American Politics

[EihTooms]

To be clearer, you consciously or subconsciously made grade school math errors that favor Democrats.

You mean like being the first one here to finally point out to the desperate Repub Trumpsters that they ought to abandon their love affair with the Dow and citing Trump's "over 50% gain" in that Index when the S&P 500 Index is far more accurate and representative of the broad stock market, preferred on Wall Street and, oh look, their boy's gains by that measure is dramatically better than in the Dow to boot?

Why didn't you point that out to them after all these years?

Ok. Here is a breakdown of the stock market performance results during every presidency going back to McKinley:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stock...220026422.html

Warning: the numbers are different from mine because they used the Dow as the measure instead of the S&P 500 Index and that is because the Dow is an Index that goes back that far. The S&P 500 Index does not.

Well, the financial folks at Yahoo! Finance must not know math any better than I do because they calculated each president's performance exactly the same way I did; by simply calculating the percent of gain or loss from the closing number on a president's first day in office until the last day in office with no regard whatsoever for how that first year "Grew exponentially" relative to the year before it, the one before that and so on. Just the raw closing numbers. I'm guessing every financial analysis site does it that way.

However, they do a disservice to the reader in that they don't provide a simple mention of what that stated gain or loss was on Average Per Year to achieve that overall gain or loss as I did. You know, to indicate at a glance how each president's performance result compared to the others on a per year basis.

Unfortunately, without that reasonable courtesy highlighted, the casual reader might be misled into concluding a president whose performance result was, say, 80% gain was a better steward of that aspect of the economy than one whose performance result was 60% even though the former was in office 8 years and the latter was in office only 2 years.

As a hypothetical example.

They should have made it more easily accessible for the casual reader to make that comparison without dividing by a president's years in office by breaking it down to the Average Annual Gain / Loss for them already, as I did.

Wouldn't you agree?

[Tiny 12]

They would…find your calculation of the per year return during the Biden and George W Bush administrations, well... I'm searching for the right word and can't think of one that's not insulting. You’re turning even math into a partisan exercise.

To be clearer, you consciously or subconsciously made grade school math errors that favor Democrats.

[EihTooms]

Dang Tooms, not only are you cherry picking time periods, you're also re-inventing mathematics and financial analysis. No financial analyst would quibble with my presentation of the numbers. Nor would anyone with a background in math sufficient to understand exponential growth and decline. They would have a problem with what you're doing, and find your calculation of the per year return during the Biden and George W Bush administrations, well... I'm searching for the right word and can't think of one that's not insulting. Youre turning even math into a partisan exercise.

Why would I be "itching to penalize the far superior gains by Obama and likely other Dems" when I believe a correlation between the party of the president and the S&P 500 is spurious?

Then you can't even agree that the gains per presidential tenure based on the January 19/20 starting and ending closes in the S&P 500 Index are as follows, right?

GHW Bush, 286 to 433 = 52% gain.

Bill Clinton, 433 to 1342 = 210% gain.

GW Bush, 1342 to 805 = -40% "gain".

Barack Obama, 805 to 2271 = 182% gain.

Donald Trump, 2271 to 3851 = 69.5% gain.

Joe Biden, 3851 to 4284 yesterday = 11.2%.

And neither would any financial analyst or anyone with a background in math sufficient to understand exponential growth and decline because, after all, none of those starting numbers were determined relative to its exponential growth or decline from the prior year.

Oh, and the prior year's result also needs to be calculated based on its growth or decline relative to the year before that, right?

And on and on.

[Tiny 12]

Dang Tooms, not only are you cherry picking time periods, you're also re-inventing mathematics and financial analysis. No financial analyst would quibble with my presentation of the numbers. Nor would anyone with a background in math sufficient to understand exponential growth and decline. They would have a problem with what you're doing, and find your calculation of the per year return during the Biden and George W Bush administrations, well... I'm searching for the right word and can't think of one that's not insulting. You’re turning even math into a partisan exercise.

Why would I be "itching to penalize the far superior gains by Obama and likely other Dems" when I believe a correlation between the party of the president and the S&P 500 is spurious?

[EihTooms]

Sorry, 14%/ year is the correct per annum growth growth rate in the S&P 500 during Trump's term. Not to say that means anything. Correlations between the party of the president and S&P 500 performance are mostly spurious.

Me:

GW Bush, 1342 to 805 = -40% "gain", divided by 8 = -10%.

I see I mistakenly divided W's total tenure "gain" of -40% by only 4 when he blessed us with 8 years of sterling classic Repub stewardship.

