Nate Silver: The Stock Market Is the Least of Obama’s Worries
Nate Silver is a staticistian and blogger who writes the FiveThirtyEight blog for the NYT.
There’s some Twitter sentiment to the effect that today’s crash in stock prices is bad news for President Obama. That doesn’t seem like a terribly controversial conclusion — but I’m not so sure it’s true.
Let’s be clear: the economy is struggling, and that’s a gigantic problem for Mr. Obama. In my view, his chances of re-election have dropped from perhaps two-in-three as a couple of months ago to more like a toss-up as the economic numbers have deteriorated.
But is the stock market a concern for Mr. Obama above and beyond the economic fundamentals?
Certainly, markets have good reasons for pessimism on the basis of the recent numbers. And they may have been overvalued to begin with. But today’s crash, in particular, came on a relatively newsless day, and reeks, at least in part, of panic.
The paradigm case for an exogenous decline in the market — that is, one which is not well explained by economic fundamentals — is Black Monday, the Oct. 19, 1987 crash in which the Dow Jones lost almost 23 percent of its value for reasons that remain poorly understood by traders, economists, and mathematicians. Unlike many other crashes, stock prices did not rebound particularly quickly following Black Monday, instead recovering only a part of their value over the medium-term....
comments powered by Disqus
- Florida professor to burn Confederate flag
- Could another English king be buried under a parking lot?
- Huckabee says archaeology supports the Bible
- George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public
- Unfinished film about the Holocaust made in 1945 to finally be seen by audiences
- Daniel Pipes calls the rulers of Iran "madmen" on official Iranian TV
- A Professor Tries to Beat Back a News Spoof That Won’t Go Away
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- Sean Wilentz is being called “Hillary’s Historian"
- Hundreds of British historians challenge assumptions of “Historians for Britain” campaign