PUTTING THE SCREWS TO RALPH PETERS
After reading ???Man on the Move: Confronting the global migration crisis,??? why is the New York Post continuing with Ralph Peters??? column?
I say this because I don???t believe a word of what he writes.
On May 5, in what I consider to be the biggest unreported story that the entire media missed, this high-ranking McCain campaign advisor wrote an op-ed column entitled ???Saudi Stick-up??? in which he states that the reason we???re paying such exorbitant gas prices is because the Saudi royal family is ???punishing??? America because President Bush defied their ???order??? to not invade Iraq.
The problem with this thesis is that it completely contradicts Bob Woodward???s ???definitive account??? of the Bush/Saudi relationship in his Bush at War trilogy books. Woodward has it that the Bush White House and the Saudi royal family got along swimmingly and were 100 percent on the same page in their mutual quest to remove Saddam Hussein from power???with the Saudis even offering logistical and military support to get it done and later keeping the price of crude oil in check to help Bush???s re-election chances.
Does Woodward???s account sound like the Saudi royal family is mad that President Bush defied their ???order??? to not invade Iraq?
The question(s) that persists is why would a high-ranking McCain operative like Ralph Peters be advancing this bogus theory of why gas prices are so high? And why has the mainstream media completely missed this potential blockbuster story?
Until Ralph Peters is confronted with these questions and offers contradictory proof that discredits Bob Woodward???s account, I won???t believe a word out of him.
And I can???t believe anyone else would too.
THE MONEY CULTURE
Daniel Gross
Don’t Bet On the President
Market calls inspired by politics are based on the false premise that the stock market prefers Republicans to Democrats.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
It's that time of the leap year. Personal-finance magazines and investment analysts are constructing political portfolios: market sectors or stocks that will thrive, or dive, should a particular candidate take the White House. Like party conventions, these portfolios are a storied convention of campaign season. Like party conventions, they're not very useful or illuminating. Trust me. I know from experience. In October 1992, a younger, svelter version of this columnist called analysts to find out which stocks would do well if Bill Clinton were to beat George H.W. Bush.
The response: Clinton's proposals for a stimulus package and a Rooseveltian Rebuild America Fund would be a gold mine for construction-equipment makers like Caterpillar. A Salomon Brothers analyst said Clinton's universal health-care plan, a pet project of his wife (plusça change), would be great news for HMOs. But the stimulus package and universal health care were among the early casualties of the tumultuous Clinton first term. Likewise, analysts argued in the fall of 2000 that a George W. Bush victory would light a fire under the already soaring stocks of Microsoft and MCI WorldCom. Why? Bush would likely be more lenient on antitrust policy. As CNBC's James Cramer would say: "Wrong!" (Microsoft's stock is below its level of January 2001) and "Wrong!" (MCI WorldCom went bankrupt in July 2002).
Political market calls are conceived in sin, since most are based on the false premise that the stock market prefers Republicans to Democrats. According to Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at Standard & Poor's Equity Research, between 1945 and 2007 the S&P 500 rose 10.7 percent annually when Democrats occupied the White House, compared with a 7.6 percent annual increase under Republicans. Those who, fearing higher taxes, sold stocks after Bill Clinton's Inaugural missed out on a great rally. And those who, anticipating lower taxes, plunged into the market in January 2001 entered what has been a lost decade for U.S. stocks; since 2000, the markets of countries like Brazil and China have lapped their American cousins.
Political portfolios also rely on a similarly simplistic understanding of how Washington works. Analysts seem to believe that political platforms are fail-safe guides to What Will Happen. Bill Clinton's 1992 platform said there would be no capital-gains tax cut for the wealthy on his watch (he signed one in 1997). Bush's 2000 platform vowed that "the Social Security surplus is off limits, off budget and will not be touched." OK, then. The portfolio makers also seem to assume that once presidents take the oath of office, they remove a magic wand from a special case in the Oval Office, and conjure campaign promises into policy instantaneously—without congressional input.
Wall Street types might be forgiven for not comprehending the byzantine path that legislation treads on Capitol Hill. Less forgivable is the way political portfolio construction misunderstands markets. Ultimately, megatrends far beyond the control of government—like the Internet, or the growth of China—influence stocks more than small-bore policies. The Medicare prescription-drug benefit, passed in 2003, was seen as a huge boon to Big Pharma. But since the benefit was signed into law in December 2003, the Amex Pharmaceutical Index has woefully underperformed the S&P 500.
Even when they're right, politically inspired stock recommendations are often right for the wrong reasons. Oil stocks have done well under the Bush-Cheney administration, as analysts suggested in 2000, but not because the former oilmen made good on campaign promises to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling. Instead, ExxonMobil has soared because breakneck growth in China, tensions in the Middle East, the weak dollar and speculators have pushed oil higher.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
My Take
Each Newsweek reader is different—and now your Newsweek can be, too. Use this page to create a experience that's personalized for you and your interests. My Take: it makes Newsweek whatever you want it to be.
Discuss