Therefore, his Average Annual "Gain" in the Index was -5%, not -10% as I had posted.

Still, that won't zoom him to the top of the Presidential Stock Market Gain Championships and plunge Bill Clinton or Barack Obama to the bottom unless someone comes up with a twisted pretzel formula to show how one kindly Repub investor meant and tried to buy $20 Trillion in stocks in the second week of January 2009 but fell asleep, didn't make that purchase and then forgot all about it later. So many sad and negative variables working against those poor unlucky Repub presidents.

Let's wait to see if some determined pro Repub Bothsider / Neithersider tries to pull that one off.

[EihTooms]

That's not the way you should look at it. The results of the election were known late on November 3. The change from November 3 to November 4 was 2.2%. That's a very good one day move. It wouldn't surprise me if part of that was indeed due to a seemingly clear Biden victory. (Little did we know).

As to performance between the election and the inauguration, I'd chalk it up to good economic numbers. GDP was growing at a healthy clip and inflation was subdued. That's an ideal situation as far as the market is concerned. It correlates with higher corporate earnings and low interest rates. Of course, Biden and the Democrats screwed that up, the inflation part, with the stimulus provided in the American Rescue Plan in March, 2021.

Oh really? What about investors who were busy in January 2021, forgot all about the date of the inauguration and didn't happen to make any buying or selling until the day after? Or made their move the day before so they could watch every minute of it on TV without phoning their broker?

That one day either way might screw up your entire calculation and could very well move W to the top of the Stock Market Championships and sink Bill Clinton to the bottom.

BTW, why limit your calculations to "Per Annum" Growth when you might get a whole new set of conclusions with a "Per Administration" Growth calculation?

We can see you are itching to penalize the far superior gains by Obama and likely other Dems for taking over from Repubs during typical deep Repub declines and elevating the results for Repubs since they never take over from Dems in the midst of economic disaster as though there is some non math-related Law of Anti Gravity for the stock market that it must zoom back up nicely and regularly within weeks or months after it hits an unknowable bottom no matter who is in the White House proposing and enacting their recovery plans. Nevermind the Herbert Hoover lesson on that, of course.

So why not apply your formulas to factor in Growth from full presidential administration to administration rather than merely from "Annum" to "Annum"?

[EihTooms]

Damn it Tooms, after fellow board members read this exchange, they're going to think neither one of us has a life. Or at least that's what they'll think about me. Your "real world" life is amply illustrated in the Bangkok threads.

We're actually using exactly the same numbers except for the number at the end of the Trump administration. I was using 3841.

Here's the formula for per annum growth,.

I wasn't talking about or citing "Per Annum Growth."

I was talking about and citing Average Annual Gain for their time in office since two of the Repubs in question were only in office for four years and not eight.

Your Per Annum Growth calculations might have mattered to someone who put a dollar in an S&P 500 Index Fund on January 20,1989 and neither added to it nor subtracted from it until today. If you know of such a person.

But even that would not have changed the overall gains in the Index per each presidential tenure, would it? You can play with bizarro world math and views of it all you want after that.

What about adjusting for inflation in each and every month since January 20,1989 for that originally invested dollar? That ought to keep you busy for a while. Who knows, maybe GW Bush will come out as the All Time Champion Stock Market Gainer if you did that!

[Tiny 12]

Thanks for your concern but I had zero negative reaction to any of the shots I've taken. I took the Astra-Zenicas because they were the first acceptable ones imo available here. Then I took the Modernas when they were available here because I had already pre-paid for them before I got the call from one of the best hospitals here to come on in for the free Astra-Zenica shots.

I did get the recent Moderna shot more than a year after my previous shots only because it was adapted for the lastest known variants and would not have bothered to get it otherwise.

Good deal, it sounds like you're right on schedule with what the CDC would recommend. I got the bivalent booster back in October and might be looking at getting another about now if not for what I've been reading.

[Tiny 12]

Here is another Fun Fact about the S&P 500 Index:

5. It ought to be mentioned at least in passing that the S&P 500 Index gained a whopping 14.3%, almost as much as a year of Trump's Average Annual Gain in the broad USA Stock Market just in those 2 months and 3 weeks from election day, November 3, 2020 to Biden's inauguration day on January 20,2021 in one of the greatest post-election Relief Rallies in history on the defeat of Trump and thwarting his bid for "Four More Years"!

