Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants
There was an interesting piece in yesterday’s New York Times that asked the following question: "…which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole?"
To come up with an answer the author, Tommy McCall, conducts a thought experiment: "imagine that during [the last 80] years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?
As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years."
You can view the article here.
I love it. Of course the problem of your post is that you are using logic.
Logic, for conservatives is bad…that’s why conservative UU’s (many of whom are humanists) have no fear of supporting a team that includes a VP that even Quail laughs at. At least, last I heard, Quail never said he believed dinosaurs walked the earth with early man.
Wow…think about that. Dan Quail could kick Palin’s butt in a debate…that’s too scary for halloween.
Comment by Chuck B. — October 16, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Logic? I’d laugh if it weren’t pathetic. To begin with, Presidents aren’t kings; they don’t rule single-handedly- or have you forgotten Congress? Secondly, that article doesn’t take time into effect; you can’t build or wreck an economy in a day. Herbert Hoover, for example, took office in March; the stock market crashed in October. If he gets the blame for that, then I presume you’ll give President Obama blame for next year’s economy?
I could go on, but why? You’ve got a good snark going there, Chuck, I don’t expect you to spoil it with reason.
Comment by Joel Monka — October 20, 2008 @ 7:08 pm