誰(shuí)當(dāng)選能給美股帶來(lái)利好
|
????保守派人士肯定要反駁了,，但是將克林頓和奧巴馬總統(tǒng)任職期間的股市回報(bào)率全歸功于他們的政策和任職，確實(shí)有失公允,?？肆诸D上任時(shí)美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)形勢(shì)一片大好（哦，我沒(méi)有像供應(yīng)學(xué)派那樣將此歸功于里根的政策）,，離任時(shí)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)泡沫已經(jīng)破滅但還遠(yuǎn)沒(méi)有觸底,。布什上任時(shí)股市慘淡，離任時(shí)金融市場(chǎng)一片恐慌,?？肆诸D任期內(nèi)的所有好都應(yīng)該完全歸功于他嗎？同理,，布什任職內(nèi)的所有不好都是他的錯(cuò)嗎,？如果你是一位意識(shí)形態(tài)擁護(hù)者，答案是“是”,。如果你誠(chéng)實(shí)思考,，答案是“否”。 ????奧巴馬上任時(shí),，股市處于很低的水平,，這與他毫不相干。股市經(jīng)歷了2個(gè)月驚心動(dòng)魄的大跌（這期間批評(píng)人士緊盯“奧巴馬市場(chǎng)”）后,，隨著全球多國(guó)央行和政府的協(xié)調(diào)行動(dòng),，市場(chǎng)企穩(wěn)?？只徘榫w得到了緩解,，“奧巴馬市場(chǎng)”的提法也基本上不見(jiàn)了蹤影。 ????奧巴馬任期內(nèi)的股市漲幅近半源于上任后第一年,，而里根上任后第一年股市是下跌的,。可以看到,，其他每年的回報(bào)率也有很大的不同,?！昂翢o(wú)規(guī)律——完全是隨機(jī)的?！盬ilshire Analytics的董事總經(jīng)理鮑勃?韋得說(shuō)?！叭绻@其中有因果關(guān)系,，應(yīng)該會(huì)看到一定的規(guī)律?！?/p> ????總之：想給哪個(gè)候選人投票,，就投吧。但別以為你認(rèn)準(zhǔn)的候選人獲勝（或落選）將決定股市未來(lái)走勢(shì),，世界原本就是這個(gè)樣子,。 ????譯者：早稻米 |
????Tempting as it is to tweak my more conservative friends with this fact, it would be wrong to attribute the Clinton and Obama returns to their policies and presidencies. Clinton inherited a great economy (and no, I don't attribute it to Reagan's policies as supply-side types do, and neither should you) and left office after the Internet stock bubble burst, but well before it bottomed. Bush inherited a tanking stock market and left amid a financial panic. Does Clinton deserve full credit for everything good during his tenure? Does Bush deserve full blame for everything bad? Yes, if you're an ideologue. No, if you're intellectually honest. ????Obama took office with stocks at really low levels, which he had nothing to do with. After a sickening two-month drop during which his critics tracked the "Obama market," things stabilized, thanks to coordinated actions by central banks and governments throughout the world. The panic was alleviated, and "Obama market" largely disappeared from public discourse. ????About half the gain during Obama's tenure came his first year. By contrast, Reagan had a loss in his first year. Other year-by-year returns have varied all over the lot, as you can see. "There's no pattern here -- it's just random," said Bob Waid, managing director of Wilshire Analytics. "If these were causal relationships, you would see a different pattern." ????The bottom line: Go ahead, vote for whichever candidate you want. But don't think that your guy's winning -- or losing -- will determine what happens to the stock market. That's just not how the world works. |
最新文章