Which makes total sense. Wall Street knew very well the hot money windfall profits for CEO and corporate stock buybacks, to skyrocket CEO pay and not do much at all to create jobs or expand the economy, as provided in Trump's one and only economic / tax policy legislation, had pretty much shot its wad by 2020 anyway.

And now it was time for a Dem to do all the right things in the right way at the right time to clean up the colossal mess of the economy produced by classic horrific economic stewardship. As usual. They were justifiably thrilled to buy buy buy as soon as it was obvious Trump's shit storm of a so-called presidency was mercifully out and a responsible adult Dem was in.

That's not the way you should look at it. The results of the election were known late on November 3. The change from November 3 to November 4 was 2.2%. That's a very good one day move. It wouldn't surprise me if part of that was indeed due to a seemingly clear Biden victory. (Little did we know).

As to performance between the election and the inauguration, I'd chalk it up to good economic numbers. GDP was growing at a healthy clip and inflation was subdued. That's an ideal situation as far as the market is concerned. It correlates with higher corporate earnings and low interest rates. Of course, Biden and the Democrats screwed that up, the inflation part, with the stimulus provided in the American Rescue Plan in March, 2021.

[Tiny 12]

Joe Biden, 3851 to 4284 yesterday = 11.2%.

The correct percentage for Biden is 4.6%/year BTW, using your beginning and end numbers. I can see why Cali Guy is not impressed.

[Tiny 12]

You're going to have to show me where the starting point and ending point in the S&P 500 for each president cited, January 20 the year they took office, January 19 as I recall for Obama, to January 20 the year the next president took office for the total gain during their tenure, then divided by the number of years each was in office for the Average Annual Gain, is wrong while yours is right.

And based on what source?

Here is my source:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EGSPC/history/

GHW Bush, 286 to 433 = 52% gain, divided by 4 = 13%.

Bill Clinton, 433 to 1342 = 210% gain, divided by 8 = 26.25%.

GW Bush, 1342 to 805 = -40% "gain", divided by 8 = -10%.

Barack Obama, 805 to 2271 = 182% gain, divided by 8 = 22.75%.

Donald Trump, 2271 to 3851 = 69.5% gain, divided by 4 = 17.3%.

Joe Biden, 3851 to 4284 yesterday = 11.2%.

Sure, it is always possible that I misread or mistyped a number here and there. So where did I get it "wrong" and where did you get different numbers?

Damn it Tooms, after fellow board members read this exchange, they're going to think neither one of us has a life. Or at least that's what they'll think about me. Your "real world" life is amply illustrated in the Bangkok threads.

We're actually using exactly the same numbers except for the number at the end of the Trump administration. I was using 3841.

Here's the formula for per annum growth,

Per annum growth = (e ^ ((ln(Pf)-ln(Pi))/t)-1

where e = exponential constant = 2.718
^ = "raised to the power of"
ln = natural logarithm
Pf = S&P price at end of period
Pi = S&P price at beginning of period
t = time in years between beginning and end

Unless you do this calculation all the time like I do, it may take some time to calculate or set up in a spreadsheet. But the per annum rates are easy to check. Take George H. W. Bush as an example. The index grew from 286 to 433. I calculated 11% per year:

286 x 1.11 x 1.11 x 1.11 x 1.11 = 434

That is, at 11% per annum growth, the index would be 286 x 1.11 = 317.5 at the end of year 1. Then at 317.5 x 1.11 = 352.43 at the end of year 2, etc.

Oh, of course, GW Bush's stewardship had nothing to do with his Great Repub Recession despite his strict instructions to his Office of Thrift Supervision to really get in there to dig up any and all Liar Loans being floated and make sure all those Repub-beloved Banking Regulations are followed to the letter.

Why is Bush any more responsible for the 2008 recession, and consequent fall in the S&P 500, than Bill Clinton or Barney Frank? Yeah, if Bush and his Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and regulators they appointed were omniscient, maybe a recession would have been avoided. But it's unlikely Democrats would have done better. Most of the blame should go to the banks and other financial institutions, and people who thought they could buy $500,000 houses with $50,000 annual income and no money down. And the Fed which probably should have more aggressively cut rates early on. But Bush was a bit player.

And Trump's Pandemic just "came along" under Trump despite his tireless efforts to make sure any and all early coronavirus infection cases were identified and reported ASAP so, you know, we could get that 2-3 month jump on the forcefully endorsed mitigation efforts and prevent such a devastating Pandemic from taking shape.

I believe, as you know, that is pretty wild. Trump could not have prevented a pandemic.

