GOP-leaning Fidelity tilts Democratic

[Ilsa]

http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=151851

GOP-leaning Fidelity tilts Democratic
By Brett Arends/ On State Street
Boston Herald Business Columnist

Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - Updated: 04:45 PM EST

Something unusual is going on at Fidelity this election year.

Employees at the conservative firm are on track to double their donations to the Democratic Party.

And they’re not alone in the investment world.

Overall, the Democrats are likely to bag their biggest share of Wall Street bucks this election since they held power back in 1994.

The figures are tracked by the nonpartisan think-tank The Center for Responsive Politics.

The facts?

For the 2002 mid-term elections, Fidelity staff, their families and the company’s Political Action Committee donated $159,262 in total to Democrats at the federal level.

SNIP

(Why are some articles written in which every sentence is it's own paragraph?)

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. Extremists! All of them!

It's all out jihad!

:sarcasm:

[TankLV]

4. The "far left" (90% of Connecticut and 80% of the country) has struck

again!

Woe is us...

:sarcasm:

[zbdent]

2. could it be that they understand that

the stock market loves a Dem, and, at best, tolerates a Repuke?

[sgxnk]

5. the stock market

the stock market doesn't care about you. the stock market has no political affiliation. in an electronic market, orders are filled strictly on a first in basis. there is no gender bias. no racial bias. the order book doesn't know your name, or care where your stops are. it doesn't care if you just need to break even, or if you doubled down on a TICK hook. it doesn't care if your technical analysis says buy. it doesn't care about you. it doesn't hate you, but it doesn't love. the stock market is the aggregate result of 10's of thousands of scalpers, stfp's, ltfp's, institutions, hedgers, speculators, mutual funds, etc. making individual decisions. by its nature, the stock market moves most not when it wants to, but when it has to. it feeds off stop runs and margin calls. it is not anthropomorphic, but by its aggregate decision nature, not to mention the cascading effect of stops being hit, and margin calls - it often causes the most pain to the most participants.

i love the stock market because, unlike politics, it is 100% no bullshit. theories don't matter. posturing doesn't matter. cognitive dissonace will get you nothing but an account that is shredded into pcoket change.

it is the most democratic and pure capitalist invention ever designed by man. it is a pure auction market, and the ultimate price discovery vehicle. its intelligence is greater than any individual trader, because it (unlike people) is ALWAYS right.

i love the market

i am a professional futures trader. it's what i do. it's the career i chose, after a very hard long apprenticeship

dow futures - who loves ya baby. i do.

[zbdent]

9. Ah, but the Repukes were touting the stock market to try to con

the masses into buying into the privatizing of Social Security ... without mentioning that the incredible gains that made it so popular came at the helm of Clinton ... (through letting Greenspan do what he thought best, instead of telling him "Cut the rates ... make people panic!")

In the November and early days of December, the Repukes and freepturds tried to convince the world that Gore was bad for the market, and Bush was good ... by claiming that "Every time Gore said count the votes, the marked nosedives. Every win for Bush, the market soars!" regardless of other effects on the world. As soon as 12/12/2000 was set in stone, the market continued its nosedive ... and the freepturds, unsurprisingly, disappeared ...

(I have a copy of the ongoing vomit that they ran at the time)

[sgxnk]

10. i have made this point before

and as a trader who makes his living trading futures i stand by this assessment (vast majority of traders lose money btw)

the correlation between a president and the market is much more complex and not really much of an issue

clinton is no more deserving of credit for the nasdaq outperformance than bush is to credit for the massive outperformance of precious metals and real estate

there is always a bull market somewhere (quoth cramer lol), but its true

we experienced a massive COMPQ bubble which HAD to pop. it was gonna pop no matter who was president, based on whatever chaos theory type incident precipitated it

jp morgan said it best - markets will fluctuate

blaming or crediting individual prez' (not to mention that congress has far more control over economics anyway) for bubbles and deflated bubbles is silly and disregards the chaotic and often leading nature of the market

i trade these guys for a living (Dow futures), so i think my opinion holds weight because... the market is the ultimate arbiter of who is right and wrong

if yer wrong, you lose money

since i consistently make $$, trading futures of the dow (and metals and oil and stuff) i stand by my assessments

bubbles pop. always have, always will

if you doubt this, please research the great tulip bull market oh so many years ago.

it's ALWAYS been true

also note that we have had phenomenal bull markets in real estate, precious metal etc. recently

i'm very zen. i don't try to outthink the market

i just "be the market"

[Ganja Ninja]

3. They did a lot better under Clinton then they're doing under Bush.

[ktlyon]

6. a lot of cooking the books

cost a lot of people money

[Skidmore]

7. Soulless bastards gaming the system.

They are calculating the odds and placing bets on the table. We need to make certain that the same old same old hucksters are not there to play with them. We need change and reform.

[TahitiNut]

8. Indeed. As always, it's a question of 'Which candidates?'

It's not sufficient to merely distinguish between "(D)" and "(R)" when the corruption of corporate bribery can infect anyone.