To quell the partisan squabbling that contaminated METAR, politics has been banned on this board for over 15 years. Politics includes any partisan mention of a political party, politician, political philosophy or discussion of government policies that are under consideration but not yet passed into law.
Recently, blatantly political posts discussing non-U.S. countries have popped up, again contaminating METAR and off-topic for the board’s theme of Macroeconomics and investment. It’s getting annoying. I would like to remove all politics, whatever country.
I’d like to take a poll but can’t remember how to set it up.
What everyone would like is a set of fixed, clearly defined rules that apply to all situations that will prevent this board from turning into a cesspool.
However, that goal is unattainable. Instead as an alternative I suggest we use common sense. We’ve already decided that off topic posts are fine, and I think we all agree we get value from discussing some off topic posts.
As we all know, the issue at hand is Gaza/Israel. There have been a huge volume of these posts, and unrelated threads get hijacked and subsequently destroyed. No one will ever change their minds on this topic and it is pointless to continually bring it up. It is toxic.
So let’s apply common sense. Ban it. And the policy going forward should be to ban toxic posts. How do we define toxic? The same way the Supreme Court defines pornography. We know it when we see it. Common sense, in other words.
Will some posters be upset when their toxic post is pulled due to lack of clear guidelines? Absolutely! Just like a number of posters have been upset about the no politics rule and picked up their ball and went home after their post containing their amazing insights was pulled. Boo hoo.
So the rule should be that common sense applies and no toxic posts are allowed. Sorry, if there isn’t a fine red line that defines the rules, but if your fragile ego can’t handle your toxic getting pulled because you don’t have the mental clarity to apply common sense, then this is the wrong board for you. Don’t let the door hit on the way out.
This is a macroeconomics board. All politics should be banned. Even if politics affects macroeconomics, it should be banned because politics destroys boards. Always. The conversations should be about economics, and if during the discussion of economics, somehow a specific political issue comes up that is very related, maybe it can be mentioned, but not in a partisan way (and I don’t mean partisan in the sense of the two major US parties, I mean partisan as in expressing any specific preference to any side in the debate of that political issue that affects macroeconomics).
Economics come as ideologies. Ignorance has been spread for the last 40 years.
People come to this board ill equipped to discuss economics.
If we are going to have an economics board with no other opinions a lot of people need to remove themselves.
Better yet take a public finance class to comprehend what is going on in today’s world.
It is painful to put up with vacant arguments that go on for pages as if intellectual. That said I do not think I should set up a poll to separate out people.
We have fewer foreign interests here. Allowing some discussion in general is needed.
How would we discuss Chinese current events without mentioning Xi? It does not work.
In that case, you don’t understand what politics is in this regard (with regards to METAR). Discussing Xi is not politics. Saying “Xi is likely on the cusp of retaliating against foreign, mostly US, companies which might cause X, Y, or Z” is not politics on METAR. Saying “Xi is communist and we need to oppose him everywhere” is politics on METAR. Unfortunately, common sense isn’t common enough.
For clarification this AP story ran in the Atlanta Journal Constitution shortly after the VW plant in Tennessee voted for UAW representation. Is it a political post or is it economic?
This article is clearly political, it is specifically about a politician and a party and their feelings about an event (that may have macro implications). A discussion about the macroeconomic effects of increased unionization in southern auto (and other) plants would be a METAR discussion.
For example, if increased unionization takes hold in southern auto plants, it will be really good for Mexico’s economy. Because it is quite likely that over time, more plants would end up located there instead of in the USA.
Using a Venn diagram, macroeconomics overlaps with many other areas, including politics.
I also understand how politics can be toxic to a discussion.
Syke6 recommends using common sense which, unfortunately, is not so common.
I can’t imagine a clear cut set of rules that would work in every setting.
There has to be an arbiter. And, despite my posts being deleted for straying too far over the line or for my (somewhat sarcastic) sense of humor not being appreciated, Wendy does a good job of it. So Wendy deleted one of my posts!!! I’ll live.
If you need an assistant Wendy, I’d be happy to delete all the posts that mention Musk.
Can’t escape the fact that politics, domestic or international, has macroeconomic consequences.
IMO, the criterium should not be whether the post contains politics but rather whether the point being made by the post is economic. Abortion rights, immigration policy, the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts, single payer health care proposals, LGBTQ rights all have economic consequences and it would be foolish not to be able to discuss these…the economic consequences that is.
What should be censored are discussions on the moral/ethical/cultural dimensions of these issues. We all know that morality, ethics, and culture have no place in Macroeconomics!! I say this in partial jest, but only partial. We all know what causes toxic squabbling.
As one simple example. Whether immigration from the southern border is threatening to American culture is not an appropriate topic for this board. Whether that immigration is important for the economic viability of the American food and service industries is appropriate.
Goes without saying that all discussions that boost the price of Tesla should be encouraged.
This article is political as you have copied it with an emphasis on the politician. If you had snipped out the part that shows the unionization of one plant could lead to unionization of others it would be a Macroeconomic story.
Careful selection and focus on the economics is the key to a METAR post without politics.
Wendy
Just because people disagree with you Leap doesn’t make them ignorant, it could mean they are more enlightened. If you can’t put forth your point well enough that you bring the majority to your side might indicate that you are the ignorant one.
Just food for thought: Language is a means to convey thought in a more efficient way, use it.
Leap anyone can read and understand anything they choose, it is a simple enough thing to do, I find economics a little like religion, everyone seems to pick a side. All with one side thinking they are smarter than the other. While usually it is somewhere closer to the middle.
If we are going to call a spade a spade than I think anyone that didn’t go to Notre Dame is ignorant. It has to be that specific school and for 8 years to get properly indoctrinated.
