the stock market’s best and worse presidents

First published in 2008. Thought to update it through January 21, 2017. Only goes to confirm that raw statistics are just raw statistics.

DOW performance for their entire tenure, ranked from best to worse:
Clinton … + 226.3%
Roosevelt … + 194.4%
Obama … + 149.7%
Reagan … + 135.1%
Eisenhower … + 120.3%
Truman … + 81.7%
G. Bush … + 45.0%
Johnson … + 30.9%
Ford … + 23.4%
Kennedy … + 12.2%
Carter … – 0.9%
Nixon … – 16.5%
GW Bush … – 24.9%
Hoover … – 82.8%

Next, it might also be interesting to rate each of these fourteen presidents by the median yearly gain, since their terms were quite varied:
Clinton … + 28.3%
Obama … + 18.7%
Reagan … + 16.9%
Roosevelt … + 16.2%
Eisenhower . + 15.4%
G. Bush … + 11.3%
Truman … + 10.5%
Ford … + 9.7%
Johnson … + 6.0%
Kennedy … + 4.3%
Carter … – 0.2%
Nixon … – 3.0%
GW Bush … – 3.1%
Hoover … – 20.7%

One last note in regard to this 80+ year period. Starting with Hoover 1n March, 1929 and ending with GW Bush in January 2009, the Democrats and Republicans split that entire period right down the middle: 40 years for each party. Trump started his presidency with the DOW at 19,827.

About tony caldaro

This entry was posted in special report and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

99 Responses to the stock market’s best and worse presidents

  1. valunvstr says:

    Democrats tend to spend more. Spending more causes asset inflation. Stocks are an asset. And the big spending Republicans had the same outcome. Reagan and GW. Not a perfect correlation but reasonably high.

  2. torehund says:

    Too funny not to post.


  3. Tony,

    Semi-retired so spent some time taking alternative look at DJI returns (added data for Harding/Coolidge (1921-29) and Trump (to date.)) Annualized to account for varied term lengths (Col #1.)

    Wanted to see effect of President on performance beyond GDP & CPI effects so compiled estimated Annual GDP & CPI rates during terms (Col #2 &#3.) Column #4 normalizes DJI returns by CPI to ameliorate effects due to inflation only. Finally, I attempt to remove DJI attributable to other changes (population, productivity/technology growth…) as reflected by GDP growth and normalize by CPI. I believe growth rate in #5 reflects growth of DJI correlated to excess confidence/pessimism beyond roughly “fundamental” valuation effects.

    Sort ranking on #5 fairly similar to yours except for Roosevelt (length of term and very high GDP rate) and Trump (length of term). Highest non-fundamental exuberance for the roaring ’20’s and ’90’s bubbles – Obama and Trump (to date) seem(ed) to inspire somewhat similar bubblish exuberance. Column #5 values in the +/-3% range would to my thinking reflect DJI in line with expected “fundamental” change and “rational effects” of Presidential policies on GDP & CPI with lesser irrational effect otherwise. Below -5% may reflect excess pessimism inspired in part due to lack of confidence in Presidential leadership.

    Possible better analysis if use DJI from election to election rather than inauguration to inauguration as DJI has potential to anticipates newly elected president almost instantaneously (Trump Nov 2016, Obama Nov 2008 …) with GDP and CPI lagged to more correctly attribute lingering effects of previous President’s policies and delay for new President’s rational policies to affect GDP&CPI. Other analysis suggestions I’ve seen suggest normalization on a per capita basis and look at changes in Economic Performance Index (combines GDP, Inflation, Unemployment and Deficit growth). Also seen suggestions that better to use party of Senate majority than party of President when generalizing to political philosophy.

    Thanks for the fun. Sorry for the length – I guess brevity is beyond me. Best wishes for your Holidays and good health.

    • thought knew how to add image ..cant edit so adding. jpg here

      html path here

    • tony caldaro says:

      Interesting approach, however immediately see a problem
      FDR takes over during a depression and gets penalized for an annualized 8.7% GDP
      Obama takes over during the great recession and his annualized 1.5% GDP is a plus?