[EihTooms]

Every sector in the markets boomed under Trump presidency. Yes we were dumb enough to believe in Trump economy and made millions. You on the other hand were smarter than most and stayed out of the Trump booming markets. And you made nothing.

I was fully invested in the stock market all through the Trump years; 80-90% of my equity holdings in a very low cost, beautifully diversified Total Stock Market Index Fund and 10-20% in a very low cost Global Equity Fund.

Dollar for dollar I made far less money in the stock market under GW Bush and Trump than under Clinton and Obama, as the historical data and prices table for that broad market measure shows for all to see.

Except for one thing; I accurately identified the top of the market for one of GW Bush's Bear Market Crashes, acted on it to get out of the market and into a safe haven Money Market Fund for the duration of the decline. Then I accurately identified the exact day of the bottom in the market, acted on that to buy right back into it and made a shitload on those two near perfectly timed sell and buy moves.

As the historical data shows, anyone who simply had money in the broad market without making sharp moves in and out at opportune times since at least the late 1980's or so would have done poorly under the Repub presidents relative to doing very well under the Dem presidents.

I would say that is probably true going all the way back 100 years or so. But I have not put pen to paper on it going back 100 years to give exact numbers on it.

And, yeah, I include Biden in that assessment. Had a Repub been in office since 2021, all historic precedence and evidence is he / she would have proposed and done just about everything imaginable wrong to have turned Trump's Bear Market decline into a deep and prolonged market and economic Crash we would still be struggling to recover from with little or no light on the horizon.

LOL. Just imagine how fucked up the Trump's Pandemic vaccine distribution and administration would have been if Trump or any other Repub had been presiding over it since January 2021. Lolol.

[EihTooms]

Astra Zeneca was a lot less effective and more likely to cause serious side effects than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines.

Believe it or not Tooms, I like you, in a cyber kind of way. One piece of advice. You may wish to consult with your physician and take a look at CDC guidelines before you get additional boosters. They make or may not make sense based on your age and pre-existing conditions. There are three papers out recently that indicate boosters may actually increase the probability a person will be infected with COVID. I tend to believe they do still offer good protection against severe disease caused by the latest Omicron variants. But if COVID's largely under control, like it is now, it may not make sense to get additional bivalent boosters. I believe the CDC's recommendation though is to go ahead and get the first bivalent booster if you haven't already gotten it. If you got the Moderna vaccine in the USA in the last 7 or 8 months, it would be bivalent (effective against Omicron). I'm not sure about Thailand. Here's a summary of what's going on.

https://www.icpcovid.com/en/news/7-m...ing-successive

Thanks for your concern but I had zero negative reaction to any of the shots I've taken. I took the Astra-Zenicas because they were the first acceptable ones imo available here. Then I took the Modernas when they were available here because I had already pre-paid for them before I got the call from one of the best hospitals here to come on in for the free Astra-Zenica shots.

I did get the recent Moderna shot more than a year after my previous shots only because it was adapted for the lastest known variants and would not have bothered to get it otherwise.

[EihTooms]

While financial media and some pundits like to cite the Dow because with just 30 stocks in that Index there is always some showbiz dramatic volatility to sweat over and report, savy investors know Wall Srreet's go-to Index to measure the condition of the broad USA Stock Market is the S&P 500 Index. It is simply a far more accurate and representative measure of the broad USA Stock Market.

Actually, it has always been a mystery to me why pro Trump wingers who claim to know something about the stock market even bother to cite starting points, ending points and that the numbers in the Dow show, glory of glory, during Trump's tenure as so-called president the Dow produced "over a 50% gain in four years"!

Really?

Guys, let me help you out with a tremendous favor for your cherry-picked Repub Trump talking point that you have been missing all this time: during Trump's so-called presidency, Wall Street's much preferred measure, the S&P 500 Index gained almost 70%! LOL. Yep. It has always been right there under your supposedly savy investor noses. LOL.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EGSPC/history/

Now, bear in mind a few Fun Facts about that and others' records.

1. The reason the USA Stock Market did that well under Trump while even his pre Trump's Pandemic jobs creation and GDP growth were crap relative to the Trillions he charged American tax payers to get there is because his one and only economic / tax legislation did not produce notable jobs creation or economic expansion results. No, as expected and predicted by the Dems who did not vote for it, that money was spent buying back company stocks and skyrocketing corporate and CEO pay:

Did Trumps tax cuts boost hiring? Most companies say no

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy...mpanies-say-no

So, sorry farmers, the welfare checks Trump sent you was pretty much all of it for you. And sorry, job hunters, Trump's one and only legislative accomplishment was about flooding the stock market with hot windfall profits, not creating jobs.

