Posted on 01/05/2025 11:46:21 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
As of December 27, Joe Biden ranks ninth among U.S. presidents (post 1928) in stock-market performance. That’s not likely to change in the last few days of his term.
Bill Clinton remains the champion, with a 17.49% annual return for the Standard & Poor’s 500 Total Return Index during his presidency in January 1993 to January 2001. He managed to balance the federal budget (with help from the Internet boom), and to avoid major wars and recessions.
President-Elect Donald Trump, in his first term, saw the stock market return 15.95% per year. As he likes to point out, he was doing even better until the Covid-19 pandemic threw a wrench into the economy.
Trump ranks third in stock-market performance, behind Barack Obama at 16.25%, and ahead of Gerald Ford at 15.57%.
Under Biden, stocks have returned an average of 13.49% per year from January 20, 2021 through Dec. 27, 2024. That puts him comfortably ahead of tenth-place President Jimmy Carter (12.40%). But he is unlikely to catch up to eighth-place finisher George H.W. Bush who presided over a 14.71% return.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
An obvious point?
Stock market upward surges after a Pubbie POTUS is elected should not be credited to the outgoing lame duck donkey party POTUS.
Slick benefited from the dot.com boom and the end of the Cold War where defense spending was slashed.
Even with Reagan tripling federal spending during 8 years, the national debt stood at under $10 Trillion. Now with $26 Trillion additional debt, the rise in stocks simply reflects devaluation of dollar. Buying power of SPX500 is no higher now than in 1965.
Yes, prosperity blossoms with excessive spending, until the credit card is maxxed out. We are not far from reaching that.
By percentages HILLARY is the Champ! She turned a speculative $10,000 into $100,000 in a blink of an eye. Sure, other DC denizens have made much more than that, but over a longer time period. (And this WASN’T Hillary’s only stock grift - she had others.)
Boomers in prime earning years helped too, that basically balanced the budget itself. Of course end of Soviet Union had carry on effects too. ‘92 was a good year to take the reins.
Reagan came out of the worst financial time since the depression thanks to Jimmy and his rabbit.
It setup the USA for 10 years of financial gain.
Clinton just happened to be there when the .com boom hit.
Clinton was just lucky to ride the internet phenomena up..not because he was a genius,
It’s interesting. I suspect that the little insight they provided was not enough.
A better measure of a President’s economic performance is the misery index, inflation plus unemployment.
But there’s more. Ronald Reagan, with an assist from Bush, won the cold war. Subsequent Presidents benefitted. FDR/Truman spent hundreds of thousands of US lives winning WWII. Reagan/Bush did not.
Biden encouraged an open border. Now his administration tells us that our power grid is at the mercy of the Chinese.
Think about it. One could start a business from home with very little operating capital other than investing in inventory. Klinton had zero to do with it.
Bill Clinton remains the champion, with a 17.49% annual return for the Standard & Poor’s 500 Total Return Index during his presidency in January 1993 to January 2001. He managed to balance the federal budget (with help from the Internet boom), and to avoid major wars and recessions; while selling every military secret he could lay his hands on the the CCP.
I wish there were a way to state everything in buying power as you have done.
Sometimes people say that their grandparents bought a house for $15,000 in 1960, for example, but the buying power of the dollar was very different then.
Sometimes people say that at their first job in the 1960s, they earned a $1.60 an hour. They imply that someone earning $13 an hour now in some hired help job, is financially much better off earning that wage.
I don’t know if there are any recognized calculations or formulas for this, but I sure would like to see something like that to really gauge differences in buying power of money over the decades.
The market didn't surge until the third year he was in office.... when Republicans won control of both the House and Senate became for the first time in 40 years. And of course that is when the internet boom started, which the article does acknowledge.
And from co-opting Newt's Contract With America. willie jeff should have to share at least half the credit with Newt.
Forbes. I expected it. Bill Clinton never balanced the budget. The deficit went up every year under Clinton. And his policies, such as getting rid of Glass-Steagall, and increasing the mandates of the CRA, started by Jimmy Carter, were the main reasons we had the recession of 2007. Yes, it took that long, but you can point the finger at Bill Clinton.
Reagan didn't triple federal spending. He didn't even double it.
The national debt was below $3 trillion when Reagan left office.
Adjust it for Covid during Trump
Bullcrap. The covid lockdown world was reopening. That is not stockmarket growth to watch the market restore what he tore down.
And the President has what to do with stock prices?
Clinton claimed credit for what the 1995-96 and 96-98 GOP Congress did post taking the US House in Nov 1994 for the 1st time since 1955.
They are once again, lying by omission.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.