      • Column 5 attempt to look at “excessive” effect on DJI not linear attributable to GDP & not really a penalty for taking over during depression/recession — one argument would expect GDP to rebound so why get excess attribution for what was bound to happen no matter who was (within reason) President? FDR policies may have inspired highest GDP growth but not so irrational as to cause excess/bubble growth in DJI (similar to many other presidents and not anything special). In contrast, DJI growth during Obama seems excessive given the low GDP/CPI growth rates, which leads to considering Obama DJI growth as potential irrational/aberrational behavior.

        Didn’t discuss Column #4 but it only accounts for term length and normalizes for inflation/change in dollar value of DJI without considering GDP. In that case, Roosevelt’s rank is similar to Reagan/GHWBush and slightly better than Truman. Obama ranking remains seemingly aberrational.

        Also believe your concerns would be potentially addressed by suggestions made in last paragraph. (Attribute DJI growth from election to election date (leading indicator) and GDP & CPI from some point in middle of first term to similar point in next President’s first term (lagging indicator) to account for delay/lingering of implementation of a President’s policies. (or it can all mean nothing and just a fun way to bide one’s time)

        • mcgcapital says:

          Interesting read, thanks for sharing. No surprises that the highest returns coincided with valuation extremes.. 1929 Wall Street crash, 2000 tech bubble and 2016-2018 everything bubble. Not sure there’s much linkage to who’s in the White House in general and it’s more linked to easy money, although Trump’s tax cuts definitely contributed

          • Tempestzzzz says:

            What Presidency ‘algos’ started to be used.

          • valunvstr says:

            Where do you get these comments about “everything” bubbles? The only “possible” bubble is government debt but that’s only a bubble of others stop lending to those that owe and as the reserve currency and consumer of the world I don’t see others suddenly stoping lending to us. At least not anytime soon enough to be relevant to investment. Anyone doing honest research knows that the household balance is the best it’s been in decades. While absolute debt has risen depots have risen far more and $10trillion has been added on top of that to home equity. One can argue shiller PEs but it’s hard to take that person seriously at this point after it’s been wrong for two decades and there are obvious flaws with it. Commodities are clearly not in a bubble. Value stocks are clearly not in a bubble. REITS are trading at about a 5% discount to NAV so they are not in a bubble. This bubble talk is simply outrageous and believed only by those that want to believe there are bubbles everywhere to fit a feeling they feel comfortable having. It’s just not true.

  4. travis01 says:

    A wise man once said that “the average person is an idiot, and half the population is dumber than that guy”. You can debate and you can argue, but you should at least try to debate with facts and argue with opinions and understand what both are. You can even have an opinion about a fact. Debating fiscal policy and tariffs is healthy, where arguing about barefoot toddlers in a staged photo is not. The socialist Dem from NYC wants to send 5000 case workers to the border to help those wanting in, but we don’t have 5000 case workers or money to even provide temp housing for vets or homeless in a single city. Rich entertainers want to let everyone in and pay them $40k a year in entitlements bc Europeans came here 200+ years ago uninvited by Natives. One has nothing to do with the other. There is a root cause to every problem, but there is more power and money in cold meds than flu shots. Divide the masses and conquer…you are letting them win. And you cannot directly compare two presidencies bc no two were in the same situation at the same time. Any more than you can say Tiger would beat Nicklaus head to head in their prime or would the 85 Bears beat the 18 Chiefs. Every admin does some good, some bad, and a whole lotta posturing.

  5. lml25 says:

    Ira says unless VIX jumps back over 23.26–bullish for stocks.Lower highs and lower lows on VIX.Later all.

  6. fenster6 says:

    I dont think we gain anything by trying to argue politics.. trump has tapped into an evil angry vein in some folks, who cheer when barefoot poor kids are hit with tear gas.

