I disagree, In my limited specific knowledge of Mod actions, I’ve not once agreed with the choices made, they tend to be unsubtle. Flagging is like inviting in firemen with hoses and axes, you’d better have a fire or you might regret it. Most recently when someone was flagged for being obnoxiously controlling of a popular long running thread, the thread was locked rather than the offending posts deleted and the poster warned.
Fascinating! So it turns out that we agree!
CBs set interest rates low to rescue the Banks after the collapse of 2008. It is definitely an transfer from savers to Banks. Since the banks didn’t have enough capital, it was the only thing left to do, unless the CBs were prepared to take the banks into public ownership. The combination of unwillingness to nationalize weak banks but desire to pretend they were solvent is why rates had to be cut to zero.
However the design of the system requires CBs to have the power to set rates.
If capitalism is to be anything other than a system of entrenched privilege it must be possible to fail. CBs effectively ended capitalism in 2008 - creating a system of socialism for the rich, atty the expense of the rest of us.
I would say lynch them, but remember that it was not the Central bankers that made the decision but Obama.
Well, you’re certainly not the only Boinger who thinks that way.
Can’t argue with any of that. But the rescue did keep big employers like automakers solvent. I’m not financially astute enough to know how you could have done it without the 10% getting the most, they have most of the wealth, after all.
I do think they should have reset rates for underwater borrowers, if not written down the underwater losses. But that would have made the bonds even more worthless driving the banks deeper. Heads they win, tails you lose, don’t play and the world ends. No great choices.
from the BBS FAQ
Stay on topic. Don’t hijack threads, repeat yourself or post generic talking points.
Look at nickles history of posting here. It is very repetitive. They rarely post anything that isn’t along those lines, and usually ends up talking about pensions whether it is on topic or not.
(I didn’t flag the post myself, it was already hidden when I got here)
Because a) it is off-topic, and b) the poster in question has brought up the same hobbyhorse on multiple occasions previously and has been rebutted multiple times. So, c) The assumption that he is debating in good faith is no longer present.
yeah, there is off topic and then there is aggressively off topic with a side of rules-lawyering. And you’re correct, perfectly civil tone with a not-illogical question, but its still aggressively off topic.
Not even “Politically Incorrect” as it wouldn’t be moderated in it’s own thread or in any discussion of a related topic, which this is not. The mods would rather see flags than flames afaik. Moving on then…
I’ve come late, so I’m not the one who flagged. However, I honestly don’t know what the hell they’re saying.
Argle wargle bargle Social Security argle wargle bargle Socialism argle wargle bargle Pensions argle wargle bargle.
NP. I realise I’m making myself the centrepiece of dissent by reposting that stuff. And even ‘dissent’ is too strong. Perhaps I’m being a gadfly but I’m rarely driven to defend anyone, and when the inclination appears, I trust it’s because I’m dissatisfied with the way things played out, rather than because I’m attention-whoring or moralising or whatever.
I prefer an annihilatory tear-down, but people seem to have less tolerance for imprecise participation these days.
That’s what the rest of us prefer, too.
But he has been annihilated.
He keeps coming back and making the same points, in (nearly) every topic he posts in, and then leaves after getting rebutted.
There are certain community members that I disagree with on certain points. For instance, I don’t think I’ll ever see eye to eye with some people on gun control. However, those people are community members. They don’t just stick around to post on their one hot-button issue that I disagree with them on. They bring value to the community far beyond the gun control topics.
Nickle, on the other hand just shows up, posts a bunch of stuff on pensions, and then vanishes until the next time he thinks that pensions are relevant to a discussion (with, admittedly, a few exceptions).
Perhaps every topic about finances could be segued into one about pensions. But not every topic should. And certainly not just to make the same few tired points.
Thanks to you and others for clarifying why Nickle was flagged. Having seen some flag abuse here I’m sensitized to flagging for reasons other than actual offensiveness. But it does seems he has worn out his welcome.
I’m not ignoring this or reticent to reply, just want to take the time to do it properly, not on mobile.
I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree here. As I said earlier, any discussion of personal finance can be segued into one about pensions. That doesn’t mean that a discussion about pensions is on-topic. For example, this topic, which is about not being able to save for a home down-payment.
Yes, the money that a person pays into the pension system is contributing to that, but is it really such a significant contributor, compared with the housing bubble and wage stagnation? People have been paying into pensions since long before 1998, when, according to the article, it was much easier to buy a house.
That’s not what has happened at all. The posts weren’t flagged as spam, or inappropriate, they were flagged as Off-Topic (which they are).
The description of the Off-Topic flag is: “This post is not relevant to the current discussion as defined by the title and first post, and should probably be moved elsewhere.”
No one is saying, “Don’t engage with this person,” or “Your views aren’t good enough,” they’re saying, “This isn’t relevant to our current discussion, can you (or the mods) please take this particular segue somewhere more appropriate?”
It’s perhaps telling that the mods didn’t split the comments off into a new thread, as they have done in the past.
Perhaps it’s not telling, then.
Although this is a topic about flagging, not social security.
(my two favourite subjects!)
Ok, fair. I’ll elaborate.
We moved the flagging topic because 1) it’s meta and 2) it was, indeed, taking over the topic.
The SS stuff was offtopic for reasons discussed. We acted on the posts as such, but if the originator of those offtopic posts wanted to split off and start his own topic on it, no issue.
The reason for the difference? @miasm reached out to me and specifically asked for the thread to be split after some discussion about why the flagging took place in the first place.
I apologize if any of that reasoning was unintentionally obtuse.