Ok, I guess I need to explain. The conservative economic theory is that the goal is to drive investment capital up as high as possible. That is the basic idea of supply side economics- the economy is driven by investment capital, so if you boost up investment capital, the economy will do well. Every conservative economic policy is based around that idea. That is their bread and butter.
In reality, supply (investment capital) does matter, but so does demand. Liberals generally favor a more balanced strategy that emphasizes both supply (investment) and demand (consumer spending). That's why the conservatives tend to prefer money going to the rich- because they invest it, where the liberals tend to prefer a more even distribution of money (because middle class people spend more of what they earn). That is the spectrum of American economic policy.
The stock market is, of course, an important economic indicator. It indicates the supply side. Conservative economists would claim that it is by far the most important economic indicator, liberal economists would say that it was only one of the important indicators, on par with consumer spending and median income and whatnot.
You seem to be saying it doesn't matter at all. What that would mean is that you reject both the liberal and conservative positions and have some kind of approach that is solely interested in demand. Something like an economic view you might find in the most extreme OWS person. So, that is a pretty surprising stance for you to take, so I'm asking you if that really is what you think, or if the stuff about the stock market you're saying is just empty talk.