    We forget the millions of poor Italians, Poles, germans, Jews , russians that came with only the clothes on their back.

    And before any says legal or illegal, remember the Native Indians had been here for thousands of years before the rest of us, never legally let us all in.

    In fact, thanksgiving for those who have forgotten, is to commemorate the famished pilgrims who came here being fed by the natives rather than being slaughtered by them.

    How soon we forget.

    • How I wish the poor Italians, Poles, Germans, Jews and Russians swapped the clothes on their backs for native American buckskin and loincloth and swapped their city dwelling for teepees. This would sure as heck have confused the anglo cowboys, and “How the West was won” may have turned into “How the East was won”.

      Of course, this means we’d be having Gefilte, sausage and pasta at Thanksgiving, sitting around campfires and doing raindances, instead of eating turkey, but I wouldn’t complain. Ergodan can have turkey.


    • lunker1 says:

      the men brought the women and children as human shields to rush the fence. if you’re seeking asylum then why are you rushing to crossing a sewage river to run at a razor fence? to knock it down. the proper place to seek asylum is at the border office. and that’s the safe place for women, children and men too.

    • Fenster:
      We already have let tens of millions of 3rd world people in. they will overwhelm us if we don’t stop them. There is no limit to how many want to come here. Only an idiot could fail to see that. Left wing demagoguery is no substitute for clear thinking.

      • lml25 says:

        I’m with Mr.Schaeffer.Why would anyone with a European background (of which most of the US had for 225+ years)want to hand over the country they built over that time,to minorities,Mexican and other Central/South Americans or Muslims?Why would France,England,Italy,Sweden agree to let their countries be overrun by foreigners?So many wars were fought over centuries to protect their homelands–and now–without a gunshot–they are allowing it.Mexico took over California in a non-violent invasion .That,by the way, is being used as a blueprint by other ethic groups to do the same elsewhere.Get a foothold in,outreproduce the white people (easy to do)and take over in 50 years without a war.Brilliantly devious.Muslims,in particular,want to avoid an actual Crusades-like battle.This is their preference–and their goal always HAS been(since Mohamed)to have their religion take over the planet.The descendents of people who built this country from 1776 to 1965 need to either decide to step aside and become Mayans or fight for survival.Not much time left either-if any at all.

    • lunker1 says:

      That’s not the origin of Thanksgiving and the pilgrims were not fed by the Indians.

  7. H D says:

    One last note in regard to this 80+ year period. For those keeping score at home.
    693% of the market gains came under democratic POTUS
    199% came under republican POTUS.

    • tommyboys says:

      Takes a few years for Freedom type policies – Republican – to take root and produce harvest. No way anyone in their right mind can claim socialist type policies or high taxes or big government are bullish for a laissez faire, capitalist economy or market. Just look around history or the current world. Taxes/Socialism suffocate economies. Obvious anywhere you look and Econ 101.

      • H D says:

        Good job Tommy. You looked up some big words this time. Alternative facts. It’s not even worth debating. Bush crashed the economy and Trump will too. Wait for it.

        • fishonhook says:

          Ha HD +10

        • tommyboys says:

          More leftist TDS. Democrats came about to fight the freedoms our founding fathers died for. Whole “party” is funded by foreign individuals and entities that want to see the US back on par with lackluster European nations it evolved from. They hate that we have freedom and a “say” in how things get done. With the help of their MSM they’ve managed to brainwash 50% of the country. If the left craves socialism so much why don’t you just move to your favorite socialist nation(?) Why fight against the freedom our US represents and was built on & for? Trump 2020.

          • tommyboys says:

            Bush took over after 8 months of a failing Clinton market and then dealt with the greatest attack on American soil kicking off the Crisis period. Difference? Trump took over a similar Obama failing market but during the birth of an Awakening period. Trump election was actually the canary calling the end of the Crisis. The Awakening will last till 2030+ so outside of periodic cyclical bears like the one we’re in now, the market is a secular bull through the 30s. No secular Trump “crash”.

