President Obama

[Blodhemn]

Is that corrected for inflation? You do realize that charts like that mean nothing when adjusted. Plus, just wait, there will be another drop soon enough. The same policies are enacted, more or less. There's no other way around it.

[Humodour]

Is that corrected for inflation? You do realize that charts like that mean nothing when adjusted. Plus, just wait, there will be another drop soon enough. The same policies are enacted, more or less. There's no other way around it.

 

You know what - I'm not sure. I thought it was, since the author of the graph is Andrew S. Tanenbaum - somebody who knows maths and logic absolutely inside out, being a world-famous computer science professor. But hey, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and provide a Dow Jones plot which I KNOW is inflation adjusted.

 

You're not going to like it, because it again reinforces the notion that Republicans of the past 25 or so years have been neutral through to terrible for the stock market, while Democrats have been good for it - even fixing the Republican screw ups.

 

http://www.macrotrends.org/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart

 

You can drag with the left-mouse button to zoom into the years corresponding to the presidential terms you're interested in.

 

Note also: "Historical data is inflation-adjusted using the headline CPI."

 

Now, are you really going to sit there and tell me "IT DOESN'T MATTER - THERE WILL BE A CRASH UNDER OBAMA" without the slightest bit of evidence beside your disdain for the man? Come on mate, give credit where it is due and accept that Obama and the Democrats have been a good thing for the USA and will continue to be.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Krezack

[Humodour]

So, from Tanenbaum's graph, which I'm pretty sure IS inflation adjusted, he comes up with some maths, which I think is really descriptive:

 

To make these number clearer, suppose Mitt Romney had invested $10,000 in the stock market on the day George H.W. Bush was inaugurated (instead of betting it on something). On Clinton's first day in office imagine Romney sold his stocks, expecting a disaster from the Democrats. He would have had $14,100 in cash. Then when George W. Bush took over, imagine he bought a Dow index fund with his $14,100. When Obama took office, Romney would have had $10,434, a net profit of $434 for 12 years of investment.

 

Now suppose Barack Obama had sat out the Bush 41 years and put $10,000 into a Dow fund on Jan. 21, 1993. He could have sold it for $32,900 the day George W. Bush got the keys to the White House. If he had invested his $32,900 the day he took office himself, his holdings would be worth $53,950 now, a profit of $43,950 in almost the same 12 year period. While unemployment affects about 8% of the population, more than half of all Americans have an IRA, 401(k), or other retirement fund (or in some cases a pension invested in stocks) and they are a lot better off now than they were 4 years ago. But this fairly obvious economic fact gets surprisingly little attention.

[alanschu]

Eh, the only one that is noteworthy is Clinton, although while I know that that is the Dow Jones, I don't know what the relationship would be with something like the dot-com bubble (which burst on Clinton's watch too. Clinton's numbers are so high that I'd need to investigate why (I'm guessing China probably plays a large part, but that's just a guess)

 

The Dow has recovered under Obama, but I'm curious how differently it would have been had McCain been president. There's also other issues like whether or not measuring the Dow (and only the Dow) is a sufficient enough measure of the economy.

[Humodour]

Is that corrected for inflation? You do realize that charts like that mean nothing when adjusted.

 

OKAY, odd, you're saying that we SHOULDN'T adjust for inflation? What a ludicrously novel idea!

 

I think it's a load of tripe, but I don't care, because exactly the same trend line is evident whether adjust for inflation or not, so again: Republicans = bad for stock market, Democrats = good. Insofar as using stock market growth as an indicator of presidential performance is a good idea - which it surely isn't - but you conservatives seem to be in love with money, so I'll run with what works for you.

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q1a3bP-GV8Y/T1ajvk0N9oI/AAAAAAAABSg/8TheBHlMppk/s1600/Dow%2BInflation-Adjusted%2BClosing%2BPrices.jpg

 

Unfortunately the time scale is very large and the graph logarithmic, which makes it harder to discern the Republican ****-ups of the stock market. But as you can tell, the trend lines are almost identical, and the inflation rate for the past 20 years or so in America has been low single digits, so it hardly matters anyway. If you can provide a better non-inflation-adjusted graph, feel free.

 

But I do take your claim that "adjusting for inflation is wrong" as evidence that you're clueless. If you don't adjust for inflation, then you CANNOT compare a dollar today to a dollar a year ago or 10 or 20 years ago. It's apples and oranges. You MUST adjust for inflation.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Krezack

[Blodhemn]

All those numbers show is how inflated today's curriencies are. Compare the dollar to silver or gold during those times. The only differences you will see is either a more gradual or increased rate of lost value. In 2006, an ounce of silver would buy 4 gallons of gas, today it would buy 11 gallons. That is real worth, not this phony stock market measure. And Obama is mostly continuing the same Bush policies and those before.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Don't know if it's already been discussed, but it looks to me like Republicans are no longer viable in a presidential election. Which means half the country has no representation at the national level.

