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

[R-V]

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.

That's all I was getting at. Many people seem to think that gridlock = concurrent growth. I think the study does a decent job of disproving that, but not of proving anything else affirmatively.

Bottom line: nobody really knows anything, especially what effect the makeup of Congress has on the economy.

[Internet Apex]

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.

That's all I was getting at. Many people seem to think that gridlock = concurrent growth. I think the study does a decent job of disproving that, but not of proving anything else affirmatively.

Bottom line: nobody really knows anything, especially what effect the makeup of Congress has on the economy.

Nice work, boys.

[R-V]

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.

That's all I was getting at. Many people seem to think that gridlock = concurrent growth. I think the study does a decent job of disproving that, but not of proving anything else affirmatively.

Bottom line: nobody really knows anything, especially what effect the makeup of Congress has on the economy.

Nice work, boys.

Shall we close up shop? I'm ready to discuss the Aubrey Huff/Juan Uribe platoon the Cubs are going to use at first base next year.

[Internet Apex]

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.

That's all I was getting at. Many people seem to think that gridlock = concurrent growth. I think the study does a decent job of disproving that, but not of proving anything else affirmatively.

Bottom line: nobody really knows anything, especially what effect the makeup of Congress has on the economy.

Nice work, boys.

Shall we close up shop? I'm ready to discuss the Aubrey Huff/Juan Uribe platoon the Cubs are going to use at first base next year.

I think we can all agree that a lack of payroll flexibility does not equal concurrent improvement. I think last season did a good job of proving that but nothing else affirmatively.

Bottom line: There are lots of young players on the roster who could improve enough to make the Cubs competitive in their shortbus division. So let's just wait and see how it all plays out.  

[CBStew]

Bottom line: There are lots of young players on the roster who could improve enough to make the Cubs competitive in their shortbus division. So let's just wait and see how it all plays out.  

So you knew Jim Jones?

[Internet Apex]

Bottom line: There are lots of young players on the roster who could improve enough to make the Cubs competitive in their shortbus division. So let's just wait and see how it all plays out.  

So you knew Jim Jones?

Intimately. (||)

[Powdered Toast Man]

Hey, anybody wanna go to India?

[J. Walter Weatherman]

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.

That's all I was getting at. Many people seem to think that gridlock = concurrent growth. I think the study does a decent job of disproving that, but not of proving anything else affirmatively.

Bottom line: nobody really knows anything, especially what effect the makeup of Congress has on the economy.

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/11/03/the-economic-consequences-of-gridlock/

[MikeC]

Its not like the writing hasn't been on the wall for months, plus its really not a good idea to call Tea Party people racists, violent, or Tea Baggers.....they might just vote you out of office. Which is pretty much what happened.

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.

Actually i just let you guys like your fellow Democrats run their mouths.....and then I waited for Nov 2nd. Epic fail Democrats. Hmmm maybe heeding your own advice would be wise.

[Gilgamesh]

Its not like the writing hasn't been on the wall for months, plus its really not a good idea to call Tea Party people racists, violent, or Tea Baggers.....they might just vote you out of office. Which is pretty much what happened.

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.

Actually i just let you guys like your fellow Democrats run their mouths.....and then I waited for Nov 2nd. Epic fail Democrats. Hmmm maybe heeding your own advice would be wise.

Epic Fail means retaining control of the Senate?

How are those tea baggers going to vote on the debt ceiling?  A lot of them said no to any increase?  What's going to happen?  Are you ready to trigger a global economic pandemic, MikeC?

[Chuck to Chuck]

Its not like the writing hasn't been on the wall for months, plus its really not a good idea to call Tea Party people racists, violent, or Tea Baggers.....they might just vote you out of office. Which is pretty much what happened.

Just calling a spade a spade.

[Gilgamesh]

Its not like the writing hasn't been on the wall for months, plus its really not a good idea to call Tea Party people racists, violent, or Tea Baggers.....they might just vote you out of office. Which is pretty much what happened.

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.

Actually i just let you guys like your fellow Democrats run their mouths.....and then I waited for Nov 2nd. Epic fail Democrats. Hmmm maybe heeding your own advice would be wise.

Also, how are the tea baggers going to respond to the fact that 1/4th of the electorate that voted them into power deeply depend on the social services the new majority intends to cut?

Watching this new House majority is going to be fun.

[CBStew]

Its not like the writing hasn't been on the wall for months, plus its really not a good idea to call Tea Party people racists, violent, or Tea Baggers.....they might just vote you out of office. Which is pretty much what happened.

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.

Actually i just let you guys like your fellow Democrats run their mouths.....and then I waited for Nov 2nd. Epic fail Democrats. Hmmm maybe heeding your own advice would be wise.

Yeah, the teabaggers really showed us here in California.  It is good to know that you can't buy the governor's office with $141 million. 

[Gilgamesh]

I just think this is worth noting.

One of the first tests of [Boehner's] ability to discipline populist revolutionaries fresh from the electoral barricades will come when the new Congress is asked to raise the federal debt limit from $12.4 trillion to $14.3 trillion. No Congress has ever refused to approve such an increase and, if such a refusal were to occur, the consequences for the global financial system would be apocalyptic.

Many of the new senators and House members have pledged to vote against an increase in the debt. Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity — one of the more active national tea party groups — told Politico this week that the Republicans' new House majority "cannot fold on the debt."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten-column-election-20101103,0,193190.column

Also, MikeC, take a look at this:

John Boehner didn't claim a mandate, he claimed a repudiation. "We are witnessing a repudiation of Washington ... a repudiation of Big Government ... and a repudiation of politicians who refuse to listen to the people." It's a good thing he didn't claim a mandate, because the message from the electorate wasn't clear. In exit polls, 37 percent said the highest priority of Congress should be "spending to create jobs." The nearly equal priority was reducing the budget deficit, which 37 percent said was their No. 1 goal.

http://www.slate.com/id/2273349/pagenum/2

There are some big tests with spending coming up.  Will the GOP House attempt to cut it?  Medicare?  Social Security?  Defense?  Fuck, I'd settle for an end to farm subsidies as a beginning of fiscal moderation, or a repudiation of Medicare Part D.  But it won't happen.

[Brownie]

1980- Reagan wins presidency. Yay Conservatism!
1982- Dems score big at Midterms. Yay Left-wingism!
1984- Reagan wins every state, unless someone convinced you Minnesota really wasn't just a province south of Manitoba. Yay Reaganomics!
1986 - Dems take control of Senate again. Yay liberalism! Reagan, with Iran Contra, is on the ropes!
1988 - Bush beats Dukakis! Yay GOP!
1990 - Dems score in Midterms! Yay Dems
1992 - Dems score big with Clinton! Yay Dems! Conservatism is dead!
1994 - GOP takes House and Senate! Contract with America! Yay right-wingers!
1996 - Clinton beats Bob Dole! Yay center-left coalition!
1998 - GOP makes more gains in House and Senate; Clinton on ropes with Lewinsky scandal. Yay GOP!
2000 - Bush ekes out win and GOP maintains control of Congress! It's morning again!
2002 - GOP regains Senate, builds up House majority! It's Good to Be Red!
2004 - Bush wins re-election! Yay GOP!
2006 - Dems regain control of House and Senate! Beginning of the end of Compassionate Conservatism!
2008 - Obama sweeps in a huge Congressional majority. Conservatism is dead.  Republicans to look forward to future as a third or fourth party.
2010 - GOP dominates again.

That's 16 elections, 9 "won" by the GOP, 7 by the Dems.

Gloating/depression won't do anyone any good.