            • H D says:

              tommy- you were doing ok but all the “truth isn’t truth” is hurting your cause. This is the only part of your gibberish that’s on topic. “Trump took over a similar Obama failing market.” Open the charts bro. Trump was handled the markets at ALL TIME HIGHS.
              You can’t rewrite history.

              • It’s amazing that people are so biased by their politics. Whoever was president at the end of the roaring 20’s and the internet bubble was screwed…and whoever followed those presidents was handed a gift. So whoever was the luckier party won. But anyone with half a brain should know that Real growth can’t come from high taxes and high regulation.

                • H D says:

                  Bias indeed. Nobody willing to stick to the topic or the charts…just their ideology.
                  Tony’s post stands on its own merits.

              • travis01 says:

                HD, you constantly contradict yourself and somehow walk away like you are right. Tony even says “raw stats are just raw stats”. Add in raw data like increased poverty levels, job growth, in war or not, world economic factors, coming off recession or not, what part of secular were we in, etc. No two times in history are the same. So Trump’s DOW is up ~24% so far (been up as much as ~35%). Some on his policies, some on residual from Obama policies. You can’t have it both ways just bc you hate Trump. So whatever pres came in at “all time highs” means it will go up forever or they are a failure? Those All Time Highs went higher. Obama took the reigns with DOW lowest in over 11 years; was that all on him and not an end to a recessionary market from Clinton’s housing crisis? No hard feelings, maybe just see your moral outrage and triggers a response. Best to ya though (and as a Conservative, I vote split tix)

              • H D says:

                Travis- how did I contradict myself? Dude I live in AZ. I’m as conservative as they come in my personal life. Trump is not. All you guys got triggered cuz I posted the stats? I didn’t post any ideology. It’s my opinion that the states, and where you live, should reflect your own beliefs and that the federal gov’t is simply run better by democrats- as showing on the charts and in the raw stats. business, markets, wars- all better when dem control the WH. Just the raw stats.

              • HD, I’ve traveled all over the world and have had lots of experiences that help me understand people. And no one can pin this on me being political, because I’m as neutral at everything (except common sense) as they come, because my interests lie elsewhere.

                This thing is going to puzzle me for a long, long time.

                I just don’t understand how two (well, simplifying) educated people can witness the orange-top perform, even for just five minutes, and come away with vastly diverging opinions. I know what mine is, and why. 🙂

                What, exactly, does this to an otherwise seemingly reasonable human mind?

          • mcgcapital says:

            US evolved from Europe? Lol

  8. lunker1 says:

    Hi Tony, do you know when in history the Fed has had a period earlier of quantitative tightening/removing liquidity and how did the market preform? Thx

  9. csonkabull39 says:

    I can only laugh, when they call tax cuts “trickle down economics”, and then call QE the reason for economic expansion.

  10. It’s surprising how you can come across people that don’t believe that QE helped improve the real Economy, let alone financial assets.

    Moreover, the real interesting part of QT right now is not just how the FED has drained a half a Trillion dollars from the financial system in the last 12 months, but rather the impact on currency in circulation given that the FED has reduced its balance sheet by $300 Billion by running down its holdings of Treasuries and agency mortgage-backed securities.

    It’s not just about watching how the FED expresses its policy changes in the Fed Funds rate.

    The net effect of QT has been a shrinkage of another liability…. bank reserves, which is the raw material of the money supply.

    • mcgcapital says:

      Good to see a poster who understands these issues. It’s going to be critical going forward. If you were referring to my comment on the real economy, I was meaning that in my view the cons will outweigh the pros of interference in the long run. It’s not that there’s been no impact on the real economy, it’s that the impact it has had isn’t worth the expansion in the balance sheet and change in financial market participant behaviour that resulted IMHO

  11. csonkabull39 says:

    That is the debate HD. Socialism leads to Communism. You talk about Trump as a Dictator. He is fighting the Establishment! He is fighting for WE THE PEOPLE. The Establishment wants WE THE PEOPLE under their control, fighting amongst ourselves over Democrat VS Republican. The WHOLE WORLD realizes their governments are corrupt. This is why politicians are being voted out around the world.

