Mark Hulbert, a watcher of financial newsletters and commentator has this to say about the effect of Obama's win on the stock market:
"Note carefully that my findings do not mean that Wall Street thinks Obama will be better for the economy than John McCain. My results instead mean that Wall Street does not think he will be any worse. If anything, my study provides support for the Libertarian view that the long-term economic effects of the two major political parties are not all that different.
Whether you take all this as good or bad news probably depends on your political affiliations. Those of you who had thought that Obama will be bad for the economy and the stock market can take solace that Wall Street, with its money rather than just with its political biases, collectively doesn't agree with you.
But you'll be disappointed in these results if you had thought that Obama would be much better for the economy than John McCain."
I tend to take the Libertarian view that the economy and the market is effected far less by who is President. Other factors well beyond the control of a President determine the market's gyrations and the economy's fluctuations.
1 comment:
Economic cycles rule but the leaders can help make the cycles more/less harsh or extreme. Their role must have some impact on the economy. Consider the quote on household economic destiny: "The harder we work, the luckier we get." Something similar must apply at the macro level too.
As for Hulbert at MarketWatch, I check that site but the comment by readers seem more informative and useful than the article at MW. But wow, sometimes they have in excess of 2000 comments per article. They seem very smart! and I love the Thumbs Up / Thumb Downs feature so readers can easily express agreement / disagreement.
By the way, Plaxo Pulse makes it very easy for me to keep up with your blog posts!
Post a Comment