Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Wilshire 5000 by Congress

Marketwatch is comparing previous Presidents to the Wilshire 5000. The article takes a swipe at Bush III, with regard to economic performance.











I happen to dislike the economic performance of Bush I, II, and III, all of whom were disastrous influences on our economy. Still, it is pretty hard to blame Bush III alone for the Y2000 crash.

The whole idea is more interesting when viewed by Congress:

by House
Congress R D Wilshire
111 178 256 -3%
110 233 202 -35%
109 232 201 19%
108 229 205 36%
107 221 211 3%
106 223 211 -11%
105 228 206 55%
104 230 204 56%
103 176 258 7%
102 164 270 42%
101 174 261 11%
100 177 258 7%
99 182 253 49%
98 163 272 16%





Average Republican 18%

Average Democrat 18%


by Senate
Congress R D Wilshire
98 55 45 16%
99 53 47 49%
100 45 55 7%
101 45 55 11%
102 44 56 42%
103 43 57 7%
104 54 46 56%
105 55 45 55%
106 55 45 -11%
107 50 50 3%
108 51 49 36%
109 55 44 19%
110 49 51 -35%
111 41 59 -3%





Average Republican 31%

Average Democrat 5%


All in all, the exercise mostly emphasizes how criminally rampant monetary inflation has been over the past several decades. It's no wonder Momma has to work, add the kids soon.

5 comments:

  1. I don't usually get political with my investing but when I heard the term "Obama bounce" I bought an inverse ETF for the first time. I'm now positive for the year.

    Thanks Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  2. FDR, when you reference Bush I, II and III, I am not sure who exactly you mean. Do you mean Bush I as Samuel Prescott Bush (1863 - 1948) economic advisor to Herbert Hoover and the architect of GD1, as chief of the Ordnance, Small Arms, and Ammunition Section of the War Industries Board, a United States government agency during World War I to coordinate the purchase of war supplies and his appointment to the Federal Federal Reserve of Cleveland central bank? If that is the case, the coalition of Bush III with Cheney and Haliburton war industries and the architect of GD2 seems to fit right in. Or perhaps you simply just refer to Obama, as a no account watercarrier from Bush's (HW) I and II (W) policies?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I mean W, his Daddy, and his Granddaddy.

    You bring up a good point that Obama could be considered Bush IV. I'm certain he will aggressively continue congress's policy of stuffing the pockets of the world's richest men with our struggling citizens' money.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I noticed Obama's hair has turned gray quite rapidly. I wonder if he is aware that he is nothing but a mere puppet of the ruling elites and that he will be kept on a short leash.

    Bernanke, who I think is probably a nice man, probably realizes by now that he's simply the lead clown of the circus.

    Jokes on you, Ben.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That is true, I missed the point. The real fat is in the grinding of pork and not necessarily in the lineage of kings. Guess I got in a twist, thanks for the explanation and the interesting perspective.
    -PPT

    ReplyDelete

The USA's political-economc system is best described as:

On Nov 2, 2010, I plan to vote (FOR or AGAINST) my incumbent congressman

 
Free Hit Counter