![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was always amazed how governments that come to power on slogans of fiscal responsibility and smaller government usually end up wrecking the economy and swelling the government. I have long had this feeling but lacked the statistics to prove it. Finally, here is one:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html
"A $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years."
Upd: OUPS! I take this back! Funny how one can be fooled by the exponentially diverging solutions. An ANOVA analysis says that there is no statistical difference between the average annualized rates of returns under democrats and republicans. Even if you leave Hoover in. Shame on you, New York Times. :)
( Statistical details for the interested... )
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html
"A $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years."
Upd: OUPS! I take this back! Funny how one can be fooled by the exponentially diverging solutions. An ANOVA analysis says that there is no statistical difference between the average annualized rates of returns under democrats and republicans. Even if you leave Hoover in. Shame on you, New York Times. :)
( Statistical details for the interested... )
