Dems: the stox party

[Jessica]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> 
> The San Francisco Fed's June 19 Economic Letter
> <http://www.sf.frb.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/wklyltr98/el98-19.html> compares
> U.S. stock returns during Republican and Democratic administrations, and
> finds the Dems have the edge. Though they say the differences aren't
> statistically significant, they are visually so, whether you start the
> clock in 1871, 1926, or 1945. Also, the Rep's have the worst single
> administration, Hoover's, and the Dems the best, Roosevelt's first.
> Clinton's also one of the top performers.
> 
> Remind me, which is the party of capital?
> 
> Doug

Hey,

I'm not sure what the answer would be in the U.S.  but I suspect there isn't a party there that isn't a 
party of capital - I gues you're being sarcastic... what I find interesting is that there is a party in 
Canada which is considered the party of labour and students, not capital - the New Democratic 
Party.  When comparing the NDP to the UK's Labour Party one cannot help but conclude that the 
NDP have remained closer to their grass roots; but the last few election campiagns they've run 
have been inching closer and closer to fiscal conservatism in hopes of winning over the private 
sector.   This phenomenon is referred to by many here as NDP electoral obsession.  They think 
they might actually get elected; therefore they do whatever they have to in order  to *get* elected, 
including compromising or ignoring their basic values.  

This situation is, I daresay, more complicated from a socialist or democratic perspective than the 
political landscape in the U.S.  Socialists here advocate a critical vote for the NDP.  I understand 
socialists in the U.S. advocate abstention from voting.

Jessica Squires