Presidential Election: No Help for the Markets

The market needs all the help it can get these days but it's not going to get any from the Presidential elections.  I was hoping the market could get a boost from the promises of a new administration.  However, the more I learn about our choices, the more confounding picking a President becomes.  

On the one hand, we have a socialist candidate borne out of the muck of Chicago-style politics, sponsored by 1960s radicals and corrupt businessmen who's only proven skill is running great campaigns and giving superb speeches, with his closest adviser having a giant chip on her shoulder for most of her adult life. 

On the other hand, you have aging maverick (a pseudonym for moron) who has been diagnosed with malignant cancer four times and who just chose an "Ann Coulter"-like beauty queen with a questionable moral and ethical compass to be the Second in Command. 

I'm truly dumbfounded by our choices for President this year and I think the market will respond likewise.  Based on the Presidential race, the best we can hope for is more sideways choppiness. 

Before you send me any nasty emails, be sure to read all the links I've included.  I am truly apolitical and have voted for Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians depending on whom I thought could best lead the country.  At this point, I'm voting for Canada '08.

Comments

[PIA:]

Not voting or waiving your voting rights is used by 'idealists' in every election. The result of voting 'Canada 08' or 'not voting' is inertia and anarchy. Please hold your nose and vote for the less 'imperfect' candidate.

From your comments, that appears to be McCain, unless you prefer by 'not voting' to allow others to 'vote in' "a socialist candidate borne out of the muck of Chicago-style politics, sponsored by 1960s radicals and corrupt businessmen who's only proven skill is running great campaigns and giving superb speeches, with his closest adviser having a giant chip on her shoulder for most of her adult life".

"Democracry is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms of government".

2008 Sep 02 09:27 AM

[robert.b.fe...:]

PIA: Well said!

2008 Sep 02 10:05 AM

[Chris B:]

It's pretty simple actually. Are you for or against an offensive war against Iran and a renewed cold war with Russia and China? McCain has basically made these his campaign promises, while Obama is more measured and calculating when it comes to international chess. Hopefully this helps you decide.

Just be sure to vote one way or the other. Idiots came to be in charge when all the smart people stayed home on voting day.

2008 Sep 02 10:55 AM

[ain't no fo...:]

i think the moron is the one who wrote the article

Go Obama!

2008 Sep 02 11:37 AM

[bbowen7:]

SA had an excellent article on this subject last week; this article adds little. From an investment point of view, there is little doubt that an Obama presidency would bring higher taxes on the upper level, higher taxes on capital, greatly expanded government spending on social (healthcare and other) programs, leeway for the trial lawyers, and a number of other anti-business approaches. If you want to make the pie bigger, vote McCain. If you want to make sure it is distributed more evenly, vote Obama.

2008 Sep 02 12:55 PM

[Chris B:]

As "anti-business" as the Democrats are said to be, the stock market does better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones.

finance.yahoo.com/expe...

The stock market, and the economy, does best when there is gridlock, because gridlock prevents the worst ideas of each party from coming to fruition.

Regarding healthcare, how much wealthier would we all be if we spent half as much of GDP on healthcare and got the same outcomes, like our European, Canadian, and Asian neighbors all do? What happens when all those resources that go to paying healthcare middle-men are deployed in productive industry instead of duplicative paper shuffling? How would being relieved of the burden of administering healthcare plans hurt your average company?

The Bush approach has only resulted in stagnant earnings, high inflation, massive government debt, and a series of economic bubbles (some probably inspired by historically low capital gains taxes).

2008 Sep 02 04:45 PM