    • H D says:

      Good grief. You must be furious then about things like the socializing farming and growing the military so much. Food and military-that’s the path to your communist fears indeed. State run and funded, ushered in by your guy disguised as “fighting the establishment.” Trump is not what you think and certainly not the talking points you offer. I’d turn off the FOX news for a few months

      • csonkabull39 says:

        You do understand, the only reason for government, is to protect our country. Not to DICTATE how we live our lives.

        • H D says:

          Dude! how on earth did you get from POTUS stock market performance to right wing idealism? I’m out

        • Csonka…. so Trump is battling the Deep State eh?

          Of course, we all know how much the Deep State has been concerned about protecting the Environment…. Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species, Global Warming, etc.

          That’s why Trump has spent his entire term thus far, appointing energy lobbyists to head up the EPA and Interior Departments…. in an effort to roll back environmental protections and “fight” the Deep State….. since the Deep State is so protective of the environment.

          Makes perfect sense now.


          • tommyboys says:

            Blue blue blue…sorry for your naivety – whew…
            Deep State couldn’t care LESS about the environment – man they’ve got some brainwashed. “Global Warming” and 90% of every other agenda they put forth is for ONE purpose – to control through fear. Eroding middle class wealth through these fears is how it works. Suck up enough hard earned taxpayer dollars for big government control -socialism/communism. They want all citizens to bow to their power and control. Ya think Al Gore would live in a 22k house and travel by personal jetcraft if he thought he was destroying the planet? Trump fighting to put funds and control – FREEDOM – back in middle class hands and AWAY from government. Founding fathers came here and gave their lives to escape overbearing governments and their taxes and control over citizens – tyranny. We’re right back where they were 250 years ago. Wake up!

            • Tell me how Trump is fighting the Deep State again and Draining the Swamp?

              By appointing an industry lobbyist in every nook and cranny of the EPA and Dept. of the Interior?

              Youre funny.
              Your logic is as twisted as a Robert Prechter wave count.

            • aahmichael says:

              What’s more fearful than spending $30bn to build a wall on the Mexican border, in order to protect us from barefoot toddlers in diapers invading our country.

              • csonkabull39 says:

                25 billion to build a wall, one time expense. 116 billion for illegals in 2017, that will only go up. You do the math. Barefoot toddlers in diapers, lol.

  12. H D says:

    Thanks Tony. So what party are you assigning to Trump?

    My best guess is 1-5% for his presidency. It could also go the way of Trump steaks, Trump University, Trump casino etc etc….

    • csonkabull39 says:

      It could also exceed Clinton. This is a whole new world. Trump is an outsider. Take a look around the world, and see how elections are going for the establishment.

      • H D says:

        I took a look around the world and see at least 6 markets in confirmed bear markets.

        • csonkabull39 says:

          What does that tell you?

          • H D says:

            What does that tell me? Trump screwed things up! From tariffs to socializing farming in America – his policy is a train wreck, very expensive train wreck.

            • csonkabull39 says:

              Socializing farming? Tariffs? You think the rest of the world doesn’t look out for their best interests? Communist China has our best interests at heart? The EU, which is on the brink of destruction, has our best interests at heart? Who are you for?

              • H D says:

                Just talking about our POTUS and his global impact so far as I see it thru my lens and what the charts are showing. There is cause and effect. I’m big on American exceptionalism and this is not our best. Tariffs, trade war brought the markets down. Have no interest in debating the EU or Gina.

