Dems: the stox party

[Max Sawicky]

> 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

Not "statistically significant," but "visually
significant"??  What superior methodology is at
work here?


> 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.

This would follow if the Repubs consistently
threw the economy and stock market into recession
and voters turned to Dems in response, with the
latter having the luck to preside over recovery,
even if neither party had the slightest thing
to do with recovery.
> 
> Remind me, which is the party of capital?

 
The party with the capital is a good indicator
of the party of capital.  Clinton's fundraising
prowess notwithstanding, in the grand scheme of
things one party wages electoral contests with
dollars and the other with people.

MBS