LOL, such a funny thread, Is it really shocking that someone who came up with a tech company and became a billionaire instantly would be more liberal than someone who had to grind it out in a competitive industry for nothing for many years of their life? No one who has went through the pain of running a small business or being a small time trader would make the assumption that "Businesses are stealing from people" Anyone whose knows how "easy" it is to make it as a trader, or a small business man please demonstrate it. Cause ive fought for my fucking life from the time I started, there was no easy money that lasted. The simple fact about this job is that its probably literally the hardest job you could ever take, i cant picture another job where you need to eat shit for an entire weekend any time you make an error. I dont mean to hammer home the same point, but id love to hear some libs explain to me how everyone on wallstreet is a fatcat, when statistics prove the total opposite.
Anyone with a background in statistics can poke holes all over your theory. Here's a hint, look at cross correlations between US asset prices and say Norway or Austria during both republican and democratic governments. And I assume by republican or democrat you mean who controls the Congress and not the White House because that would be even more stupid from a statistical perspective.
You're not listening...or reading. It doesn't matter who is sitting in the oval office. It matters who writes the laws, that's the congress sir. However, even if we use the congress as our base, are you going to seriously tell me that laws passed in the US Congress affect stock returns in say, Spain? Are you? Because if you are, I have some cool stats on the Super Bowl winner that does a nice job predicting forward returns as well (it's garbage as well).
Well, I used the presidency because it's considerably easier information to come by. And I argued nothing, nor would I conflate causation with correlation. But I actually do agree with you to some extent--in fact I've argued on this site many times that a preoccupied congress and paralyzed presidency is the best thing for the economy...there's no government like no government. Usually you get this with split control of legislative and administrative branches (like Clinton years), but at the moment the Republicans seem to be doing just fine at doing nothing.
Yes, the split gov't is a better theory but it still falls apart. The fact is world markets are co-integrated (that can be proven) and if they are co-integrated it does not make sense that any US partly split should be the dominant factor of stock returns in say...Nigeria. The fact is, a much stronger case is made for monetary policy since debt is fungible and money can move freely throughout the world seeking the highest return. This would explain why actions by the ECB and the BOJ expanding the money supply can raise asset prices in the US and all over the world. And even simpler, one without little to no stats background could look at your data and quickly surmise that the highest returns always come "after" a recession. So anyone entering office after a recession enjoys the benefit of a low starting base. And those unfortunate souls who enter during economic peaks are not so lucky.
This is the bottom line, you wanna find the profligate spenders go to the source. Congress is the ones who draw up bills, presidents just sign them.
Although I agree with what the chart (D vs R congressional spending patterns) is expressing I believe a similar pattern could be found for spending on our "Military Industrial Complex". D's love their social programs. R's love their bombs.