I wonder who knows the correct answer
;-))))

If we are speaking of % gain, then my guess is FDR.

Stock market rose 33% during his first administration following the 1929 crash low which bottomed at 40.60/DJIA in the summer of 1932.

wrong...and YES, I do talk %

Clinton ??

even MORE wrong.

here is the clue:

"Both his dry Yankee wit and his frugality with words became legendary. His wife, XXXXXXXXXX, recounted that a young woman sitting next to XXXXXXXX at a dinner party confided to him she had bet she could get at least three words of conversation from him.
Without looking at her he quietly retorted, "You lose." And in 19XX, while vacationing in the Black Hills of South Dakota, he issued the most famous of his laconic statements, "I do not choose to run for President in 19XX."

http://www.noho.com/calvinc.html

Coolidge more than lived up to his image. The president replaced his predecessor's boozy card parties with sober six o'clock suppers. Warren Harding had promised normalcy; Coolidge delivered it, profitably defined as spectacular economic growth and tax cuts to match. Between 1925 and 1929, the New York Stock Exchange rose 250 percent. Before the decade was over, the federal government had retired nearly half its $26 billion war debt. Americans built 800,000 new homes annually during the postwar decade, bought 20 million automobiles, and made heroes out of radio stars and barnstorming pilots. The cult of celebrity, the modern women's movement, the decline of rural America's traditional dominance - all had their genesis in the Age of Coolidge, when his countrymen moved forward even while gazing back with longing at a more innocent society, Plymouth Notch writ large.

Interesting!

the MOST interesting thing is:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/hh31.html
Hoover, The Republican, saw the market crash shortly after taking office,
the crash which was seeded by his Democratic Predecessor
;-))

similar to Clinton-Bush change of office. And if history is anything to learn from,
it would take 30 years for NAZDAQ to come back to 5000,
like it took stocks which dropped in 1929!
;-)))

the MOST interesting thing is:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/hh31.html
Hoover, The Republican, saw the market crash shortly after taking office,
the crash which was seeded by his Democratic Predecessor
;-))

similar to Clinton-Bush change of office. And if history is anything to learn from,
it would take 30 years for NAZDAQ to come back to 5000,
like it took stocks which dropped in 1929!
;-)))[/b][/quote]
That would pretty much kill all the buy and hold strategists. ;-)

"I do not choose to run for President in 1928."

I knew what to look for.

"In the 20th century in the US there were three episodes of significant tax rate reductions. These reductions occurred in the 1920s under Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge; in the 1960s under President John F. Kennedy, and in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan."

"The Harding–Coolidge tax rate reductions brought the top income tax rate down in stages from the wartime high of 73 percent in 1921 to 25 percent in 1925."

"JFK's tax plan cut the top tax rate from 91 to 70 percent. "

"In 1981 Ronald Reagan proposed and signed into law a 30 percent across–the–board tax–rate reduction plan that was modelled after JFK's successful tax cut 20 years earlier. "

http://www.adamsmith.org/tax/soak-the-rich.php

That would pretty much kill all the buy and hold strategists. ;-)[/b][/quote]
well....some of the "uts" who bought in March of 2000 will live to see it,
folks like me be dead by than
;-)))

and tax cuts are followed by...
increase in Tax Revenues!
http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php?a...cd98419cd586694
;_))))

and tax cuts are followed by...
increase in Tax Revenues!
http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php?a...cd98419cd586694
;_))))[/b][/quote]
Right on cue.

John F. Kennedy's tax cuts had the same salutary effects. "It is a paradoxical truth," Kennedy proclaimed in the 1962 commencement address at Yale to try to sell his tax cut program, "that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates." JFK's tax plan cut the top tax rate from 91 to 70 percent.

Here's what happened, as described in a 1966 article in the US News and World Report. "Tax collections are beginning to astonish even those who pushed hardest for tax cuts in the first place." Indeed, after the tax cuts took effect, income tax collections rose by more than 50 percent from 1963 to 1968. Even more shocking was the impact on the distribution of taxes paid. Americans earning over $50,000 per year (the equivalent of almost $200,000 today) increased their share of taxes paid from 12 percent of the total in 1963 to almost 15 percent in 1966.

http://www.adamsmith.org/tax/soak-the-rich.php

and......Reagan's tax cut resulted in "Clinton's Prosperity"

where our resident libs with their "retorts" to show us how wrong we are in our thinking?????
;-)))

numbers are the bitch to argue, don't you say?
;-))))

I knew what to look for:

http://www.askbuff.com/twenties.jpg

The Fed reduced the discount rate from 7% in 1921 to 3.5% in early 1928, but raised it to 5% by the end of the year.

Great site: http://www.benbest.com/polecon/buscycle.ht...html#depression



Last edited by Buff at Jun 17 2004, 06:50 AM

hahahahaha,
why do you think they are threading waters VERY carefully now?
;-))))

Tax cuts are great for stimulating business and by extension, the stock market, but the side effect of increasing tax revenue is hardly something to be cheering about.

