Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Joe who wrote (57804)	1/20/2009 7:43:30 PM
From: sea_biscuit	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224774

Keep in mind that any President wants to take the economic and the stock-market hits in the early months of his administration. That means the first 1 1/2 years could well bb negative for stocks. He will try to have the markets recover by the time the mid-term elections roll in, so that his party's chances are improved and they either gain more seats in the next Congress or at least not lose any seats. And then, after the mid-term elections, he will take measures to keep the economy humming nicely by the time he has to campaign for his own re-election. This is the reason why we see so many instances where the market's gain from the low in the 2nd year of the administration to its high in the 3rd year is spectacular, often as much as 50%, if not more. Which of these two scenarios will favor the President? (a) Have the markets go up from 800 to 1000 now and then have it come down all the way to 800 by Nov 2010 or, (b) let the markets decline all the way to 500 or 600 in the next one year and then have the market improve to 800 by Nov 2010 ? Obviously, (b) is the better choice from his perspective.