60 days, 60 stats - #8

In episode #7 we talked about jobs, but what about the economy as a whole?  Which party has a better history when it comes to economic growth?  Let me put on my financial adviser hat.


Over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 in February of 2012.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.

So, if you like a good return on your investments, and I do, vote Obama/Biden.  Or to put it in terms my GOP leaning friends might better understand "If you vote Romney/Ryan, you're anti-business!"

Comments

  1. From my friend Doug: Statistics are wonderful things, because they can mean anything. If we look at the the S&P growth when each party controlled the House (through 2007), the Dems have returned a 6.02% return year over year while the Reps. have garnered a 9.82% year over year return. So what does that mean? Nothing. We aren't electing the 1976 House of Representatives and we aren't electing Bill Clinton. Obama is on the ticket. And his record has been abysmal on job creation. The job creation can't even keep pace with those entering the workforce out of college each month (which is about 150,000). Last month, the economy created 96,000 jobs. If you graduated in August, you had a 2/3 chance of getting a job (If no one else was looking!!). So, these college graduates move back into their parents' basement, saddled with debt wondering when it is going to get better.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

hot dog buns

Some thoughts on impeachment

88 Keys