Is it true?

Paul Krugman's column, in the New York Times, was followed by an interesting comment.

If you took $10,000 to invest 50 years ago, and followed the pattern of investing in the S&P 500 during GOP presidencies, and at 5% in bonds & bank accounts during Democratic presidencies, you'd have about $60,000 today.

If you took the same $10,000 and reversed this, investing in the S&P only during Democratic presidencies, and keeping it in bonds & accounts earning 5% during GOP presidencies, you'd have about $350,000 today.

So conservatives should again ask themselves; "What works?"

I wonder if that statement is true?

Me too! WTF?

I'd use it if it worked.

It has to be true, it was on the internet.;)

My (much less than 50 years of) experience bears that up.

I started my 401k in mid-1998, and it is not doing well, return-wise. I don't have the numbers, but I'm pretty sure it's less than 5% per year*. I started directly buying stock in early 2009, and am up over 25% (not counting dividends) on my portfolio in less than two years.

Of course, I would think that the last decade has been unusual, but a less extreme difference over 50 years might have the suggested result.

* (based on total amount contributed over all years compared to total value now, which probably isn't the proper method of calculation)

It's the sort of statistical simplification that doesn't really matter. Stock prices are not the best overall measure of the economy, the POTUS is far from the only government force on the economy, POTUS decisions have a lag before they affect the economy.