Is a Divided Government Good for the U.S. Economy?

[Jim_B]

Would a divided government be better for the U.S. economy? I forget exactly where I heard it. It was on the evening news, and I rarely watch any evening news except CBS’s.

The newscaster said that when every branch of government is controlled by one party–be it Democrat or Republican–that one agenda prevails, and Wall Street suffers as a result of it. I forget the rest of the argument.

The only problem is, I can’t find the story anywhere. I tried entering “divided government better economy” on Google, to no avail. “Divided government economy” doesn’t work any better. I also tried using the search engine at CBSNews.com–still with no luck.

Is anyone else familiar with this story–or this theory, in any event?

[Jim_B]

They mention what I am talking about in this thread here.

[Jim_B]

It’s been almost 3 days. Isn’t anyone going to respond to my thread:)?

[Sam_Stone]

Anything that prevents the government from trying to meddle in and micro-manage the economy is good for the economy.

[masafer]

According to this article, that’s not the case.

When both houses of Congress opposed the president, the return was a stellar 12.9 percent. Libertarians may celebrate this as proof that the market likes gridlock and government inaction. But the market likes steamrollers nearly as much: The S&P performs almost as well?returning 11.8 percent?when the presidency and both houses are held by the same party. The only situation Mr. Market dislikes is what we have now: one house for each party. Those years have a -0.9 percent return.