly over-valued with a huge oversupply on the market. Pushing people to buy what they couldn’t afford was also part of the problem, as was deregulation. If it is fair for the left to attach the dow to the presidency, it also should be applied to control of congress, but to a lesser degree. Obviously it puts the D’s in potential negative light, or you would have printed the results.
Let me educate you on another example. Agriculture is currently at historic highs, and is over valued. It will inevitably decline over the next 2 crop years, simple supply and demand as noted to other items in the above paragraph. This implies that President Obama will most likely preside over the greatest % drop in agricultural revenue in recent history (maybe even eclipsing the ag decline under the current worst living ex-president, Jimmy Carter). Based on your simple un-educated reasoning, there should be huge shift to republican candidates in the 2010-12 elections in the more ag based states. It is also wise to remember, that agriculture is still our nations largest sector. Of course, people in Seattle who read the PI are largely ignorant on economic and cultural realitys outside of King county.
How about another example, since you consider GW a failure on the foreign policy/war front. Publish all the deaths of the military by presidencys, starting with the end of WW2. Hows do the dem’s stack up in this category? Do the same for the congress control also, just to be fair. Should be interesting!
My basic premise is this, anytime your have the presidency and congress controlled by the same party, their respective right/left wings assert more control than the center/slightly right leanings of the country. You just saw the failure of the right, and in the next 1-3 years you will see it from the left. It is simple fate and the abuse of power. The country will always come back to the (near) center.
Have a nice day,
Farmer Fred
Uh ha-ha
Hey butthead
The NASDAQ the day Bush took office was at 50% it’s value 9 months prior. Your pals in the media tried to create a downturn in the economy so folks would vote for their dork
(isn’t that what the D stands for?) I think this meltdown will prove to be orchestrated as well.
The destruction of everything American families hold important is going to be the result of this election.
The big O will become the Big Zero in 4 years.
Wow, some folks will be thankful that someone was even more pitiful the Jimmy Carter. Won’t that be a hoot?
Bush’s biggest failure was to not jail many dems who cost lives in Iraq. All to win an election.
Thankfully the Supreme Court stepped up to defend our right to arms. We just might be forced to follow Jefferson’s suggestion of rising up against an uncontrolled government. I know 4 justices who sided against the citizenry. They should be imprisoned too. Thrown out off the court at the least!
Well, here’s what I think. All Repugs who voted for George B. should be locked up as traitors. The cabal of Bushies banished to a desert island, preferably one that’s been used as a atomic test site.
@19
Thanks for sharing!