Quote: (02-29-2012 10:29 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:
Quote: (02-29-2012 10:13 PM)gringochileno Wrote:
I'm no fan of the Republicans but I don't think this is a very strong argument. Correlation doesn't imply causation. At best, it shows that Democratic policies don't seem to have measurably negative effects on the stock market.
I am not a fan of Republicans or Democrats.
However, let's say you go to nightclub #1 and it is 90% guys three times in a row.
And then you go to nightclub #2 and it is 90% fly girls four times in a row.
Which nightclub are you going back to?
Bad analogy. Your nightclub example is unlikely to be coincidence. In the chart, however, most of the Democratic presidents' lead is due to the 1990s Clinton-era boom and Obama's presidency thus far, which started out near the bottom of one of the worst periods for the stock market in history. If you took those away there wouldn't be a significant difference, which tells me that the more plausible explanation is probably chance due to a low sample size, especially since there's relatively little that a President can do to affect economic performance.
Moreover, I'm surprised that you believe there's such a huge difference in the effects of Democratic and Republican economic policies. Haven't you argued that the two parties' objectives are basically the same?