I Miss This Guy!

[rkbabang]

I agree with most of the posts on this thread in that I miss Clinton.  Compared with the enormous amount of blood on the hands of the last two who occupied that office, his Bosnia thing (and only bombing an aspirin factory once in a while) seems down-right Jesus-like.

[rmitz]

I just can't bring myself to vote for either major party

 

I'm for following the constitution exactly as its written under Article 1, Section 8  (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html) which if followed we would have a govt much, much, much, more smaller than today.  These people take an oath to uphold the constitution, but everyday they break it when they vote to add a new entitlement program or to spend money on things that are not specifically authorized. 

 

In my opinion, we shouldn't have troops station in over 100 countries protecting some of the wealthiest nations on Earth or the most corrupt authoritarian regimes in the world.  In total, the US spends over $1 trillion on foreign relations when you count military, foreign aid, intelligence agencies, Veteran Affairs, and etc.  One would think this could be reduced to cut spending enough to begin cutting into our deficit but neither party is talking about it.  Furthermore, we shouldn't go to war without a declaration of war issued by Congress--both parties are guilty of going to war without seeking a declaration over the past 6 decades.

 

Secondly, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, unemployment, and all other welfare or entitlements programs are not authorized under the constitution.  Neither party supports doing any dramatic cuts to the welfare or warfare aspect of our spending as I would like to see.

 

If the people wanted these programs they should  do it legally by going through the amendment process to the constitution to add a line to allow for whatever entitlement program they wanted implemented.  I don't like the idea that a simple majority at whatever time in history can ram down the throats of the minority a program they demand followed.  This to me is majority dictatorship.  Also, with the trashing of the constitution everyday our freedoms are being slowly taken away.  What freedom will be taken away next?  I fear someday it will be the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion that we all want to enjoy.  How anyone can say we live in a truly free nation anymore when 40% of our income is stolen every year, I mean taken by the govt, even if that money is used for good?  Charity should come from the heart, not from the govt holding a gun to my head demanding I give.

 

I am a former "pure" libertarian.  I'd encourage you to sit down and think, think very hard about what the world would look like without government that has enough power to make and actually enforce laws.  Libertarian thought tends to simplify everything into a "if the corporation infringes on my right to clean water or clean air, they are in the wrong", and that would be true, but then the system has no way to enforce anything.  Power and might will make all.

 

*Someone* will find a way to take your money.

 

In reality the only way to keep yourself safe would depend on your own personal relationships.  It would depend on the power of your tribe, which can only get so large based on your power structure.  Overall wealth would deteriorate rapidly. 

 

I actually agree with you when it comes to military costs--the needs are real geopolitical concerns, but I think we don't need to spend as much as we do.  The savings there alone could be huge.

 

This is only one facet.  When you actually look at how society actually works, keep following the underlying threads...

 

I do not believe that government is purely good, and neither do I believe that corporations are purely evil; though I think we have drifted too far into territory where corporations having morals is considered a bad thing.  The important thing is the balance.  Freedom exists in the clash of great forces within the country, though not for all, unfortunately.  I believe the answer is a more perfect union, not less.

 

Science moves forward year by year with greater understanding.  The idea that we had the perfect governmental system worked out over 200 years ago seems somewhat naive--the founders built the system to evolve over time, though they disagreed on how to do it, and how much power should reside in what part of the system.  Like all of us, they were just people.

 

Our understanding of morality also moves forward year by year, though this progress is agonizingly slow in comparison and almost no one in general pays attention.  If you were to sit down and study the actual bodies of work in this area you would find they certainly do not require religion any longer to live what most people would consider a good and honorable life.

[stahleyp]

I just can't bring myself to vote for either major party

 

I'm for following the constitution exactly as its written under Article 1, Section 8  (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html) which if followed we would have a govt much, much, much, more smaller than today.  These people take an oath to uphold the constitution, but everyday they break it when they vote to add a new entitlement program or to spend money on things that are not specifically authorized. 

 

In my opinion, we shouldn't have troops station in over 100 countries protecting some of the wealthiest nations on Earth or the most corrupt authoritarian regimes in the world.  In total, the US spends over $1 trillion on foreign relations when you count military, foreign aid, intelligence agencies, Veteran Affairs, and etc.  One would think this could be reduced to cut spending enough to begin cutting into our deficit but neither party is talking about it.  Furthermore, we shouldn't go to war without a declaration of war issued by Congress--both parties are guilty of going to war without seeking a declaration over the past 6 decades.

