That's a motivated take. Obviously the party and candidates which promote less regulation are preferable to the stock market. It doesn't require accusations of corruption, and it doesn't mean their opponents are wrong, either.

▲

alweirilawerj an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You have a very shallow understanding of economics. "Less regulation" is great if you can't think beyond next quarter. "Good regulation" is what keeps the economy healthy long-term.

	▲	piker an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Perhaps, but that's not really relevant as I am not the stock market.

▲

thrance an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Republicans are not the party of "less regulation". That's another of these myths they use like "states rights" or "fiscal responsibility".

▲

piker an hour ago | parent [-]

Ok members of one party are proposing rent controls, city-owned groceries, abolition of AI advancement, expansion of the EPA, etc. and the other is revoking long-standing SEC, EPA and other agency regulations. This claim just doesn't hold up.

(I'm a swing voter if that helps.)

▲

applebottomjean an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Which party created the EPA?

	▲	piker 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I don't know the history. Nixon? Seems like it was motivated in the 1950s. I don't think Richard Nixon was on the ballot this year, but maybe I just missed it.

▲

thrance 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Tariffs?

	▲	piker 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Totally disappointing from a citizen (and market?) perspective, but I think you're stretching the meaning of "regulation" to try to squeeze tariffs in. That's like saying war is "regulating" the other country.

▲

deaux an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Abortion bans, book bans, trans bans, voter ID laws and so forth are regulation. It's "regulation for thee but not for me".

▲

piker an hour ago | parent [-]

That's a fair observation, and perhaps requires qualifying my initial point with "non-social" regulation. The market doesn't care about those.

▲

deaux 37 minutes ago | parent [-]

Cannabis stocks certainly care about their anti-cannabis regulation.

You know why I can play this game all day? Because the base premise doesn't hold.

	▲	piker 27 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, also all the gambling/prediction markets, abortion-adjacent stocks etc. could potentially be down. In terms of the market, though, those industries just don't matter. The lion's share of the economy (energy, finance, technology, tobacco, firearms) benefit from the election of a party that is hostile to their regulation. It's not really debatable. What is debatable is whether that's correct or good, since deregulation allows those organizations to potentially externalize costs to the environment, society, etc.