That "other" investment forum is really retarded

[Libertarian666]

Since when is it a political statement to say that there is no Social Security "trust fund"? I guess math is too hard for them!

[Reub]

I find that site's policies to be arbitrary and capricious. The moderators tend to censor and ban first and ask questions later.

[Libertarian666]

Oh, by the way, this statement apparently does NOT violate their rules:*

'Re: Why don't people use the Permanent Portfolio?

I don't believe gold should be part of a portfolio.

I totally agree with what Charlie Munger says about it here:

“civilized people don’t buy gold”?. They are not simply involved in a zero-sum game in which the goal is to outsmart the computer system in the trading markets. They invest in productive businesses that add value to society.'


*[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 including oil price manipulation
    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.]

[Benko]

Since when is it a political statement to say that there is no Social Security "trust fund"? I guess math is too hard for them!

If people were willing to accept reality, rather than what they wished was true, we would live in a very different and better country than the one we presently occupy (speaking of the US).

[MediumTex]

I ran into similar problems over there.  Honestly, it did seem to me that the "no political comments" rule was frequently used as a pretext for shutting down discussions that they simply didn't want to listen to.

To be fair, though, some of the moderators over there are much better than others.

When you look at the topic of investing from a high level, though, it is silly to me to think that it would be possible to never mention politics when so much of investment returns are based upon governmental policies that are driven by politics.

One important thing to remember, though, is that there are also some very very obnoxious people over there and moderating in that kind of environment is way more difficult than it is here where everyone seems pretty civil toward one another.

[KevinW]

I think the Boglehead approach is very appealing to people who don't like to rock the boat. Thus the community naturally has a strong conformist undercurrent.

So, treating the current financial and government order as a complete given and operating within it, without challenging or questioning any aspect of it, is encouraged. But nonconformity is "political" and disallowed. In a way, the whole point of owning gold is to not conform entirely to the financial system that The Powers That Be have created, so I can see why a conformist would label that as a political act.

However, IMO supporting the current regime is a centrist position that is just as political as questioning the current regime.

[dualstow]

Since when is it a political statement to say that there is no Social Security "trust fund"? I guess math is too hard for them!

Let me guess- LadyGeek strikes again? 
I like our pluralistic society. I can read political comments here. I don't have to listen to political comments over there. Both systems are good.

[Libertarian666]

Since when is it a political statement to say that there is no Social Security "trust fund"? I guess math is too hard for them!

Let me guess- LadyGeek strikes again? 
I like our pluralistic society. I can read political comments here. I don't have to listen to political comments over there. Both systems are good.

That would be fine if it were true. However, you do have to listen to political comments over there, so long as they are not of the "unapproved" variety. You know, like the weird gold bug stuff!

[Reub]

Yes, LadyGeek once banned me for asking people to join my Crowdtilt campaign after the devastating effects of Superstorm Sandy. She said that there was no place for this type of solicitation on that site. I guess that the rules are the rules.

[notsheigetz]

Since when is it a political statement to say that there is no Social Security "trust fund"? I guess math is too hard for them!

Don't know much about the forum you are referring to but I am shocked to hear you say there is no Social Security trust fund. I thought Ronald Reagan and his bi-partisan friends saved social security for us boomers by raising the payroll tax and putting all that extra money away for us.

[MediumTex]

If you want to get banned here, you need to either be a spammer or repeatedly accuse the site owners of being lying opportunistic thieves with a preference for stealing from widows.

Over the last several years those are the only things that have gotten anyone here banned.

I guess it's just one of those persuasion vs. coercion things.

[Lonestar]

Gotta tell you, one of the things that really increased my interest in the PP was this forum.  It was refreshing (vs. the other forum) to see folks disagree yet be open to the opposing view most of the time.  I'm not sure I have ever seen a post on here telling another poster he was an idiot for using this or that portfolio.

Also, it's refreshing to not see someone patronize others with the use of "you need a written investment plan" or "stay the course".  Unless someone states they are a complete investment novice, it should be assumed that if they have found their way to this forum they have enough sense to mange their own investments in a prudent manner.  My thanks to Craig and MT for making this atmosphere possible.