 

Secondly, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, unemployment, and all other welfare or entitlements programs are not authorized under the constitution.  Neither party supports doing any dramatic cuts to the welfare or warfare aspect of our spending as I would like to see.

 

If the people wanted these programs they should  do it legally by going through the amendment process to the constitution to add a line to allow for whatever entitlement program they wanted implemented.  I don't like the idea that a simple majority at whatever time in history can ram down the throats of the minority a program they demand followed.  This to me is majority dictatorship.  Also, with the trashing of the constitution everyday our freedoms are being slowly taken away.  What freedom will be taken away next?  I fear someday it will be the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion that we all want to enjoy.  How anyone can say we live in a truly free nation anymore when 40% of our income is stolen every year, I mean taken by the govt, even if that money is used for good?  Charity should come from the heart, not from the govt holding a gun to my head demanding I give.

 

I am a former "pure" libertarian.  I'd encourage you to sit down and think, think very hard about what the world would look like without government that has enough power to make and actually enforce laws.  Libertarian thought tends to simplify everything into a "if the corporation infringes on my right to clean water or clean air, they are in the wrong", and that would be true, but then the system has no way to enforce anything.  Power and might will make all.

 

*Someone* will find a way to take your money.

 

In reality the only way to keep yourself safe would depend on your own personal relationships.  It would depend on the power of your tribe, which can only get so large based on your power structure.  Overall wealth would deteriorate rapidly. 

 

I actually agree with you when it comes to military costs--the needs are real geopolitical concerns, but I think we don't need to spend as much as we do.  The savings there alone could be huge.

 

This is only one facet.  When you actually look at how society actually works, keep following the underlying threads...

 

I do not believe that government is purely good, and neither do I believe that corporations are purely evil; though I think we have drifted too far into territory where corporations having morals is considered a bad thing.  The important thing is the balance.  Freedom exists in the clash of great forces within the country, though not for all, unfortunately.  I believe the answer is a more perfect union, not less.

 

Science moves forward year by year with greater understanding.  The idea that we had the perfect governmental system worked out over 200 years ago seems somewhat naive--the founders built the system to evolve over time, though they disagreed on how to do it, and how much power should reside in what part of the system.  Like all of us, they were just people.

 

Our understanding of morality also moves forward year by year, though this progress is agonizingly slow in comparison and almost no one in general pays attention.  If you were to sit down and study the actual bodies of work in this area you would find they certainly do not require religion any longer to live what most people would consider a good and honorable life.

 

 

Without religion, how is there morality or meaning? I have read a ton about morality and the atheistic view leaves a lot to be desired.

 

As CS Lewis once wrote, "“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”

[ERICOPOLY]

 

Without religion, how is there morality or meaning?

 

 

It (morality and meaning) comes from social instincts.

 

 

 

[twacowfca]

The genius of the USA system of government goes beyond the concept of the universal rights of man to "life liberty and the persuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, shared by the Whig Party in England/Great Britain.  One can find lip service to these ideals in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union and the slogans of the people of France as they led the nobility to the guillotine.

 

The true genius was the balance of powers in the US Constitution between the states and the federal government and between the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature.  Another key to ensure that the ideas of liberty would be applied uniformly was the Bill of Rights including freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, including no religious test to hold public office.  Plus practical safeguards such as not allowing ex post facto laws and having the right to counsel and bail.

 

The idea that some citizens are entitled to benefits not shared by all has been a point of tension since the founding of the republic, when veterans of the Continental Army believed they should be entitled to a pension.  The first mandatory health insurance scheme took effect over two hundred years ago in the John Adams Administration when US ship captains were required to withhold 1% of sailors' wages to fund hospitals and medical care for them.  This scheme eventually became The US Public Health Service.

[stahleyp]

 

Without religion, how is there morality or meaning?

 

 

It (morality and meaning) comes from social instincts.

 

If one's social instinct is to kill someone and take his shoes, how is that any worse (or better) than someone who is willing to risk his or her life for a loved one?

[ERICOPOLY]

 

Without religion, how is there morality or meaning?

 

 

It (morality and meaning) comes from social instincts.

