The Wall Street Journal amuses me. They write near the top of their article that “conventional wisdom holds that the stock market does well when a Republican wins.” Then, further down, they note “data from Citigroup point to better returns under Democratic presidents over the course of their terms.” In other words, the conventional wisdom is wrong. Just take Barack Obama for an example. The stock market has more than doubled in value since March of 2009. And this is in spite of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill that supposedly over-regulated the financial sector and stifled economic activity. Republicans have delusional theories about economics. Because of that, on balance, the stock market will be a safer, more profitable place under Democratic administrations.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
5 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Which begs the question: why aren’t there more corporate donations to Democrats? Ah, it must be that conventional wisdom getting in the way.
It’s served à la mode with the Democrats exploding government debt and not caring for veterans.
“Republicans have delusional theories about economics.”
Absolutely including WSJ, a paper rich people and Republicans swear by because it flatters them.
Even BooMan falls into false framing of this issue once here.
“The stock market has more than doubled in value since March of 2009. And this is in spite of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill…”.
“…in spite of…”? Sure, there’s the caveats afterwards in this sentence, and perhaps Boo is engaging in some sarcasm here, but I just don’t believe we should ever concede that the reasonable (in fact, potentially too weak) regulations of financial institutions provided by Dodd-Frank should be expected to weaken the economy. Good regulations strengthen and stabilize the economy.
A rising stock market does not equal a strong economy. The boom before the latest bust simply reflected the senseless gambling and outright fraud defining the market. That assumption constitutes a deeper kind of false framing than you attribute to Boo.
Boo’s statement seems clearly designed to contrast the WSJ’s doomsday predictions about regulation destroying the markets with the reality of the numbers now. To me, a rising stock market carries a big warning with it that there’s still not enough market regulation or enforcement of the current ones.