[alanschu]

Is that corrected for inflation? You do realize that charts like that mean nothing when adjusted.

 

I'm going to assume this is a typo.

 

All those numbers show is how inflated today's curriencies are. Compare the dollar to silver or gold during those times. The only differences you will see is either a more gradual or increased rate of lost value. In 2006, an ounce of silver would buy 4 gallons of gas, today it would buy 11 gallons. That is real worth, not this phony stock market measure. And Obama is mostly continuing the same Bush policies and those before.

 

Precious metals are valued because humanity as placed an arbitrary trading value on them. They are no different than any other thing we arbitrarily assign value to.

 

Second, are you seriously linking the Dow's growth rates with inflation? Do you think the inflation rate of the US during Clinton's years are anywhere close to 200%?

[alanschu]

Don't know if it's already been discussed, but it looks to me like Republicans are no longer viable in a presidential election. Which means half the country has no representation at the national level.

 

This makes the assumption that Obama is entirely and completely not representative of the voters that didn't vote for him, and prevents any situation of "I think Obama would be fine, but I think Romney would be better" from factoring into voter decisions in any capacity. It means that voters could not have voted for Romney because of 1 (of many) specific issue that they highly value, but rather that someone that voted for Romney must be 100% opposed to everything Obama will do (and that Romney himself would take the exact opposite decision that Obama makes).

 

Given that the country also sees national representation with Congress, and that your statement would still be validated for any group of voters that didn't vote for the winning election, it's a bit of a trivial and inaccurate statement.

[Enoch]

Equities markets are relatively insignificant-- they're pretty lousy as a measure of overall economic performance. Attributing national economic performance to the current occupant of the White House is also fundamentally problematic. The Prez has a couple of levers that he can push (e.g., appointing Fed governors, occasional major legislative priorities like EESA under Bush and ARRA under Obama), but for the most part, he's along for the ride with the rest of us.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Enoch

[Blodhemn]

Is that corrected for inflation? You do realize that charts like that mean nothing when adjusted.

 

I'm going to assume this is a typo.

 

All those numbers show is how inflated today's curriencies are. Compare the dollar to silver or gold during those times. The only differences you will see is either a more gradual or increased rate of lost value. In 2006, an ounce of silver would buy 4 gallons of gas, today it would buy 11 gallons. That is real worth, not this phony stock market measure. And Obama is mostly continuing the same Bush policies and those before.

 

Precious metals are valued because humanity as placed an arbitrary trading value on them. They are no different than any other thing we arbitrarily assign value to.

 

Second, are you seriously linking the Dow's growth rates with inflation? Do you think the inflation rate of the US during Clinton's years are anywhere close to 200%?

 

You're nitpicking. I don't feel like doing into detail with this ****. Just look at the overall picture from today to a few years ago.

 

Just to simplify what I'm saying - wallstreet keeps getting richer but everyone else isn't. Actually on average, everyone else is losing take home pay. In an era of endless printing and borrowing, doesn't this concern anyone? Isn't it a bit concerning that the average person is taking home less, yet the ones at the top keep getting their piece of the pie?

[alanschu]

You're nitpicking. I don't feel like doing into detail with this ****. Just look at the overall picture from today to a few years ago.

 

Just to simplify what I'm saying - wallstreet keeps getting richer but everyone else isn't.

 

No, I think you rather obfuscated your own point.

 

If you wish to talk about the uneven distribution of wealth (which is fine), don't go on unrelated tangents related to inflation and use it as an argument to demonstrate that the Dow Jones index is meaningless because of inflation. I'll agree that it's likely not a very good measurement of the economy as a whole, especially in isolation of everything else. As for the rest of your post:

 

 

Actually on average, everyone else is losing take home pay. In an era of endless printing and borrowing, doesn't this concern anyone? Isn't it a bit concerning that the average person is taking home less, yet the ones at the top keep getting their piece of the pie?

 

This is true, adjusted for inflation, the median household income is down about $4000 (7.5% of $54000) from 2007. Whether or not this is a serious concern I am not sure about. What I do consider a serious concern is that people continue to live beyond their means and accrue significant amounts of debt. Though I suspect this would likely be the case regardless of who is president, I could understand that some might feel that social safety nets encourage this behaviour. Though that's just a logical deduction, I don't know if this is actually the case in practice.

[alanschu]

Equities markets are relatively insignificant-- they're pretty lousy as a measure of overall economic performance. Attributing national economic performance to the current occupant of the White House is also fundamentally problematic. The Prez has a couple of levers that he can push (e.g., appointing Fed governors, occasional major legislative priorities like EESA under Bush and ARRA under Obama), but for the most part, he's along for the ride with the rest of us.

 

Does the president (or at least the bureaucracy that he can change) have any impact on interest (not exchange) rates or anything like that?

 

FTR I pretty much agree with you. Though I suspect Clinton's administration had its spike because it opened up doors to China (though admittedly it's not something I'm nearly as caught up on since it was before I was remotely interested in politics)

Edited November 9, 2012 by alanschu

[Hurlshort]

Don't know if it's already been discussed, but it looks to me like Republicans are no longer viable in a presidential election. Which means half the country has no representation at the national level.