 

If one's social instinct is to kill someone and take his shoes, how is that any worse (or better) than someone who is willing to risk his or her life for a loved one?

 

I find it interesting that the large family dog isn't brought along to church on Sunday, yet it won't kill you while you sleep and eat you.

[DCG]

I know this doesn't fit right in with this thread, and I generally try to avoid talking about politics on here, but one thing I've never really understood is the notion that republicans are better for business and the stock markets. I've read nonsense written by hedge fund managers (and other investors) supporting republican candidates implying this.

 

S&P 500 stats since 1960 (though 2011):

 

-Annualized return in years with a Republican president: 2.7%

-Annualized return in years with a Democrat president: 11%

 

Think that 51 year window is not a long enough time frame? If you go back to 1927 through today, the stats are even more heavily in favor of democrats, with the market averaging an annual loss of close to 2% in years with a republican president.

 

..just sayin'

 

/ducks out of the thread.

[stahleyp]

 

Without religion, how is there morality or meaning?

 

 

It (morality and meaning) comes from social instincts.

 

If one's social instinct is to kill someone and take his shoes, how is that any worse (or better) than someone who is willing to risk his or her life for a loved one?

 

I find it interesting that the large family dog isn't brought along to church on Sunday, yet it won't kill you while you sleep and eat you.

 

But a lion will.  ;)

[mhdousa]

I know this doesn't fit right in with this thread, and I generally try to avoid talking about politics on here, but one thing I've never really understood is the notion that republicans are better for business and the stock markets. I've read nonsense written by hedge fund managers (and other investors) supporting republican candidates implying this.

 

S&P 500 stats since 1960 (though 2011):

 

-Annualized return in years with a Republican president: 2.7%

-Annualized return in years with a Democrat president: 11%

 

Think that 51 year window is not a long enough time frame? If you go back to 1927 through today, the stats are even more heavily in favor of democrats, with the market averaging an annual loss of close to 2% in years with a republican president.

 

..just sayin'

 

/ducks out of the thread.

 

DCG -

I'm as pro-Democrat as they come, but I hate this stat, because I think it's largely a matter of timing.

At least in recent history, Clinton took office as the bear of 1990-1991 was receding.

Bush took office as the tech bubble was bursting

Obama took office right before the market bottomed in 3/09.

Going back a little further, FDR took office right after the market bottomed in 1932.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

 

Without religion, how is there morality or meaning?

 

 

It (morality and meaning) comes from social instincts.

 

If one's social instinct is to kill someone and take his shoes, how is that any worse (or better) than someone who is willing to risk his or her life for a loved one?

 

I find it interesting that the large family dog isn't brought along to church on Sunday, yet it won't kill you while you sleep and eat you.

 

But a lion will.  ;)

 

I was searching for the wolf, but the lion will do.

 

The dog has evolved instincts to live in a social unit with humans.  This did not come down from The Ten Commandments.  Dog's don't read stone tablets.

[Liberty]

Without religion, how is there morality or meaning?

 

I don't know, it's the opposite view that scares me; without a big security camera in the sky, the religious people would no doubt try to kill and rape me and steal my stuff? That's scary.

 

There are quite convincing evidence from evolutionary psychology that morality is evolved (the brain is an evolved organ and we are not born blank slates -- in fact, certain types of brain damage can affect people's morality and ethics), and common sense shows that even religious people who pretend they get their morality from their religion know how to pick and choose from their religious texts, so they actually have a moral foundation that doesn't come from their magical books (ie. the bible is full of genocide, prejudice, antiquated beliefs, etc, yet most religious people leave that stuff aside and won't stone women for wearing certain types of textiles or idolatry or whatever). There's also no evidence that people raised in non-religious families are any less moral, or that religious leaders are more moral (how many scandals with priests and preachers?).

 

I recommend reading The Moral Animal by Robert Wright, and The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. Anyway, I'm out. Religious and partisan politics aren't productive to discuss on the internet. I just wanted to give my 2 cents about the origins of morality.

 

I find it interesting that the large family dog isn't brought along to church on Sunday, yet it won't kill you while you sleep and eat you.

