Can't discuss economics?
Can't discuss economics?
I saw in the thread about toxic assets, which is now locked, that discussing economics is not allowed here.
People discuss economic every single day on here. Discussing how the market is doing, GDP, unemployment, inflation, etc. is all discussing economics.
So where's the line? I understand politics being disallowed completely, but why economics?
People discuss economic every single day on here. Discussing how the market is doing, GDP, unemployment, inflation, etc. is all discussing economics.
So where's the line? I understand politics being disallowed completely, but why economics?
Investment difficulty and long-term success are perfectly negatively correlated. Keep it simple.
I can only guess that some economic issues have led to unpleasant exchanges in the past. Yet, many still occur without incident or moderator involvement. Some get locked even when the discussion is civil.
I, for one, would love to see an economics sub-forum here.
Anyway, quoting from the forum policies:
I, for one, would love to see an economics sub-forum here.
Anyway, quoting from the forum policies:
Examples of unacceptable topics include:
- US or world economic, political, tax, and climate policies
- conspiracy theories of any type including oil price manipulation
- rants about the crimes or shortcomings of politicians, celebrities, CEOs, Fed chairmen, subprime mortgage borrowers, federal "bailouts", etc.
The Incidental Economist (blog) :::: Austin Frakt (flesh)
That's what I thought, too, but take a look at the red lettering at the bottom of the last message in this thread:sscritic wrote:Read the examples of unacceptable topics quoted by Sewall.
You can discuss economics, but you cannot discuss economic policies.
http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34685
Investment difficulty and long-term success are perfectly negatively correlated. Keep it simple.
The only difference I can see between that thread: http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34685 and this one on "quantitative easing": http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34761, is that the toxic asset discussion strayed by quoting testimony to prove a point. It involved politicians so maybe that's where the politics became involved.
"Quantitative easing" is not locked. It has a really good tutorial on the topic. I'm getting an education from both threads.
(What we need is a one-armed economist. Because they can't say "On the other hand..." )
"Quantitative easing" is not locked. It has a really good tutorial on the topic. I'm getting an education from both threads.
(What we need is a one-armed economist. Because they can't say "On the other hand..." )
-
- Founder
- Posts: 11589
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:06 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
- rcshouldis
- Posts: 673
- Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:28 am
Re: Can't discuss economics?
Depends what you mean by economics I quess. A forum for ideology or a academic discussion?deepdrive wrote:I saw in the thread about toxic assets, which is now locked, that discussing economics is not allowed here.
People discuss economic every single day on here. Discussing how the market is doing, GDP, unemployment, inflation, etc. is all discussing economics.
So where's the line? I understand politics being disallowed completely, but why economics?
Economic discussions often lead to "who's to blame?" and that leads to political arguments. I fully understand the moderators dilemma here. Nobody want the discussion board to turn into something as politically inflammatory as a Yahoo Financial or MarketWatch article discussion board.
Last edited by rcshouldis on Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Adrian Nenu
- Posts: 5228
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:27 pm
The economy affects portfolio risk therefore portfolio risk is not static. Some of us learned this the hard way in the last 10 years. But not all of us learned and accepted this fact yet.
Adrian
anenu@tampabay.rr.com
Adrian
anenu@tampabay.rr.com
-
- Posts: 3968
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:17 am
- rcshouldis
- Posts: 673
- Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:28 am
You are aloud to take political discussions elsewhere and even notice it.SP-diceman wrote:You are aloud to complain how much an item
costs at a store. (economics)
If you put two and two together and figure out
the item is expensive because taxes have
increased on the manufacturer and he has just
passed the costs on to you.
You are not allowed to notice. (political)
Thanks
SP-diceman
-
- Posts: 6972
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:46 pm
- Location: Allentown–Bethlehem–Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area
You are aloud :lol:rcshouldis wrote:You are aloud to take political discussions elsewhere and even notice it.SP-diceman wrote:You are aloud to complain how much an item
costs at a store. (economics)
If you put two and two together and figure out
the item is expensive because taxes have
increased on the manufacturer and he has just
passed the costs on to you.
You are not allowed to notice. (political)
Thanks
SP-diceman
Main Entry: aloud
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈlau̇d\
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English, from 1a- + loud
Date: 13th century
1archaic : in a loud manner : loudly
2: with the speaking voice <read>
I guess somebody will "yell" about this discussion!
- Ron
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52212
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: Can't discuss economics?
(Shrug) The moderators use their judgement. There isn't any legalistic line. You can avoid any need to know where the borderline is by staying well inside it.deepdrive wrote:So where's the line?
I've had my wrist slapped a couple of times and each time it was in situations where I darn well knew I was pushing it.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
SP-diceman wrote:You are aloud to complain how much an item
costs at a store. (economics)
If you put two and two together and figure out
the item is expensive because taxes have
increased on the manufacturer and he has just
passed the costs on to you.
You are not allowed to notice. (political)
Thanks
SP-diceman
This is actually a very good example of the one-sided nature of the discussion of such issues on this board. Popular expressions about certain economic issues are fine, but any analysis that scratches deeper than the surface is forbidden. I would like to see a revision of the board policy about economics to allow reasonable discussions of the subject. Any gratuitous, argumentative or rude posts of any nature (and there are plenty of these that take place on allowable topics) should be locked. But a subject that is not a problem in and of itself should be allowed to continue unless poster immaturity forces action.
"Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis." |
-Seneca
- Taylor Larimore
- Posts: 32842
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:09 pm
- Location: Miami FL
Forum suggestions
Bogleheads:
It appears some posters did not read Alex's Reply above when he wrote:
This is a difficult and controversial subject. Give us time. Alex keeps his word.
It appears some posters did not read Alex's Reply above when he wrote:
We are doing the best we can with the overwhelming number of borderline posts. The Advisory Panel is currently discussing the issue and we'll get back to you shortly.
This is a difficult and controversial subject. Give us time. Alex keeps his word.
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle
-
- Posts: 3968
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:17 am
I'm a dedicated retired 75 year fan of Bogelheads (Taylor, Mel, Adrian, et al) for the simple reason; I learn the pros and cons of asset allocation thinking from many views. I trust Bogelheads. I internalize all Bogelhead thinking into my own and make my investment decisions accordingly.
I'm invested 100% in CDs and PMM because you all convinced me, "one shouldn't buy stocks if they can't afford to lose." I haven't made much money in the last 10 years, but I haven't lost any, either.
I don't see "the economy" as political. Although it is and can be because politians influence most everything. That's the tipping point, when economy talk touches politics, IMO. I view "the economy" as the "the financial health and well being of the aggregate of companies in a country (world or domestic). I see the "stock market" as the yard stick by which "the economy" is measured, at any particular time.
Hence, I see "the economy" and "the stock market" as "connected at the hip." One reflects the other and (yes) both are influenced by politics and politicians. It’s very fragile ground. The moderators have a very difficult role as “umpires.” Politics and politicians come and go. The economy and the stock market go up and down. I trust the Bogelhead moderator’s judgment.
They’re good umpires.
Thanks for allowing my thoughts.
It all seems simple to me.
Best wishes,
Jim
I'm invested 100% in CDs and PMM because you all convinced me, "one shouldn't buy stocks if they can't afford to lose." I haven't made much money in the last 10 years, but I haven't lost any, either.
I don't see "the economy" as political. Although it is and can be because politians influence most everything. That's the tipping point, when economy talk touches politics, IMO. I view "the economy" as the "the financial health and well being of the aggregate of companies in a country (world or domestic). I see the "stock market" as the yard stick by which "the economy" is measured, at any particular time.
Hence, I see "the economy" and "the stock market" as "connected at the hip." One reflects the other and (yes) both are influenced by politics and politicians. It’s very fragile ground. The moderators have a very difficult role as “umpires.” Politics and politicians come and go. The economy and the stock market go up and down. I trust the Bogelhead moderator’s judgment.
They’re good umpires.
Thanks for allowing my thoughts.
It all seems simple to me.
Best wishes,
Jim
my bad
I asked a question about why a string was locked a couple of days ago out of my own stupidity as i didn't read or had forgotten the forbidden topics list. (Economics seems sooooo close to the legal topics). Then i unconsciously aggravated the situation by asking a question in a new topic about locked threads, which i didn't even think about being open criticism of forum moderation........dohhhhh! I appreciate what the moderators do, but I also have difficult time understanding where the "line" is.
So sorry, I'll try to do better. javascript:emoticon(':roll:')
So sorry, I'll try to do better. javascript:emoticon(':roll:')
- typical.investor
- Posts: 5263
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:17 am
Re: my bad
Naughty naughty and here you thought you’d outgrown that I. middle school….evofxdwg wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:09 pm I asked a question about why a string was locked a couple of days ago out of my own stupidity as i didn't read or had forgotten the forbidden topics list. (Economics seems sooooo close to the legal topics). Then i unconsciously aggravated the situation by asking a question in a new topic about locked threads, which i didn't even think about being open criticism of forum moderation........dohhhhh! I appreciate what the moderators do, but I also have difficult time understanding where the "line" is.
So sorry, I'll try to do better. javascript:emoticon(':roll:')
Re: Can't discuss economics?
This thread was bumped from 2009. As noted in the site owner's post in the locked thread Re: U.S. stocks in free fall:
(Thread locked to end the discussion.)
If anyone has any further comments, feel free to PM me.Alex Frakt wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 7:02 pm A reminder from the forum policies:
General economic discussions do not fall under the category of "investment related". Nor do they fall under the allowed topics in any of our other forums. You will have to find another site or outlet if you wish to take part in such discussions.Investing - Theory, News & General
If it's investment related and it doesn't fall into the above category it goes here.
Just in case the previous was unclear, we specifically addressed this issue in the following policy:Non-actionable (Trolling) Topics
If readers can't do anything with the content of a topic other than argue about it, it does not belong here. Examples include:
- US or world economic, political, tax, health care and climate policies
- conspiracy theories of any type
- discussions of the crimes, shortcomings or stupidity of other people, whether they be political figures, celebrities, CEOs, Fed chairmen, subprime mortgage borrowers, lottery winners, federal "bailout" recipients, poor people, rich people, etc. Of course, you are welcome to talk about the stupid financial things you have done.
(Thread locked to end the discussion.)