Is it just me or have we not had a major stock market crash in the last 100 years under a Democrat? Let's look at each crash and the President in charge:
1929: Hoover, a republican
1973-74: Nixon (and later, Ford), both republicans
1987: Reagan, republican
2001-2002: Bush, republican
2008: Bush, republican
So, when's the last time the US stock market suffered a major crash under a democrat?
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-04 16:21
Yeah, let's ignore the 90's
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-04 16:40
JFK LBJ and Carter, possibly Clinton when you look at the early years
>>1
Clinton is really the only democrat not to experience a major economic downturn, you could also argue for LBJ. Remember that even these two left the country on the cusp of a recession.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-05 1:25
>>5
that's because he had nothing going on besides getting a fucking BJ by Not his wife in the white house. Oh yeah he had Bosnia, well give the baby a button to push to show he's a big boy.
he didn't have a war going on with countries and organizations that fucking hate us because the live in the stoneage.
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-05 1:29
>>6
It was more likely caused by the largest individual productivity gains in history (besides the industrial revolution) brought on by the internet and PC
You forget that democrats were once republicans, and republicans were once democrats.
the stock market crash was actually caused by republicans lol
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-05 10:23
>>8
BECAUSE "DAS KAPITAL" SAYS THE SERVICE SECTOR IS THE UNPRODUCTIVE SECTOR AMIRITE? BECAUSE MANAGEMENT AND INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION ARE JUST PLOYS TO FOOL THE PROLETARIAT INTO BECOMING WAGE SLAVES AMIRITE? BECAUSE THINKING CAN NEVER BE AS PRODUCTIVE AS MANUAL LABOUR AMIRITE?
Yep, I'm sure what you said is directly related, and actually true. Continue sucking your bosses dick, don't waste your precious minutes here which could be spent mopping the floor.
The more I see arguments like this, I think socialism won't work - no, not because the arguments are true, it's because they are so momentously stupid that if a poor loser -like our subject here- can believe that bullshit to "be in his place", then maybe he really does deserve to be the bottom economically, like he is intellectually. The only problem left is why his potential children (well, not his, but let's consider someone who can actually reproduce) should suffer the same fate as him just because he was morbidly stupid and didn't have money for a decent education. Ah, only if social darwinism had a fragment of truth to it, I could feel I'm better than them not because I am infinitely more intelligent and knowledgeable than them, but because I was born superior which is exposed by me being born into a bourgeois family, and them and their offsprings could be treated like the pieces of brainless shitstains they are...
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-09 22:44
>>11
Actually the argument is true. One assumption of Das Kapital is that service industries will never be profitable.
also, do you have aspergers? ive never seen such twisted sentences in my life. serious question im not trying to insult
Name:
Anonymous2008-11-10 6:06
The problem is the Federal Reserve. We need sound money, not debt based money. President Kennedy tried to put an end to the Fed and got killed.