 

Domesticated animals are the result of selective breeding over many generations, so they've been shaped by humans to fit their needs. It's not really an example of morality; It's the real 'intelligence design' because it was done by people :) Natural selection has its own criteria for selection (reproductive fitness), but humans have different ones, including not being eaten :)

[ERICOPOLY]

Domesticated animals are the result of selective breeding over many generations, so they've been shaped by humans to fit their needs. It's not really an example of morality; It's the real 'intelligence design' because it was done by people :) Natural selection has its own criteria for selection (reproductive fitness), but humans have different ones, including not being eaten :)

 

Yes, dogs were selectively bred when they pleased their human "pack".

 

There are evolutionary advantages to the well adjusted male human that pleases the human "pack" -- women attracted to power for example.  One gains power through social interactions.  Women are also attracted to men who can provide for them and their children. 

 

There are many non-dog examples in the animal kingdom where their is caring for one another and cooporation.  They are social instincts, not hammered out in morals.

[stahleyp]

 

Without religion, how is there morality or meaning?

 

 

It (morality and meaning) comes from social instincts.

 

If one's social instinct is to kill someone and take his shoes, how is that any worse (or better) than someone who is willing to risk his or her life for a loved one?

 

I find it interesting that the large family dog isn't brought along to church on Sunday, yet it won't kill you while you sleep and eat you.

 

But a lion will.  ;)

 

I was searching for the wolf, but the lion will do.

 

The dog has evolved instincts to live in a social unit with humans.  This did not come down from The Ten Commandments.  Dog's don't read stone tablets.

 

That could be by design, too.

 

I look at theism like this. This does not prove that there is a god, but it does suggest a fairly high probability vs the alternative.

 

We exist. I've read the chances of this happening are something like 1 in 1 with 138 zeros.  But, you know what they say about statistics!

 

The complexity of the life and human language. If we look at something like the human eye, it is almost unfathomable how that could come into being. It even puzzled Darwin.

 

We have consciousness.  I have yet to hear a good atheistic argument on this, too.

 

We have morality (well, at least I think I do). Let's face it. If we are just a bunch of molecules that happen to be here, we would not have the respect we do for Buffett. Honesty and integrity is no better or worse than murder and theft in the atheistic view.

 

People, for whatever reason, "feel" there is a god, or something bigger than us. Why?

 

But, I have to be intellectually honest with myself.  Do I have a bias in denying a deity? Yes; life is a lot easier if I do what I like to do. Do any of these prove god? No.  Do I think the odds of there being a god are higher than a god not existing? Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

[Liberty]

Yes, dogs were selectively bred when they pleased their human "pack".

 

All dog species have as common ancestors wolves. As with all selective breeding, useful traits were selected and reinforced over generations. Selection from wolves probably started with docility as the primary traint, but once you have a lineage that doesn't want to attack you, you can then start selecting for other traits; Some dogs were bred to hunt, or herd sheep, as alarm systems, or to act as companions, or just to be cute. In fact, it's no surprise why puppies and especially kittens are so cute -- the cuttest animals in any litter had more chances of being picked by humans for companionship, and over thousands of years, this results in huge selective pressure for traits that humans would describe as cuteness* :)

 

*Exhibit A: http://cuteoverload.com/

[ERICOPOLY]

But, I have to be intellectually honest with myself.  Do I have a bias in denying a deity? Yes; life is a lot easier if I do what I like to do. Do any of these prove god? No.  Do I think the odds of there being a god are higher than a god not existing? Yes.

 

Religion doesn't answer the question of what created the deity.  Or what created the something that created the deity.

 

It gets infinitely recursive.

 

Thus it provides not an answer in the form of intelligent design.  Not for me anyhow, because I see the infinite recursion in the logical loop.  A programmer would call that "a bug".

[stahleyp]

Without religion, how is there morality or meaning?

 

I don't know, it's the opposite view that scares me; without a big security camera in the sky, the religious people would no doubt try to kill and rape me and steal my stuff? That's scary.

 

There are quite convincing evidence from evolutionary psychology that morality is evolved (the brain is an evolved organ and we are not born blank slates -- in fact, certain types of brain damage can affect people's morality and ethics), and common sense shows that even religious people who pretend they get their morality from their religion know how to pick and choose from their religious texts, so they actually have a moral foundation that doesn't come from their magical books (ie. the bible is full of genocide, prejudice, antiquated beliefs, etc, yet most religious people leave that stuff aside and won't stone women for wearing certain types of textiles or idolatry or whatever). There's also no evidence that people raised in non-religious families are any less moral, or that religious leaders are more moral (how many scandals with priests and preachers?).

