>>> Max Sawicky quotes someone and then writes:
> 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.
For the 20th Century up until Carter, ALL of the Democrats went to war, and NONE of the Republican Presidents did. The Republican
Presidents ushered in recession/depressions , and the Democrats ushered in wars and recoveries. This fits with the pattern described above.
There was a division of labor between the two parties of big business.
I've been trying to figure out how the end of this pattern might be related to globalization.
WW I - Wilson WW II Roosevelt Korea Truman Viet Nam Kennedy -Johnson