 

I'm guessing, and really hoping, that the Republican party will be making some big changes to become more relevant in the next election. A good first step would be to jettison some of the crazier elements.

[Farbautisonn]

Don't know if it's already been discussed, but it looks to me like Republicans are no longer viable in a presidential election. Which means half the country has no representation at the national level.

 

I'm guessing, and really hoping, that the Republican party will be making some big changes to become more relevant in the next election. A good first step would be to jettison some of the crazier elements.

 

Well... that goes for both parties. Bipartisanship in politics leaves alot of middle ground in the toilet.

[alanschu]

I'm surprised the Republicans feel it is so necessary to appeal to some of the extremes. I guess they want to make sure the voter comes out (rather than abstain), but I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Conservative Right would vote Democrat if the Republicans went on a more pragmatic platform.

[Farbautisonn]

I'm surprised the Republicans feel it is so necessary to appeal to some of the extremes. I guess they want to make sure the voter comes out (rather than abstain), but I am having a hard time convincing myself that the Conservative Right would vote Democrat if the Republicans went on a more pragmatic platform.

Considering the pandering to an abject moron as Michael Moore and an equally abject failiure as Carter, Id say pragmatism is relative... at best. .

[NOK222]

Hey did Mr. Legitimate Rape get reelected?

 

http://www.policymic.com/articles/18777/todd-akin-loses-mourdock-mandel-lose-bids-for-senate-us-senate-gains-women lol nope

Edited November 9, 2012 by NKKKK

[alanschu]

Many were (thank goodness)

 

 

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

Don't know if it's already been discussed, but it looks to me like Republicans are no longer viable in a presidential election. Which means half the country has no representation at the national level.

 

This makes the assumption that Obama is entirely and completely not representative of the voters that didn't vote for him, and prevents any situation of "I think Obama would be fine, but I think Romney would be better" from factoring into voter decisions in any capacity. It means that voters could not have voted for Romney because of 1 (of many) specific issue that they highly value, but rather that someone that voted for Romney must be 100% opposed to everything Obama will do (and that Romney himself would take the exact opposite decision that Obama makes).

 

Given that the country also sees national representation with Congress, and that your statement would still be validated for any group of voters that didn't vote for the winning election, it's a bit of a trivial and inaccurate statement.

My point is not that they're not being represented in this particular election (which would be trivial as you say), my point is they will never get a chance to set the agenda in any election because selecting a Republican president is now all but impossible. So the "red" part of the country isn't in the game. http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/

[alanschu]

I'm going to assume you're talking about a type of vote split that occurs upon selecting candidates, implying that some people that may vote Republican opt not to because in order to win the Republican nomination, there will be some that don't like that candidate and as such decide to vote Democrat instead?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Don't know if it's already been discussed, but it looks to me like Republicans are no longer viable in a presidential election. Which means half the country has no representation at the national level.

 

I'm guessing, and really hoping, that the Republican party will be making some big changes to become more relevant in the next election. A good first step would be to jettison some of the crazier elements.

They've already run two cadidates who are much more moderate than the party itself in 2 consecutive elections, how much more can they concede?

 

 

I'm going to assume you're talking about a type of vote split that occurs upon selecting candidates, implying that some people that may vote Republican opt not to because in order to win the Republican nomination, there will be some that don't like that candidate and as such decide to vote Democrat instead?

I'm talking about the electoral map math, there are simply not enough Republican leaning states to produce a Republican president under normal cicumstances. Edited November 9, 2012 by Wrath of Dagon

[alanschu]

I'm talking about the electoral map math, there are simply not enough Republican leaning states to produce a Republican president under normal cicumstances.

 

Is that really the case? Or does it just look that way because the Republicans lost the previous two elections? What changed from Bush's era to now?

[GuybrushWilco]

The typical red states did stay red, and in fact, Obama lost two states that he carried in 2008: Indiana and North Carolina. Indiana is a bit surprising since it is in the midwest, which has been turning very blue in the past couple of decades. Still though, Obama won the popular vote by a larger margin than had been predicted, and it shows that the shifting demographics are not shifting in the direction of the Republicans. They are going to have to do some re-branding if they want to get a Republican in the White House in 2016, especially if Hillary Clinton runs on the Democratic ticket.

Edited November 9, 2012 by GuybrushWilco

[Wrath of Dagon]

I'm talking about the electoral map math, there are simply not enough Republican leaning states to produce a Republican president under normal cicumstances.

 

Is that really the case? Or does it just look that way because the Republicans lost the previous two elections? What changed from Bush's era to now?

Demographics have changed, and will keep changing against Republicans. Virginia and Colorado were Republican leaning states, and now lean Democrat. Ohio might still be a toss up, but Florida will probably be leaning Democrat next election. So Republicans have no path to victory.