 

I recommend reading The Moral Animal by Robert Wright, and The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. Anyway, I'm out. Religious and partisan politics aren't productive to discuss on the internet. I just wanted to give my 2 cents about the origins of morality.

 

I find it interesting that the large family dog isn't brought along to church on Sunday, yet it won't kill you while you sleep and eat you.

 

Domesticated animals are the result of selective breeding over many generations, so they've been shaped by humans to fit their needs. It's not really an example of morality; It's the real 'intelligence design' because it was done by people :) Natural selection has its own criteria for selection (reproductive fitness), but humans have different ones, including not being eaten :)

 

Liberty, thanks for your reply. Feel free to reply again. I won't really get offended by much of anything. Like I said, I've moved from agnosticism to theism. I'm not super hardcore about much of anything though! I'm very open to competing ideas. :)

 

Many people claim they're "religious" but don't actually live a very religious life, ie priests and other scandals. I think God (in whatever form) needs to be in one's life to truly change them. Not a superficial change, but at the core.

 

I'll admit, when you say "magical books" it makes you seem a bit on the arrogant side. Have you ever read the Bible or any major religious texts?  As far as people picking and choosing, I'd imagine you are talking about Old Testament vs New Testament values. From what I've read on the Christian side, the Old Testament rules no longer applied. The New Testament (covenant) was no longer rule based but by accepting Christ. I was naive to this up until a few months ago, personally.

 

I do find the brain damage information interesting. I'll have to check out those books. Thanks for that!

 

I'd recommend Mere Christanity by CS Lewis for more of the philosophical background. It made me think a ton.

[Liberty]

We exist. I've read the chances of this happening are something like 1 in 1 with 138 zeros.  But, you know what they say about statistics!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field

[stahleyp]

But, I have to be intellectually honest with myself.  Do I have a bias in denying a deity? Yes; life is a lot easier if I do what I like to do. Do any of these prove god? No.  Do I think the odds of there being a god are higher than a god not existing? Yes.

 

Religion doesn't answer the question of what created the deity.  Or what created the something that created the deity.

 

It gets infinitely recursive.

 

Thus it provides not an answer in the form of intelligent design.  Not for me anyhow, because I see the infinite recursion in the logical loop.  A programmer would call that "a bug".

 

The idea with theism is that God was not created. He has always existed. Francis Collins (Director of National Institutes of Health) describes it as trying to measure God with scientific tools but God is outside of science. Is that a cop out? Maybe, but it could still be valid. I mean, the dude helped lead the Human Genome Project so he is way smarter than I am!

 

 

[Liberty]

Liberty, thanks for your reply. Feel free to reply again. I won't really get offended by much of anything. Like I said, I've moved from agnosticism to theism. I'm not super hardcore about much of anything though! I'm very open to competing ideas. :)

 

If you are really open to it, read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. If you don't find those arguments convincing, then you'll be able to say that you've really looked at the good arguments in favor of a non-supernatural universe. Lots of religious people do ad hominem attacks against Dawkins and cherry pick what he says, but I've yet to find a religious person who has actually read him.

 

Many people claim they're "religious" but don't actually live a very religious life, ie priests and other scandals. I think God (in whatever form) needs to be in one's life to truly change them. Not a superficial change, but at the core.

 

Maybe, but there's the No True Scotsman problem here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

 

If everytime someone religious does something bad we post-facto says he wasn't really religious or wasn't doing it right, you don't end up with religion as much of a predictor for anything.

 

I'll admit, when you say "magical books" it makes you seem a bit on the arrogant side. Have you ever read the Bible or any major religious texts?  As far as people picking and choosing, I'd imagine you are talking about Old Testament vs New Testament values. From what I've read on the Christian side, the Old Testament rules no longer applied. The New Testament (covenant) was no longer rule based but by accepting Christ. I was naive to this up until a few months ago, personally.

 

I have read them, which is why I call them magical books. That's what they claim, no? Telepathy, transmutation, supernatural occurances and miracles, raising people form the dead and killing whole nations because voices in people's heads said so, invisibility, talking animals, disembodied presences and entities, prophecies, virgin births, burning bushes, whole seas defying gravity, other dimensions (or at least some places we can't find where some stuff supposedly is), etc. If that's not magic, then I don't know what the word magic should be used for.

