What impact does government policy have on the stock market?

I'm OK with this revision, especially if this is how the issue is generally talked about.

I think this is a good issue. People credit or blame presidents for economic conditions and there is probably good debate out there on how much impact they have.

issue prior to revisions:

Sorry, Viz.   I appreciate your enthusiasm, and will try to be more enthusiastic about it myself.

I like Jacki's wording, but I'm curious as to what "significant impact" means.  How much is "significant"? 
Could we stick "how" at the front of the question as is and have positive impact, negative impact, no impact as options?  That would get at Jacki's change without having to mess about with the word significant.  Any other thoughts?

Okay, great.  Thanks Viz.  I think it's alright under "U.S. stock market."  It could work under "Economic theory" as well.

i'm fine with:

 Does government policy have a significant impact on the stock market?

Hey, what do you mean, boring? This is important stuff here! Even Murdoch couldn't rest easy until he had acquired the Journal.

However, I think the phrasing of this issue misses the mark. Of course government policy affects the stock market, because the stock market watches for it, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy (at least in the short run).. 

Whether the president's policies, or the Fed, or any other agency, actually affect the economy is a different issue. I.e., is the market focus upon the Fed moves or Presidential policy justified, or is it all just a bunch of hysteria, and all subject to market forces, particularly international forces, beyond any individual's control? Are we right to credit/blame those in power for what actually goes on while they're at the helm? 

Anyway, another perenniel issue. But if "It's the economy, stupid," then it probably doesn't belong under markets, but under economic theory. 

"Does government policy have a major impact on the economy?"

London Stock Exchange

Do Chancellors affect the stock market?

By David Schwartz 11/09/2006
Some investors believe, posturing and political theatre aside, that Labour and Conservative Chancellors have no real long-term affect on the stock market. They are wrong.

issue prior to revisions:

get rid of "presidents''. 

Does government policy affect the stock market?

snooze city, by the way.

Sorry, I listen to NPR once in a while.

Day to Day, February 21, 2005 · In honor of Presidents' Day, Matt Algeo of Marketplace talks about how presidential policy affects the economy.

Honestly, this is always talked about.  Republicans wouldn't give Clinton credit for the economic boom in the 90's and now Dubya claims the economy is great because of his tax policies.

It is really boring. ::snore::

Not that I can do better, mind you.  And the evidence for the "no" position posted below is good.  Is there "yes" evidence?  Do people actually discuss this (without becoming temporarily narcoleptic)?

does anyone other than brian think that this issue should be approved?

Okay, I agree.  It's boring, but it's appropriate and maybe even Jacki will think it's acceptable to be approved. 

issue prior to revisions:

News Bureau

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- Presidents' and presidential candidates' claims to the contrary, U.S. presidents have very little impact on the economic progress of the country they lead.

Indeed, although U.S. presidents often are credited for economic progress and blamed for economic failures, the fact is that in this realm, "to a large extent, they are bystanders."

So says veteran economic observer David F. Linowes, the former chairman of four presidential commissions and the Boeschenstein Professor Emeritus of Political Economy and Public Policy at the University of Illinois. His views appear in his new book, "Living Through Fifty Years of Economic Progress With Ten Presidents: The Most Productive Generation in History, 1946-1996" (JAI Press).

hahah.  Yea!

issue prior to revisions:

issue prior to revisions:

issue prior to revisions: