If English is your choice, call Jon Stamell at 212-444-7192.

If you're more comfortable with Spanish, please call
César Hernandez at 212-444-7193.

(We can probably accommodate you in Croatian, Italian and a little Mandarin too.)

We'd love to give you our email addresses but it seems to initiate a cascade of spam, from those awful web crawlers, so if email is your preferred mode of communication, please enter your name and email address below and we'll contact you right away.

Political Myopia: Piercing through the nonsense and casting your vote

Posted on October 22, 2012 by

It’s “silly season” – so sayeth the politicians.  It’s time to throw every piece of mud at the opposition simply because a lot of people will believe it.  Fox, MSNBC, pundits who claim to know everything but in reality know nothing, and thousands of horrid political ads – it’s all a lot of noise that provides no reliable indicators on which is the best way to vote.

Can we look at some of the realities of the situation and some of the facts?


  • Romney:
    • We don’t know what Romney would or would not do. Unfortunately, he’s changed positions so many times, it’s hard to figure whether he’s conservative or moderate.  The “etch a sketch” metaphor has been mentioned and fair or not, it was created by his own campaign manager.
    • Yes, he did a great job with the Olympics.  He had support and money from the government that he says isn’t working.  It’s unclear how he did as governor of Massachusetts but one would think that if he did a great job, he’d easily win the state this time.  Polls show he’s 15 points down.  You want to tell me that’s meaningless?  Please explain.
    • The only thing Romney has been consistent about is that he is a social conservative.  He’s supported the idea of overturning Roe v. Wade, favors DOMA and won’t take a position on the Lily Ledbetter Act.  If that’s what you want and you’re okay with his other murkiness, you should vote for him.
  • Obama:
    • Four years ago, we were headed toward a full-on depression.  We’re not now.
    • Corporate profits had risen more than with any other president.
    • The stock market has risen 14.7% a year under Obama.
    • Housing values had fallen one-third on average at the end of the Bush administration.  They’re rising again and have recovered much of the loss.

Now that we’re here, who can take us further?


  • The U.S. economy has done better with Democratic presidents than with Republicans.
  • Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents.
  • Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents.
  • Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year).
  • Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end).
  • Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents.
  • The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations.

Don’t believe me?  Why not read the self-proclaimed “Capitalist Tool”?  The above facts can be found all over the Internet but click here to read this article from Forbes magazine.

Investment managers always point out that there’s no guarantee that past performance is an indicator of the future but given the choice between uncertainty and past negative performance versus a record and past positive performance, logic should say to select the latter.  But when did logic and facts determine a U.S. presidential election?


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Political Myopia: Piercing through the nonsense and casting your vote”

  1. Is internet marketing simpler and easier or possibly more complicated nowadays for you ? I personally think that it may be a lot more “sophisticated”, as a result half-arsed endeavours will likely not do these days. 10 years back, throwing an amateur information site to the web and several unpolished Adwords campaigns might cut it mainly because … to be honest, since just about all was indeed amateur’ish. At present, sellers and potential customers have increased the levels, you now better become a pro if you want to stand out.

  2. Jon Stamell says:

    While digital marketing is becoming more sophisticated, I don’t think it’s more complicated. For example, our DirectLink™ system takes about an hour to learn and an hour’s worth of practice and then it’s pretty easy and our clients have been impressed with how they can so quickly make it actionable. At the same time, we have some clients who don’t want to spend the time or simply have a mental block because they believe it’s going to be complicated (i.e. require them to learn something about programming), so they ask us to do it for them. They also want to apply their skills to those things they’re really good at. It often becomes a question of both interest and willingness to pay.

Leave a Reply