There is much that is inane in every day of television news, but little more nonsensical than the attempts to put meaning on each day's stock market gyrations. Indeed, television business reporting is one of those things that we would simply be better off without (not to mention much print business journalism, particularly anything that sells itself as investor oriented). Really, how much do we really need to watch "journalists" hump CEO-leg like they're dogs in heat? Not the most edifying spectacle in the world.
And then there's the brilliant financial minds who promised us a "Scott Brown Stock Market Rally." Sad to say, the S&P 500 is down by over 6% since Cosmo Boy won the most important election ever, a mere ten days ago. That's a lot of wealth shed over one man and a truck. (I kid, of course, but this is the kind of thing that the dumb asses on the right do all the time -- see here, here, here, here, and, oh what the fuck, here. (Doesn't being wrong and stupid ever get wearisome?) I particularly love Malkin asking what would the reaction been if this happened under George W. Bush? Sweet fucking Jesus in an internment camp, does this moral gorgon not know that over his eight year term the S&P 500 was down 37%? This is a record of remarkably futility and actually, a long enough market cycle to mean something -- that their heroic president was a monumental fuck up, a disaster of the highest order on virtually every front.
Of course, Republicans are historically bad for the long term market -- Hoover, Nixon and Ford join Bush as the only presidents in the last one hundred years to have had negative markets for their entire time in office.
I will note that the S&P 500 is up by approximately 33% since Obama was inaugurated, so draw your own conclusions.
Some have suggested that these predictions and correlations are nonsense. And on a day-to-day basis they are. But, as conservatives like to remind us over and over again, markets tend to be right over the long term.
