Let's get something settled once and for all. Have the stock markets and the economy historically done better under Democrats or Republicans?
There is no shortage of exaggerated claims on both sides. But on the surface, the Democrats would appear to have statistics on their side. How many times have you heard some Democrat pull out some "study" (they always call it a study, it sounds so scientific) by some professor or some "nonpartisan" think tank that purports to show that since 1948 (it's always 1948 for some reason) stock performance or economic growth has been better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones?
So there you go. Forget about the tax increases. Forget about the regulations, the protectionism, the union influence. Democrats are great for growth. The study proves it!
I've run the numbers myself. Superficially at least, the Democratic claims are true: Since 1948, the Standard & Poor's 500 total return (capital gains plus dividends) has averaged 15.6% when a Democrat was in the White House and only 11.1% when a Republican was in the White House.
You get a similar result if you look at growth in real gross domestic product. Under Democratic presidents, the average since 1948 has been 4.2%. Under Republican presidents it has been only 2.8%.
But it's not so simple when you study that "study." First, not all Democrats act like Democrats, and not all Republicans act like Republicans. John F. Kennedy, for example, was an enthusiastic supply-side tax cutter, and George H.W. Bush raised taxes. Bill Clinton promoted free trade, and Richard Nixon imposed wage and price controls.
If you assign those four presidents to the opposite party based on that -- make the two Democrats into Republicans and the two Re ...