Jump to content

Best President for the Market


bbarberayr
 Share

Recommended Posts

Which President would be best for the stock market?

 

With the Iowa caucus results last night, Rubio has become the Republican odds favourite and 2nd to Clinton for the Presidency.

 

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

 

Personally, I think Rubio would be the best President for the markets, assuming the Republicans retain the house in order to get the government moving again, but anyone have other ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grey512

Depends what you mean by 'what's best'.

 

IMO, the best president for the markets is the one that's most likely to increase taxes on capital gains and maybe also eliminate the tax-deductability of interest expense. That would crash the stock markets, reduce the numbers of HFs out there. Bad short-term, good long-term (for whoever stays around and invests).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer a slightly left of center commander in chief and a right of center (perhaps more slightly right than recently) house of reps.  That way we are less likely to go play in the sandbox with our toys (or even in Europe, as in Serbia under Clinton) and we've got some tension to perhaps control spending (including tax spending via cuts, credits and loopholes).  Basically, a Clinton and Gingrich dynamic; after the shutdowns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think it matters much. The Fed moves the markets far more than any president can.

 

With every episode of QE the Fed becomes less effective, which is why I somewhat support Clinton for her infrastructure spending plan. I've always thought it was appalling that we couldn't get it together and support the financial crisis with a little fiscal policy. It would make me comfortable to elect someone who isn't afraid to talk about it. That said, if Bloomberg ran, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only Libertarian candidate: Rand Paul.

 

Free markets are good for the market.

 

Source? I'd say there's a reasonable argument that 2008 was a contradictory indicator depending on your interpretation of events.

 

What you want to draw cocnclusions based on 1 year? That's how we got stuck with this Kenyesian crap to start with more than a century ago (yes yes before Keynes theories).

 

My source is market data in the US between 1800 and 1904 when there actually was a free market (not 2008 wtf). There weren't any bubbles in a sense whe have them now because the market was allowed to correct and politics did not interfere with the economy. The currenvy used was also not debt but commodity based.

 

The whole big crash in the 30s (including the ramp up in the 20 years before)? Keynesianism showing its ugly head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think it matters much. The Fed moves the markets far more than any president can.

 

With every episode of QE the Fed becomes less effective, which is why I somewhat support Clinton for her infrastructure spending plan. I've always thought it was appalling that we couldn't get it together and support the financial crisis with a little fiscal policy. It would make me comfortable to elect someone who isn't afraid to talk about it. That said, if Bloomberg ran, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

 

Do you think Clinton will; actually be able to get this through with the high debt and a probable Republican Congress focused on reduced spending?  That's one of the reasons I'm thinking a Rubio might be best for the market as a joint Republican President and Congress might actually be able to get things like this done, which just seem like logical things to do.

 

I own a couple infrastructure related companies and spending like this would certainly help them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only Libertarian candidate: Rand Paul.

 

Free markets are good for the market.

 

Source? I'd say there's a reasonable argument that 2008 was a contradictory indicator depending on your interpretation of events.

 

Not to get sucked down into this argument, but I find it hard to blame 2008 on a free market when you're talking about the most regulated industry in the world and where government sponsored agencies, like FNMA and Freddie Mac, were also involved....

 

Not to say that greed, which is present in free markets, didn't play a factor, but you're really stretching here....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't think it matters much. The Fed moves the markets far more than any president can.

 

With every episode of QE the Fed becomes less effective, which is why I somewhat support Clinton for her infrastructure spending plan. I've always thought it was appalling that we couldn't get it together and support the financial crisis with a little fiscal policy. It would make me comfortable to elect someone who isn't afraid to talk about it. That said, if Bloomberg ran, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.

 

Do you think Clinton will; actually be able to get this through with the high debt and a probable Republican Congress focused on reduced spending?  That's one of the reasons I'm thinking a Rubio might be best for the market as a joint Republican President and Congress might actually be able to get things like this done, which just seem like logical things to do.

 

I own a couple infrastructure related companies and spending like this would certainly help them.

 

It will be tough for Clinton to get anything through a Republican Congress, but I'm glad she's at least talking about it. I have largely ignored the Republicans up until now because it's become a bit of a circus, so I know almost nothing about Rubio. I will pay closer attention to him if he continues to become a contender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

With every episode of QE the Fed becomes less effective

 

George Soros recently said (this year) that QE worked.

 

I agree with him, but I don't think it can be done forever, and we may need stimulus again soon if people like Ray Dalio are right. Practically speaking, interest rates can only go so low, so I think fiscal policy will be needed. If it's not needed, great! But if it is, I want someone in office who is open to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...