 

If someone came to you and told you they had witnessed any of that today, you'd probably say they believed in magic, yet they would be a more reliable first-hand witness than a centuries-old book from an era back when there was not tradition of objective reporting of facts (scientific method, journalistic method, photographic or video evidence, a literate population brought up with critical thinking, etc), and pretty much all of it written years after the supposed events by non-eyewitnesses.

 

I do find the brain damage information interesting. I'll have to check out those books. Thanks for that!

 

Those two books are very interesting for a whole lot more than any religious argument, I highly recommend them as they are an excellent study of human nature and can help investors.

 

I'd recommend Mere Christanity by CS Lewis for more of the philosophical background. It made me think a ton.

 

I haven't read that one, I'll put it on the list. Cheers.

[stahleyp]

I've not yet read The God Delusion. I'm sure I'll check it out soon. I watched a lot of his debates and one or two of his series from the BBC. He makes some really good points. In fact, the more I read/watched from him (and Hitchens) the more I moved towards atheism. Then, I read Mere Christianity. That put things in a different perspective for me. Francis Collins said that it turned him from atheism to Christianity. Now, I can't say I've moved that far to the religious side yet, it has (among other things) put me in the theism camp.

[ERICOPOLY]

Selection from wolves probably started with docility as the primary traint, but once you have a lineage that doesn't want to attack you, you can then start selecting for other traits; Some dogs were bred to hunt, or herd sheep, as alarm systems, or to act as companions, or just to be cute. In fact, it's no surprise why puppies and especially kittens are so cute -- the cuttest animals in any litter had more chances of being picked by humans for companionship, and over thousands of years, this results in huge selective pressure for traits that humans would describe as cuteness* :)

 

*Exhibit A: http://cuteoverload.com/

 

It goes deeper than that even.  The dog has a special intelligence to recognize our facial expressions and thus understand our emotions.  The wolf does not.  Look up the Nova program on this -- I found it on Hulu.

 

[Liberty]

It goes deeper than that even.  The dog has a special intelligence to recognize our facial expressions and thus understand our emotions.  The wolf does not.  Look up the Nova program on this -- I found it on Hulu.

 

Indeed, that ability to recognize human cues was bred in over-time. Dogs that do what you tell them to and can read your moods have higher value than those who do not, so there's higher selective pressure and those will have on average more offsprings via human-guided selective breeding, over time making those traits generalized in the population (it's fascinating to me that even very small advantages can mean that certain adaptations/genes take over a whole population over enough generations -- the math is slightly counter-intuitive). Evolutionary science if fascinating. I recommend this classic book on the subject by George C. Williams:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Adaptation-Natural-Selection-Christopher-Williams/dp/0691026157/

[Liberty]

I've not yet read The God Delusion. I'm sure I'll check it out soon. I watched a lot of his debates and one or two of his series from the BBC. He makes some really good points. In fact, the more I read/watched from him (and Hitchens) the more I moved towards atheism. Then, I read Mere Christianity. That put things in a different perspective for me. Francis Collins said that it turned him from atheism to Christianity. Now, I can't say I've moved that far to the religious side yet, it has (among other things) put me in the theism camp.

 

If you read it, feel free to private message me with your thoughts. I'm curious to know what you think.

 

Cheers!

[Tim Eriksen]

I know this doesn't fit right in with this thread, and I generally try to avoid talking about politics on here, but one thing I've never really understood is the notion that republicans are better for business and the stock markets. I've read nonsense written by hedge fund managers (and other investors) supporting republican candidates implying this.

 

S&P 500 stats since 1960 (though 2011):

 

-Annualized return in years with a Republican president: 2.7%

-Annualized return in years with a Democrat president: 11%

 

Think that 51 year window is not a long enough time frame? If you go back to 1927 through today, the stats are even more heavily in favor of democrats, with the market averaging an annual loss of close to 2% in years with a republican president.

 

..just sayin'

 

/ducks out of the thread.

 

Try looking at the figures based on who controls the purse strings (Congress).  It gives a completely different result since WWII (I didn't look at the time before that).  The market has done noticeably better when Republicans control Congress than when Democrats do. 

 

I have always thought it interesting that when Clinton was governor he took credit for Arkansas' economy (during Reagan and Bush presidencies).  When president he took credit for the economy (yet Republicans controlled the majority of governorships from 1994 - 2000).