3 ms·
Presumably it was flagged due to the inflammatory nature of the article and the inevitable political posts (like this one I'm now responding to!) that would res
by bpt3 1y ago
Presumably it was flagged due to the inflammatory nature of the article and the inevitable political posts (like this one I'm now responding to!) that would result.
For the record, the Fed did raise interest rates before COVID-era financial policy kicked inflation into high gear (this is the origins of Trump's ire for the Fed, because he generally wants to keep rates as low as possible while he's in office to juice economic growth), but backed off somewhat because the economy was not doing well and inflation was not the primary concern.
Your doctor analogy does not seem to show much understanding of how the stock and bond markets work or the insurance sector works.
- JohnMakin 1y agoPresumably also a little bit because sites like this are owned by VC capital that stand to gain or lose a lot on ZIRP policies, and have an unflagging belief in their infallibility - as well as many users here's income depending on startups backed almost entirely by VC funds. I also fail to see how the post you are responding to is political. It's difficult to convince a person of something when they are paid not to understand it.
- stego-tech 1y agoYou get it; the person you replied to does not. Also amused that ZIRP is permitted to be discussed freely in the context of VC funding rounds and its benefits on startup growth, but any sort of detraction or critique of its monetary policies is immediately flagged. If I had a tinfoil hat, I’d be inclined to make some claims as to why that might be, here. I am also amused at the glut of anons happy to say I’m wrong in how something works, yet conveniently neglect to explain how I’m wrong or provide the “correct” perspective to have. At this point in my eTenure, I just assume that anyone saying I’m wrong but refusing to articulate the how/what/when/where/why of it are, themselves, actually wrong, otherwise they’d posit a counterargument instead of a drive-by “you’re wrong lol” and a downvote.
- bpt3 1y ago> If I had a tinfoil hat... If? You can believe what you want, but dang and the other mods have said repeatedly that their owners are completely hands off. If you want to argue that the mods know where their bread is buttered and act accordingly, have at it, but don't pretend you aren't creating a (meaningless in the grand scheme of things) conspiracy theory. > I am also amused at the glut of anons happy to say I’m wrong in how something works, yet conveniently neglect to explain how I’m wrong or provide the “correct” perspective to have. At this point in my eTenure, I just assume that anyone saying I’m wrong but refusing to articulate the how/what/when/where/why of it are, themselves, actually wrong. It's a waste of time to argue with someone who is convinced they are right about something with zero evidence supporting their position. So again, believe what you want, but be aware of what you're doing.
- JohnMakin 1y agoWebsite moderation and discourse usually if not always reflects the values and beliefs of the people that own it. They don’t even have to be directly involved for this to be the case - but it’d be really silly to say this site doesn’t take a particular slant in favor of the people that own it. Whatever the cause that may be is of course a matter of debate, but pretending it doesn’t exist is silly.