The Naz peaked on March 10, 2000 at 5132.52.
Clinton remained in office for another 45 weeks after that. The Naz closed at the end of those 45 weeks at 2770.38, dipping as low as 2299.65 in the process.
Then Bush took office. He has been in office for 132 weeks. The Naz is currently at 1,753.
So, in Clinton's 45 weeks in office from the peak, the Naz went down nearly 2,400 points, or nearly 50 points per week. During Bush's 132 weeks in office so far, the Naz is down 1,017 points, which is less than 8 points per week.
I've never quite understood investors, and I know many of them, who have blamed the losses in their portfolios on Bush. The politicians really don't have much to do with it anyway, in either direction, and blaming (or crediting) them for stock prices or the economy just doesn't make much sense and just makes people lose focus on the things that do affect the economy and stock prices.
Even if Bush could have waved a magic wand at the Naz, which was already heading south in a big way when he took office, it's hardly reasonable to expect him to "fix" whatever is wrong on day one. On April 3, 2001, just ten weeks or so into Bush's term, the Naz had already fallen below where it is right now. What was Bush supposed to do between January 21 and April 3 to magically change the market's momentum? The media is too thick to dispel people's notions that this is somehow Bush's fault, but investors who buy the "blame Bush" explanation are likely to miss out on the real factors which move the market.
Let me know if you need help with the big words, Bonnie. |
