Fuck its silent in here.......

[J. Walter Weatherman]

We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis...

As opposed to what?

[Quality Start Machine]

Harry Reid, you magnificent bastard, you won me 250 dollars!!!

Thank the Tea Party. That moron was right there in the crosshairs and they gave us Sharron Angle.

Harry Reid is not only still in the Senate, but still the majority leader because of one person: Sarah Palin.

You're going to see some real Shakespearian shit go down between her & Karl Rove in the next 2 years...she cost Turd Blossom the Senate.

[Tonker]

We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis...

As opposed to what?

Legislative diarrhoea?

[SKO]

We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis...

As opposed to what?

This is true. America. The system works. Or it doesn't. And you can never tell the difference anyway.


Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

[Bort]

We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis...

As opposed to what?

This is true. America. The system works. Or it doesn't. And you can never tell the difference anyway.


Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

He's busy carving his next post into his thigh with a rusty spoon.

[Waco Kid]

We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis...

As opposed to what?

This is true. America. The system works. Or it doesn't. And you can never tell the difference anyway.


Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

Getting a orange spray tan to honor Boehner?

[Gilgamesh]

We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis...

As opposed to what?

This is true. America. The system works. Or it doesn't. And you can never tell the difference anyway.


Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

He's busy carving his next post into his thigh with a rusty spoon.

I figured he'd be fellating Sharron Angle right now in consolation.

[Slaky]

We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis...

As opposed to what?

Legislative diarrhoea?

Made of foeces?

[CBStew]

We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis...

As opposed to what?

This is true. America. The system works. Or it doesn't. And you can never tell the difference anyway.


Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

Getting a orange spray tan to honor Boehner?

Boehner is a maudlin, sloppy drunk.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

Maybe he's decided he can best serve his party by shutting the fuck up.

[Internet Apex]

Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

Maybe he's decided he can best serve his party by shutting the fuck up.

I really wish he'd show up though. I like his avatar.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

Maybe he's decided he can best serve his party by shutting the fuck up.

I really wish he'd show up though. I like his avatar.

Now with less grammatical confusion and unnecessary spittle.

[Internet Apex]

Also, where the fuck is MikeC? His triumphant return to Desipio was what I was looking forward to most yesterday.

Maybe he's decided he can best serve his party by shutting the fuck up.

I really wish he'd show up though. I like his avatar.

Now with less grammatical confusion and unnecessary spittle.

[morpheus]

We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis that, coincidentally or not, seems to spur economic growth in this country.

Or not.

So the midterm elections themselves give the stock markets a bounce. But what about what comes after the elections—in this case, gridlock?

There, research shows that gridlock—contrary to general opinion on Wall Street—does not actually do much for stocks. Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist for Standard & Poor's Equity Research Services, finds that gridlocked Congresses hurt the markets—and that the combination of a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic White House might be particularly awful.

Stovall studied the performance of the S&P 500 from 1900 until this year under three scenarios: total unity (one party controlling the House, Senate, and White House), partial gridlock (one party controlling both houses of Congress and the other controlling the White House), and total gridlock (a divided Congress).

Over all years, the S&P rose at a 6.8 percent annual pace. During times of total unity, 67 of the 111 years analyzed, it gained 7.6 percent annual pace. During times of partial gridlock, accounting for 32 years, they gained 6.8 percent. And during the 12 years of a gridlocked Congress, the S&P gained just 2 percent per year. Looking at more recent years, since 1945, the pattern holds. Under total unity, stocks climbed at a 10.7 percent annual pace. Under partial gridlock, they gained 7.6 percent per year. And under total gridlock, which accounts for eight of the 65 years, they gained just 3.5 percent per year.

Of course, it's possible that gridlock is the result of a bad economy: Congress and the voting public can't agree on a way out of the mess. And Stovall allows that his analysis might be "simply another example of coincidental correlation." But, in a note to investors, he argues that the reason total gridlock hurts big stocks is uncertainty. Divided governments do not lay out their priorities, and the infighting endemic to gridlocked Congresses hurts businesses. "Should a split Congress be the result of the November 2 elections, the resulting uncertainty may just end up adding one more stone to this already high wall of worry, limiting the otherwise strong performance that is typically seen in a president's third year in office," Stovall concluded.

1) As I am so often told, the S&P 500 is not the economy, so I'd say SKO's reasoning hasn't been challenged by RV's post.

2) Policy works with a lag, and sometimes a long one.  Stovall seems to have examined concurrent returns.  I wish I could be a Chief Investment Strategist for S&P.

3) The outlook also depends on where one is starting from.  I'd argue there was *more* uncertainty for markets under Democratic "total unity" (using Stovall's terminology, which is of course an imperfect descriptor of the actual situation) than there is under partially divided government.

[SKO]

We can all now hope for the legislative paralysis that, coincidentally or not, seems to spur economic growth in this country.

Or not.

So the midterm elections themselves give the stock markets a bounce. But what about what comes after the elections—in this case, gridlock?

There, research shows that gridlock—contrary to general opinion on Wall Street—does not actually do much for stocks. Sam Stovall, the chief investment strategist for Standard & Poor's Equity Research Services, finds that gridlocked Congresses hurt the markets—and that the combination of a Republican House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic White House might be particularly awful.

Stovall studied the performance of the S&P 500 from 1900 until this year under three scenarios: total unity (one party controlling the House, Senate, and White House), partial gridlock (one party controlling both houses of Congress and the other controlling the White House), and total gridlock (a divided Congress).

Over all years, the S&P rose at a 6.8 percent annual pace. During times of total unity, 67 of the 111 years analyzed, it gained 7.6 percent annual pace. During times of partial gridlock, accounting for 32 years, they gained 6.8 percent. And during the 12 years of a gridlocked Congress, the S&P gained just 2 percent per year. Looking at more recent years, since 1945, the pattern holds. Under total unity, stocks climbed at a 10.7 percent annual pace. Under partial gridlock, they gained 7.6 percent per year. And under total gridlock, which accounts for eight of the 65 years, they gained just 3.5 percent per year.

Of course, it's possible that gridlock is the result of a bad economy: Congress and the voting public can't agree on a way out of the mess. And Stovall allows that his analysis might be "simply another example of coincidental correlation." But, in a note to investors, he argues that the reason total gridlock hurts big stocks is uncertainty. Divided governments do not lay out their priorities, and the infighting endemic to gridlocked Congresses hurts businesses. "Should a split Congress be the result of the November 2 elections, the resulting uncertainty may just end up adding one more stone to this already high wall of worry, limiting the otherwise strong performance that is typically seen in a president's third year in office," Stovall concluded.

1) As I am so often told, the S&P 500 is not the economy, so I'd say SKO's reasoning hasn't been challenged by RV's post.

2) Policy works with a lag, and sometimes a long one.  Stovall seems to have examined concurrent returns.  I wish I could be a Chief Investment Strategist for S&P.

3) The outlook also depends on where one is starting from.  I'd argue there was *more* uncertainty for markets under Democratic "total unity" (using Stovall's terminology, which is of course an imperfect descriptor of the actual situation) than there is under partially divided government.

I didn't really have any reasoning. I seem to remember a discussion in here where some evidence vaguely supported the idea that the economy has been strongest when there's been gridlock.