BushToll

Documenting the Bush Legacy of Failure

The Bush Stock Market Collapse

Posted on | October 8, 2012 | 7 Comments

Here’s a BushToll nugget that pretty much speaks for itself. When George W. Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001, the S&P 500 stock market index stood at $1,342.54. The day he left office, it was $805.22, a drop of 40 percent

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fared a bit better. It dropped only 25 percent. Sadly, the tech-heavy NASDAQ shed 48 percent of its value on President Bush’s watch.

As they say, a picture is worth 1,000 words:

2001 - 2009: The Bush Stock Market Collapse


The Bush Stock Market Collapse

 
Source Data: Yahoo Finance, Historical Quotes

1/19/2001 1/20/2009 Decline
S&P 500 $1,342.54 $805.22 -40%
Dow Jones Industrial $10,587.59 $7,949.09 -25%
NASDAQ $2770.38 $1440.86 -48%

 

Just for contrast, here is a snapshot of the stock market from Jan. 20, 2009 to present (Dec. 23, 2013):

Stock market Jan. 20, 2009 to Dec. 23, 2013


Stock market Jan. 20, 2009 to Dec. 23, 2013

Since President Obama took office, the Nasdaq has increased by 188 percent, the S&P 500 by 127 percent, and the Dow Industrial Average by 105 percent.

 

On an historical note, in Sept. of 2012, Bloomberg News reported on the fact that the stock market, corporate earnings, and GDP do better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents:


 

UPDATED 12/23/2013 to refresh the stock market performance chart.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

7 Responses to “The Bush Stock Market Collapse”

  1. joe brophy
    October 9th, 2012 @ 9:51 am

    THIS IS PURE NONSENSE; PELOSI CAUSED THE MARKET CRASH WHEN SHE AGREED WITH BERNANKE AND THEN LET THE LEGISLATION DIE IN THE HOUSE BY TWO VOTES; AND THE DOW TOOK A 1000 POINT HIT AND EVENTUALLY DROPPED ANOTHER 4000 POINTS ON LACK OF CONFIDENCE WITH THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS.

    BUSH KEPT US SAFE. CLINTON DROPPED OUR GUARD AND FAILED TO KILL OSAMA – PLENTY OF VIDEOS TO SUPPORT THIS. CLINTON GOT CAUGHT WITH HIS ZIPPER DOWN AND LOWERED OUR DEFENSE CAPABILITIES

  2. The Editor
    October 9th, 2012 @ 10:24 am

    Delusional.

    Under Bush’s leadership, more than 7,077 Americans (military and/or civilian) were killed and 40,030 wounded by foreign terrorists or fighters either on U.S. soil or “in theater” during military operations.

    And this doesn’t account for non-hostile deaths of deployed troops (another 1,050), nor does it account for the thousands of cases of PTSD and other long-term after-effects of multiple deployments.

    You can’t be considered safe… if you’re maimed or dead.

    http://www.bushtoll.com/2009/01/31/bush-failed-to-keep-america-safe/

  3. The Editor
    October 9th, 2012 @ 10:35 am

    p.s. Every sane person knows that the stock market crash of 2008 was triggered by a collapse in house prices, which in turn cratered the insurers/guarantors such as AIG and created a run on financial firms such as Bear Stearns. The financial firms were overleveraged in CDS (credit default swaps), causing a complete lockdown of the credit market, without which the economy can’t function.

  4. Blake Waddill
    May 29th, 2013 @ 7:56 am

    With all due respect, it is clear that the decline in the stock market under Bush came after both the Senate and House went Democratic and the housing bubble (some of which was due to Clinton’s policies) popped.

    The stock market is a poor representation of how individuals as a whole are doing. In fact, it is a better representation of how big businesses and corporations are doing; this could be related more cronyism in policies and bills passed by Democrats.

  5. The Editor
    May 29th, 2013 @ 9:02 am

    I appreciate your comment, but I think it’s a bit confused.

    When you say “the stock market is a poor representation of how individuals as a whole are doing,” you imply that a rising stock market is a bad thing and by extension you seem to suggest that a declining stock market is a good thing. That’s using your own logic.

    At the same time, you want to attribute the stock market’s decline (a good thing?) in part to the [marginally] Democratic Congress.

    We could spend a lot of time further unpacking your assertions.

    Did the Democratic Congress pass a single bill into law overriding President Bush’s veto? No. Did the Republican Senate minority have every opportunity to quash bills they didn’t like? Yes.

    Is there a pattern of correlation between a president and improved performance of the economy (including the stock market)? Yes. Economic indicators tend to do better under Democratic presidents. http://bloom.bg/Q6nz7R

    Since we’re talking about correlation and not causation, I don’t dismiss your assertion out of hand. Also, there are other factors to consider:

    As you point out, the housing bubble burst. That created a devastating chain reaction: 1) mortgage-backed securities collapsed; 2) re-insurers (e.g., AIG) failed due to inadequate capital to cover their losing bets; 3) homeowners found themselves under water and defaulted; 4) Lending institutions collapsed causing the credit market to freeze, ultimately tanking the larger economy. For better or worse, the economy runs on credit.

    This was all enabled primarily by a long-term culture of deregulation: 1) Capital requirements for institutions were too lax; 2) Financial institutions were allowed to grow “too big to fail,” requiring bailouts under the threat of total economic destruction; 3) Complex financial instruments (securitized mortgages, credit default instruments, and derivatives) were allowed to proliferate without proper disclosures and/or understanding of the risks.

    You can say Democrats like Bill Clinton contributed to these conditions, but you can’t deny that these conditions flow from the actual basis of Republican economic philosophy of deregulation and ‘small government’ (at least as it relates to big business).

  6. better math
    July 10th, 2013 @ 11:42 pm

    You failed to factor in the rate of inflation between 2001 and 2009 which adds 21 percent on top of that 2001 Dow average rating which in 2009 would have equaled to 12830 ish so the fact is it fell 62 percent in reality not 25. no biggy. obama has done a good job so far and hopefully they can keep it going as long as they keep the Sith outta the white house. hahahaaaa!! bunch of string pullin warmongers. all you gotta do is look at economic history. look at how many recessions the republicans have triggered once they have been in office for a small amount of time.

  7. Roycigar
    December 29th, 2013 @ 9:51 am

    Could not agree more with this article…as for the moron who said Bush kept us safe, what about 9/11…oh, that’s right he gets a pass…Could you imagine if 9/11 happened under Obama’s watch-think Faux News would give him a pass, yeah right. But then again, Republicans think Reagan kept us safe (see 243 marines killed in Beirut, Pan Am Lockerbie–after Reagan failed to kill Khadafi)…keep on drinking the Kool Aid. You cannot argue with numbers. Viva socialism and Democrats-thanks to them my next worth has tripled.

Leave a Reply