"Douglas Johnson" wrote
It doesn't, it's worthless.
I think a person would only have justification for doing this if, for one, both the Presidency and both houses of Congress were controlled by the same party. This happened for two years with Clinton and 4.5 years with Bush. So I find it not-so-bright to blame one party over the other.
I do not understand. Are you unaware that major deregulation took place at Mr. Clinton's urging?
I don't have a clue as to what part of the deregulation responsible for the financial crisis took place during the Clinton years and what part during the Bush years. I am aware that various kinds of "regulation" and "government interference" have been opposed by the Republican party over the years, as a matter of general philosophy. But someone who knows the facts should spell it out, so that other people like me can be better informed. I am suggesting that there are very definite connections between specific people, as well as political philosophies, and various practical matters of financial planning, so that banning the mention of names and political parties in a newsgroup would limit the value of the discussion taking place.
A low standard deviation is a bad thing if you are dollar cost averaging.
At the very least, I would think that sound investment strategies differ depending on how liberal or conservative the government is at the time.
True. Or consider the Bush (and Republican) idea to allow people to manage part of their Social Security funds and invest in equities. I have a sneaking suspicion that, if that had come about, there would have been repercussions affecting many investors, large and small, and that not all of the consequences would have been good. The recent credit collapse shows that it is a good idea to be aware of what is happening in Washington politics.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.