[Gumby]

It's as if Bogleheads are all riding a bus and aren't allowed to talk to the other passengers about where the driver is going.

[dualstow]

You have to give the Bogleheads a little credit for allowing the pp threads. There are some great minds at that forum, like grabiner. Charts, links to resources, and some very helpful advice.

I'm not thrilled by the heavy-handedness of the moderators, but if you have a thick skin you can learn a lot over there. And, I would never have learned of Craig or this forum without it.

[PP67]

I have often wondered just how many HBPP purists are out there and if there is another HBPP-centric forum universe out there...  Can't imagine another one with the incredibly high caliber of participants as this one though...

[MediumTex]

The BH forum is a great place with a lot of really smart people. 

The super PP thread over there was a lot of fun to participate in (even though it was shut down through what seemed like heavy handed moderation and we had to start a new thread because another moderator didn't want to step in the toes of the first moderator, even though he realized how unfair it seemed to shut down such a popular thread for basically no reason).

I like most of what they do over there.  It just feels awkward to have to carefully and consciously avoid mentions of political topics no matter where the discussion goes.  It's probably about like people feel in China.

[dualstow]

I like most of what they do over there.  It just feels awkward to have to carefully and consciously avoid mentions of political topics no matter where the discussion goes.  It's probably about like people feel in China.

At least in China they can use code words. 

[Gumby]

They claim banning politics prevents fighting, but there is clearly another motive (since civil political-minded forums, such as this one, exist). I think it comes down to gold because gold represents money that doesn't come from governments. And I guess if you could actually discuss the possibility of a country collapsing — or at least the incompetent "group think" that takes place within governments — you would be inclined to justify gold in your portfolio (never mind the fact that gold clearly plays other stability roles in a portfolio). And we know that Bogleheads are extremely anti-gold. So, I think it all comes back to a certain logic... Don't discuss politics because the end conclusion will result in justifying gold in your portfolio and we can't have that!

I like most of what they do over there.  It just feels awkward to have to carefully and consciously avoid mentions of political topics no matter where the discussion goes.  It's probably about like people feel in China.

At least in China they can use code words. 

Ironically, the Chinese are encouraged to own gold

[Pointedstick]

I think the difficulty of maintaining civility increases with the size of the forum and especially how mainstream the topic is. This forum benefits immensely from being small and focused on something esoteric and bizarre to the average person. It tends to attract curious independent thinkers and weed out blustery conformists.

You can see this so clearly illustrated by the fact that our biggest debate here resolves around the conflict between two different esoteric, non-mainstream theories--MR and Austrian economics!

[Dieter]

The BH forum is a great place with a lot of really smart people. 

The super PP thread over there was a lot of fun to participate in (even though it was shut down through what seemed like heavy handed moderation and we had to start a new thread because another moderator didn't want to step in the toes of the first moderator, even though he realized how unfair it seemed to shut down such a popular thread for basically no reason).

I like most of what they do over there.  It just feels awkward to have to carefully and consciously avoid mentions of political topics no matter where the discussion goes.  It's probably about like people feel in China.

+1. And has been said, that other forum has different challenges given its size.

[Xan]

You can see this so clearly illustrated by the fact that our biggest debate here resolves around the conflict between two different esoteric, non-mainstream theories--MR and Austrian economics!

Wow, I think I'm fairly well disconnected from the mainstream in this regard.  Can you summarize what the mainstream theory is?

[Gumby]

You can see this so clearly illustrated by the fact that our biggest debate here resolves around the conflict between two different esoteric, non-mainstream theories--MR and Austrian economics!

Wow, I think I'm fairly well disconnected from the mainstream in this regard.  Can you summarize what the mainstream theory is?

Well, mainstream economics seems to be deeply rooted in the notion that governments have reserve constraints and can easily go bankrupt. And this is, of course, true for governments that are currency users (Euro nations, local governments, etc), which only confuses things. So, I think one of the differences is that mainstream economics doesn't really seem to distinguish between currency users and currency issuers, as far as I know.