Oh well.

Back to more S&P 500 Index Fun Facts:

2. The average annual gain in the USA Stock Market as measured by Wall Street's go-to preferred Index, see historical data table link above, for the most recent presidential tenures is:

GHW Bush, +13%.

Bill Clinton, +26.25%.

GW Bush, -10%.

Barack Obama, +22.75%.

Donald Trump, +17.3%.

3. As of this writing, the gain during Joe Biden's tenure at a bit less than 2 1/2 years in office is about +11%.

However, that is in the midst of all the lingering horrific worldwide economic, supply-chain and inflation fallout from Trump's policy of defunding and removing the Pandemic Prevention and Response Teams from known bad actor in these matters China at the worst possible time and then spending a critical year lying and doing everything a so-called world leader could do to create and develop a devastating Pandemic.

4. To further put the above number into perspective, after just a bit less than 2 years in office, on December 24,2018, Trump's gain in that Index was only 3. 5%. Yep, after almost 2 full years in office and with none of the Trump's Pandemic historically damaging headwinds working against him.

And that was a full year after his one and only economic / tax policy legislation was signed and passed.

Here is another Fun Fact about the S&P 500 Index:

5. It ought to be mentioned at least in passing that the S&P 500 Index gained a whopping 14.3%, almost as much as a year of Trump's Average Annual Gain in the broad USA Stock Market just in those 2 months and 3 weeks from election day, November 3, 2020 to Biden's inauguration day on January 20,2021 in one of the greatest post-election Relief Rallies in history on the defeat of Trump and thwarting his bid for "Four More Years"!

Which makes total sense. Wall Street knew very well the hot money windfall profits for CEO and corporate stock buybacks, to skyrocket CEO pay and not do much at all to create jobs or expand the economy, as provided in Trump's one and only economic / tax policy legislation, had pretty much shot its wad by 2020 anyway.

And now it was time for a Dem to do all the right things in the right way at the right time to clean up the colossal mess of the economy produced by classic horrific economic stewardship. As usual. They were justifiably thrilled to buy buy buy as soon as it was obvious Trump's shit storm of a so-called presidency was mercifully out and a responsible adult Dem was in.

[EihTooms]

That's mostly coincidental. Trying to tie stock market performance, like GDP growth, to the party of the president doesn't make sense.

I will concede that the invasion of Iraq spearheaded by George W. Bush wasn't good in the long run for our economy or stock markets.

The numbers in your table are wrong. Here are the per annum gains in the S&P 500 Index during each presidency. Bush was handicapped by a recession that he had little to do with. Trump similarly was hurt by a pandemic that he could not have prevented, contrary to your belief. And Obama was helped by taking the reins at the bottom of a recession.

You're going to have to show me where the starting point and ending point in the S&P 500 for each president cited, January 20 the year they took office, January 19 as I recall for Obama, to January 20 the year the next president took office for the total gain during their tenure, then divided by the number of years each was in office for the Average Annual Gain, is wrong while yours is right.

And based on what source?

Here is my source:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EGSPC/history/

GHW Bush, 286 to 433 = 52% gain, divided by 4 = 13%.

Bill Clinton, 433 to 1342 = 210% gain, divided by 8 = 26.25%.

GW Bush, 1342 to 805 = -40% "gain", divided by 8 = -10%.

Barack Obama, 805 to 2271 = 182% gain, divided by 8 = 22.75%.

Donald Trump, 2271 to 3851 = 69.5% gain, divided by 4 = 17.3%.

Joe Biden, 3851 to 4284 yesterday = 11.2%.

Sure, it is always possible that I misread or mistyped a number here and there. So where did I get it "wrong" and where did you get different numbers?

Oh, of course, GW Bush's stewardship had nothing to do with his Great Repub Recession despite his strict instructions to his Office of Thrift Supervision to really get in there to dig up any and all Liar Loans being floated and make sure all those Repub-beloved Banking Regulations are followed to the letter.

And Trump's Pandemic just "came along" under Trump despite his tireless efforts to make sure any and all early coronavirus infection cases were identified and reported ASAP so, you know, we could get that 2-3 month jump on the forcefully endorsed mitigation efforts and prevent such a devastating Pandemic from taking shape.

Yeah. Yeah. That's the ticket. As everyone knows, those poor poor Repubs are just magically and mystically unlucky.