            • travis01 says:

              Wait…don’t we all believe that markets run in cycles? So one minute his policies didn’t affect the markets bc Obama’s ran over into Trump’s presidency, then the next minute a Bear is on Trump and not part of the multi-year cycle? Tough to undo decades of bad policies at once, esp when everyone is desperately clinging to those entitlements. He’s not the best option, but exponentially better than Obama and Clintons. Tariffs are the right thing, as is immigration reform. Hurts in the beginning, but necessary at some point. And while the Dems pumped up the market over the past several years, did that put money in the pockets of the poor? But I hear ya, we still need to do things much better.

              • H D says:

                bunch of ‘whatabouts”….. This market is not moving on policy of any former POTUS. The charts are historical- you can’t rewrite history. Global markets are down on Trumps trade policy. Enough debate on that.

              • Travis….. Tariffs are the right thing?
                That’s funny.

                Since when is implementing an economically absurd policy such as Tariffs….. and compounding it by giving the farming and ranching community a $12.5 BILLION DOLLAR corporate “bail-out” make any sense?

                So much for the GOP being against Corporate Welfare.

                PS. American Dairy Farmers are still going to lose $1.5 Billion.

              • travis01 says:

                HD I like to read your once a year market calls, but also see your daily Trump rants (I’m your one twitter follower). Dude you are just too negative. If the charts are historical then 2 years (of which you say those 2 yrs are still Obama’s legacy markets) is not changing the historical charts to a Bear. And Blue, research historical data on farming and industry first then we can debate and not just argue. I imagine that I can teach you a bit on both. It’s like cutting out a cancer, it hurts but still has to be done at some point. Obama just rubbed ointment on it and said it was healed. You guys just don’t understand and the internet is there for you to learn. Read about farming and it’s impact on the nation. Imports and exports of food. Trade imbalances with political powers. Good grief stop reading FB and memes and pick up a white paper or a book.

  13. aahmichael says:

    Take it from perhaps the greatest trader of all time, Stanley Druckenmiller, it’s the Fed that ultimately moves markets, not Presidents. (which is why I have been talking about QT all year.)

    “Earnings don’t move the overall market; it’s the Federal Reserve Board… focus on the central banks and focus on the movement of liquidity… most people in the market are looking for earnings and conventional measures. It’s liquidity that moves markets.”

    • csonkabull39 says:

      You give the Fed super-powers that they just don’t have. All that “liquidity” the Fed gave the banks; it was never lent out. It went straight back to the Fed, sitting there drawing interest from the Fed.

      • aahmichael says:

        When you put together a 3 decade track record of averaging more than 30% per year, while never having a single down year, and only having 5 down quarters out of 120 quarters, while managing $20bn, then I’ll listen to you. In the meantime, I’ll continue to listen to Drunkenmiller. By the way, you might want to google Quantitative Easing.

        • csonkabull39 says:

          Perhaps you should Google it. QE is an effort to flood financial institutions with capital to promote increased lending and liquidity. It did not work. The money was never lent out.

          • mcgcapital says:

            It had limited impact on the real economy but it’s impact on financial assets is quite clear. There’s more to liquidity than just QE though. Whenever liquidity has been reduced, the market has struggled. Happened in 2015 and 2018. Fed pumped liquidity in 2016 and 2017, massive rally. It’s almost perfectly correlated. The question is, what happens next time if the markets are down and the fed reign in QT and pump liquidity, does the market sustain rallies to new highs or not

          • aahmichael says:

            The S&P increased by more than 2000 points because of QE. It went up $325%. Yeah, that’s a failure for sure, because what the Fed does has no effect on the stock market. I mean, it probably would have gone up 3,250%, if the Fed hadn’t been such a failure.

          • Csonkabull, first of all there were 3 QE’s. To make a blanket statement that none of them worked is not true at all., While QE-2 had no significant impact on commercial banks because it was exclusively focused on Treasuries (which were sparsely held by banks), QE-1 and QE-3 certainly did stimulate commercial bank lending. For example, QE-3 was an open-ended bond buying program of agency mortgage-backed securities.

