Greenspan for keeping rates artifically high under Clinton, and artifically low under Bush. And Bush for bragging about deficet induced GDP growth (any time you run large deficets you will have high GDP growth), and devaluing the dollar even though it says "In God WE Trust" on it. I am tired of using my cash to pay to pay for a overpriced deadbeats home at low interest rates.
You raise an interesting issue: how do you think NYB (and the stock market in general) will perform under a second Bush term or a Kerry presidency? As a political agnostic, I have no view on this issue (except that only Greenspan matters), but I'd like to hear how others think about this.
Well, I just read half the annual report, and all I can say is wow to the positive. I only worry a bit about the 10 billion debt and the 2 billion intangibles. But, after reading the report, I trust NYB! They are the financial geniouses. But, I really think Greenspan has been over-rated. He came in under Ford and is a supply-side economist. He is also the ultimate flip-flopper. Under Clinton he says keep the deficet zero and let it roll that way. Under Bush he talks about a weak dollar as being good (thus a deficet). Under his watch he has allowed the debt/gnp to more than double without pointing a finger to the culprit - Reagan- Bush I and Bush II. I think they should replace him with Bill Rodgers. Yes, the investment biker. The next 4 years are going to be a challenge. The problem with the right talk radio stations will never take responsibility for anything. Three things cause inflation deficets increase it, and population growth and true productivity decrease it. The bottom two are fixed say 2 percent. Thus, if the deficet is 3 percent of the debt. You are basically taxing everyone a 1 percent flat tax, distributed permanently. The problem is the 3-10 year lag for this to show. Bushes lag is beginning to show in gasoline and milk. There really is no such thing as making your kids pay for the deficet. At least Bush says good things at times, "We need to spend the publics money wisely." The problem is both sides is they don't. They spend it whomever gives them the most contributions.
To answer your question. NYB will do fine under either as long as there is not a complete collapse. The risk of collpse is greater with a president who cares less about deficets - Bush.