And part of this stems from the fact that the great economic textbooks of the last few hundred years were all written while money was tied to gold and governments did have reserve constraints. It's not like economics courses and textbooks suddenly changed their concepts or analysis when the world went fiat. They just kept teaching the same textbooks and concepts on how taxation and borrowing are used to fund a fiat government (even though it's nonsensical that a fiat government with unlimited money would need "funding" of any kind). So, mainstream textbooks were never updated.

There's also more here on the "rational choice" theory, and the neoclassical school, etc. which are often dismissed by the heterodox schools of thought:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_economics

One of the criticisms of Mainstream economics is that it couldn't really describe what happened during the recent financial crisis. So, that's why the heterodox schools have gained some popularity.

[Pointedstick]

You can see this so clearly illustrated by the fact that our biggest debate here resolves around the conflict between two different esoteric, non-mainstream theories--MR and Austrian economics!

Wow, I think I'm fairly well disconnected from the mainstream in this regard.  Can you summarize what the mainstream theory is?

Mainstream liberal economics: government spending is always good and stimulates the economy, unless it occurs under a Republican president and goes to the military, in which case it is bad. Government spending is unlimited, it's like a perpetual motion machine of awesomeness. The government should regulate industries we don't like out of existence because that will um pave the way for better green ones which will uh create jobs I think. Destroying things so people have to rebuild them is a net win for society! Taxes are awesome because there's a social contract which says that you should pay for things I want, and there should always be more of them, especially for those nasty rich people who I profess to hate even though I may be one of them. Inflation is something that doesn't exist, la la la la la!

Mainstream conservative economics: government spending is always bad and distorts the private sector, except when it is spent on the military which is always good, but when it occurs under a Democratic president, it is always too low. Welfare is bad because it makes people lazy, but only when it is given to poor people, not old people who are highly deserving and should vote for us uh I mean receive the support they paid for and were promised. Taxes are bad, especially for rich people, and they should always be cut. The government should balance the budget because deficits are scary and the government is just like a household or a corporation. But if spending all that money on the military and old people and tax cuts has exploded the budget deficit, then um, shut up you libtard!

[KevinW]

Mainstream conservative economics: government spending is always bad and distorts the private sector, except when it is spent on the military which is always good, but when it occurs under a Democratic president, it is always too low.

Also, spending on prisons and police is always good.

***

I think another problem with the Bogleheads forum is that there really isn't that much to talk about. If you subscribe to their theories than the three-fund portfolio is the end-all be-all, and IMO there isn't much left to debate. There is already a comprehensive and widely available literature to educate newbies. That portfolio is so easy to implement that there aren't any challenges to solve with group problem solving. Newcomers might need help with a few minor points. But after that you have a lot of people who all agree about a subject and have amassed to discuss it, but there's almost nothing to discuss.

I lurked for a long time and it started to remind me of the year I spent on student government. We were a duly elected democratic body but our authority was limited to managing our own affairs and a very small endowment for student activities. So we ended up having these drawn-out fervent debates about issues like our own tiny budget, or the wording of our resolution saying how angry we were about the latest administrative decision. And no one besides us ever read those resolutions. Both felt like a tempest in a teapot.

[dualstow]

...
I think another problem with the Bogleheads forum is that there really isn't that much to talk about. If you subscribe to their theories than the three-fund portfolio is the end-all be-all, and IMO there isn't much left to debate. There is already a comprehensive and widely available literature to educate newbies. That portfolio is so easy to implement that there aren't any challenges to solve with group problem solving. Newcomers might need help with a few minor points. But after that you have a lot of people who all agree about a subject and have amassed to discuss it, but there's almost nothing to discuss.
...

I started a thread there some years ago on that very topic. I can't remember the title, but it basically boiled down to, If everything is so simple, what are we all doing here every day?

Most people chimed in admitting they had no defense.
I do like to visit to see if a fund that I've invested in has changed management or components. And, I like to read the advice people get on their personal investments, even though that's obviously a well trodden path.

Also, it was in that forum that I discovered that Vanguard's passwords are not even case sensitive.