I would say that the discount rate and tax rates are both important for growth but are you arguing that the discount rate is more important?

The discount rate remained unchanged from 9/60 to 6/63 and rose significantly through 1968. So the discount rate went from 3% in 1963 to 5.5% in mid 1968 while income tax collections rose by more than 50 percent during that period. So - if you ARE saying that - how is the discount rate a more general predictor than tax rates?

I knew you'd say that. ;-)

I agree with you.

I would say that the discount rate and tax rates are both important for growth but are you arguing that the discount rate is more important?

The discount rate remained unchanged from 9/60 to 6/63 and rose significantly through 1968. So the discount rate went from 3% in 1963 to 5.5% in mid 1968 while income tax collections rose by more than 50 percent during that period. So - if you ARE saying that - how is the discount rate a more general predictor than tax rates?[/b][/quote]
Ridiculously easy credit is the fastest way to boom the markets. It's also the worst since it results in a bust. The best policy for LONG TERM stock market is a stable money stock and pro-growth fiscal policy (low tax rates, deregulation, etc.). We have examples of both types of booms, false an real in our history. I submit that the false booms are more intense short term accelerations in stock prices and they accompany Fed-induced artifically low interest rates (below the natural rate). Real booms occur at a slower rate but last much longer.

20s and 90s: Fed induced false booms.



Last edited by Buff at Jun 17 2004, 07:07 AM

Ok, I agree with that. We saw recessions in 2001 and 1990 both at peaks in the discount rate. Would you say Greenspan is to blame for 2001 recession?

Ok, I agree with that. We saw recessions in 2001 and 1990 both at peaks in the discount rate. Would you say Greenspan is to blame for 2001 recession?[/b][/quote]
Yes, but not exclusively. Remember, the Fed is a board and he just occupies the head of the board. Additionally, it's not like the government's fiscal policy was any better than its monetary policy. The only thing the government did right during the 90s was remove some barriers to free trade via NAFTA. Everything else was garbage, from raising taxes and increasing spending to shitting on the rule of law and trampling on the constitution. And in that respect, things haven't changed a whole lot.

Yep Serge, the only thing that beats numbers, is the underlying theme of how they were achieved.....

One could argue that if it was due to Reagan, that clinton had success, what happened during the four years of bush senior?

and why was during the clinton years the economy at an all time HIGH, but miraculously once Bush junior got into office, it crashed again? face it the policies of the democrates, are what increases the economy... FACTS speak louder than numbers, my friend.... :D

Can you elaborate on that? What are these policies which are good for the economy?

Clinton administration had many trade agreements - negotiating lower tariffs all over the world. It was sort of his thing. Maybe he wrote about it in his book. ;-)

once again,
read why economy collapsed after Hoover took office,
while the collapse was seeded by Coolige.

Same happened with Clinton/Bush

here is another FACT you fail to see...


if I drop the bowling ball from Empire state building and you happen to stand below,
NOTHING is gonna happen to you ...for at least 27 seconds
;-)))

can you see
"cause-Effect" in economy, and that economic policies work SLOWER than enema?
;-)))

Pssss .....

Too much blame and or credit is being given to Presidents for boom or bust

Clinton was fortunate to be President during the tech/internet boom

Carter was unfortunate to be President during Oil Crisis (beyond that Carter was a poor/weak President but a great humanitarian)

The empire state building is 448 meters to the top of the antenna. Wouldn't it be less than 10 seconds?

I think everyone's being unfair and partisan here. Reagan and Clinton years were good from the traditional point of view (that's for you Buff). Clinton did raise taxes in a similar way to how Reagan later did, in an attempt to decrease the budget deficit. In Reagan's case, I believe he wasn't able to get congress to cut spending - but I am not certain of that. As far as Bush, he was inaugurated on January 20, 2001 and the economy went into a recession in March. Prior to that most everyone knew a recession was coming. For example, in November 2000 the US Commerce department "confirmed economists' predictions that the US economy is in the midst of a slowdown, with speculation and fear developing as to how far the downturn will go. Substantial profit losses and layoffs have been reported in the auto, office equipment and US defense industries, as the dot.com sector of the economy reports record failures."

The empire state building is 448 meters to the top of the antenna. Wouldn't it be less than 10 seconds?[/b][/quote]
did you take in concideration:
air resistance?
small umbrella attached to the ball?
;-))))

The empire state building is 448 meters to the top of the antenna. Wouldn't it be less than 10 seconds?[/b][/quote]
Yeah, Serge likes to make up numbers. He only cares about the story ;-)

did you take in concideration:
air resistance?
small umbrella attached to the ball?
;-))))[/b][/quote]
Actually, from the empire state building (http://www.esbnyc.com/index2.cfm) FAQ:
Guess it takes even more than 27 seconds. :)



Last edited by Buff at Jun 17 2004, 08:26 AM

:blink: