as I sure am richer since, aren't you? I don't know how I'll spend all the money I've made in the big up market since Bush won. Shows who has the real power.... the money men, not the government. Been that way since the dawn of man. Will never change.
Look guys, it's very simple: - Bush promised to make massive tax cuts - Gore promised to aggressively pay down federal debt
With Bush's plan, the effect on the economy is negligable, as the vast majority of people - including the economically all-important middle classes - would see little positive impact on their finances. Reagan tried the same thing and its primary result was a huge increase in the national debt.
With Gore's plan, the net effect of paying off the federal debt is to reduce interest rates, including mortgage rates, thus spurring the economy by reducing the cost of capital and also putting substantially more money in the pockets of middle class homeowners.
From an economic standpoint, Gore's plan is smart and Bush's is stupid. This is true even if you are a billionaire, as a rising economy helps billionaires more than tax cuts does. (But most voters don't have any comprehension of macro-economics, so they bought the tax cut bait)
Thus the lack of positive response from Wall St. to Bush being confirmed as president-elect. Gore would have been better for the economy in general, and the stock market and bond markets in particular.
If you want to capitlaize on the Bush-Cheney presidency, look to natural resource companies, as they are likely to benefit from very favorable treatment from these two oilmen.
(In a sense Nader hurt both the economy and the environment profoundly. The best laid plans o' mice and men gang aft agley ...)
Your analysis is flawed. If you think that Wall street preferred Gore's economic plan and that anyone truly believed Gore was going to be fiscally reponsible you are gullible. (He did by the way say he would cut taxes too). The Wall street general opinion was that instead of larger tax cuts Gore was simply going to spend the surplus. Even Greenspan has said that Tax cuts were preferrable to increasing spending. As for the Reagan tax cuts, they did negatively impact the national debt but they did also result in jump starting what was a dieing economy he inherited from Jimmy "economic malaise" Carter. Bottom line for the market, to somewhat quote James Carville: "It's the earnings stupid"
When has a Democrat ever reduced spending, which is what the effect of debt pay-down would be---which I support. Dems have traditionally resisted tax reductions or any kind of give-back to taxpayers. Dems have historically raised taxes to fund spending programs. Reducing the debt and lowering taxes could both be achieved with a compromise---providing there is an actual surplus. Gore promised debt reduction, but politicians, including Republicans at times, are famous for making unkept promises. Reagan was stiffed by Tip O'neil and a Democratic Congress, who vetoed his entitlement program spending reductions, while allowing military spending, to rebuild after the Carter years of run-down re the military. I agree with your premises re pay-down of federal debt..but the Bush-Gore debate is academic now...
an America will win because he did. As to market today we will see some selling as margin calls will kick in also. Would gladly lose the short lost money wise to see better they Gore in office. Market will regain base and move up and so will America as a whole. When Gates starts to hurt then I will know we are really in a bear market. EMC still up good, and will go back to better numbers soon. With gore the bore we would be in free fall not only in market but vaules accross the board in everyday life.
Anyone who thought the choice of president would make a difference for the market was incredibly naive. It was that kind of ignorance that drove the bubbles in fiber optics and storage companies. Ignorance becomes pain in a bear market.