            As Greenspan indicated, the Fed’s “credit easing” program was distinguished from Japan’s QE in that the Fed wasn’t solely interested in the QUANTITY of bank reserves. In contrast, the Fed’s credit easing approach focused on THE MIX of loans and securities that it held and how this composition of assets affected credit conditions for both households and businesses.

      • Not true at all.
        Not even close to being true…. especially given QE-1 and QE-3.

    • floyd drummer says:

      aah, …great read on trading and Druckenmiller, …thx for the post

  14. purplember says:

    i give very little credit or blame to any president for stock performance. clinton didn’t create the boom and bush didn’t cause 9/11 terrorist act or bust from era. it’s just luck of timing and these individuals did very little to cause the stock market to go up or down.

  15. cienq10 says:

    For a Quick confirmation just follow my link

    3 invites left.

  16. Lee x says:

    Thx Tim

    I started trading futures for myself in 1990 in the S&P 500 pit @ the Chicago merc so my comment is purely $entimental .
    I loved the 90s

  17. E says:

    Are you guys confident this will only be a small bear market? If you look at the 1929 analog on the daily, the next two weeks line up exactly with the initial 50% crash back then.

    • Tempestzzzz says:

      They don’t know. Nobody does.
      Maybe it won’t be as bad …or maybe worse.
      If everything could be charted on graphs be a perfect world
      Interesting times.

  18. Bill Farley says:

    Why did you use DJIA instead of S&P 500?

  19. chadthundercockthethird says:

    Initiative Q is an attempt by ex-PayPal guys to create a new payment system instead of credit cards that were designed in the 1950s. The system uses its own currency, the Q, and to get people to start using the system once it’s ready they are allocating Qs for free to people that sign up now (the amount drops as more people join – so better to join early). Signing up is free and they only ask for your name and an email address. There’s nothing to lose but if this payment system becomes a world leading payment method your Qs can be worth a lot.

    Here is my invite link:

    This link will stop working once I’m out of invites. Let me know after you registered, because I need to verify you on my end.

  20. lml25 says:

    I noted on here before,the key to using politics for correlations with the stock market was actually the Senate (if I remember correctly).Republican Senate led the way and was the main factor in double digit gains.Democratic Senate was the worst at about 0%.

  21. tony caldaro says:

    right place, right time ?

  22. Anthony Saraniti says:

    Hi Tony

    Would be interesting to see the revised results when adding a filter….deleting +/- 1 year (?) of the historical recessions/stock market performance that is being “credited” to each President. Or simply deleting stock market performance that was credited to the President when a recession was deemed to have started and completed.

  23. Lee x says:

    Thx Tony

    Thx Bill Clinton

    • Tim Waters says:

      Yes, thank you Bill Clinton, for starting the housing crisis. Research it, the effort to get people in homes, whether they could afford it or not, was executed in the Clinton administration. Oh, and thanks for giving away super computer technology to the Chinese. That helped our country a bunch!

      • torehund says:

        Lipstick on a pig, and you have a spike in the market ALA Clinton. But what peaks when it should have succumbed a long time ago, thats not a feat. Honour to the presidents that took over when the conditions were aweful, thats strength. And getting the population to accept tough times without resorting to externalizing the problems through war, well thats magical. We need magical leaders, think Trump could be one of them, or at least hope he will.

        • tommyboys says:

          So far so good Tore. Unconventional for sure and we like unconventional, nonestablishment UNpoliticians 👌🏽

      • Hmmmmph. Someone has to say this.

        The Chinese did not give you just noodles and egg-rolls.

        The Chinese gave you the compass and gun powder. Without those two things, your ancestors would have likely been knocking poor Burmese natives on their heads senseless with bibles, thinking that was America. No doubt the thick bibles may have done the trick and, if not, then the fire-water would have.

        Then they gave you printing, so you can read what Tony says on the blog.

        Then they gave you paper — just so you can send me a sweet Thank You note with a small cheque, for reminding you that ALL of us stand on the shoulders of giants, regardless of race or creed. Without those giants, where would you be now?


Comments are closed.