Why an Obama Victory Doesn't Foretell Economic and Market Gloom

I rarely blog about politics here, but it is very difficult to get the full truth (from either party) during a presidential campaign. Since I started this blog in 2004 I have commented once each election cycle on a certain lie that always makes the rounds before we head to the polls. Most of you have probably heard from partisan people that an Obama victory tonight would kill the economy and the stock market. After all, isn't it true that Democratic administrations are known for taxing and spending, which wrecks our country's economy?

One of my favorite quotes goes like this, "Numbers don't lie, people do." It fits perfectly here, as the numbers provided below will show. The truth is, most meaningful economic statistics (GDP growth, unemployment rate, inflation rate, growth in federal spending, budget deficit level, to name some of the big ones) have historically been stronger under Democratic presidents than Republican ones. You can refer to my October 2004 post entitled "Do Elections Affect the Stock Market?" for the detailed statistics.

As goes the economy, so goes the stock market. This is not only a recent trend (8 years under Clinton, market up 203%, 8 years under Bush, market down 28%). According to Ibbotson Associates (a market research firm), inflation-adjusted stock market returns have been 100% higher under Democrats since 1926:

Click to enlarge

I point this out not to insist that an Obama presidency assures the market will be strong, but simply so investors know the truth, in case they are partly basing their vote for president on economic data. It is important to note the common statistical mantra "correlation does not equal causation." These numbers do not mean that a Democratic president causes the market to go up twice as much as a Republican president (it could be any number of factors, or a combination of them). What it does mean, however, is that the common contention that the economy and stock prices do better under Republicans is actually completely backwards.

 

Comments

[derryl]

"Conservative" governments are criticized by their opponents for implementing conservative policies, whether or not those are the right policies for the time. "Liberal" governments are also criticized by their opponents for implementing liberal policies. It is politically easier for a liberal to implement conservative measures than it is for a conservative, because the public will think, "Oh, the poor man wants to give us free stuff but he just had to raise our taxes because of the economy." When a conservative runs big deficits and massively increases spending he gets the same "he had to do it against his will" consideration.

So maybe Obama is exactly the right guy for these times.

2008 Nov 05 08:13 PM

[Cale Carter]

Hey, Care to come back and eat these words?

Dow is at 6500 at the moment..

Obama's budget increases the deficiet more than presidents Washington - Bush combined.

In short.. you were not just wrong.. you were stupid and wrong.

2009 Mar 06 11:19 AM