In some ways, the past week's flurry of activity at Diehards.org resembles discussions on the maverick site from years past.

One of the most popular issues tackled was a Jonathan Clements column in the Wall Street Journal that suggested contributing to a taxable account might be more profitable than IRAs or 401(k) plans. This brought a flood of skeptical comments. But to be fair, Clements (who sat down with our Heather Bell two weeks ago for an in-depth Q&A) was running numbers based on mutual funds that didn't produce any distributions and/or capital gains. And he did say that people should contribute enough to meet any company match.  He also suggested that a Roth IRA would be the next best way to go.

But he brought up an age-old investing conundrum often debated by Diehards. Namely, that's how best can you fully take advantage of low-turnover index funds that historically don't generate much in the way of capital gains? 

The conversation of course should include exchange-traded funds. These are also important to consider in the equation since many ETFs rival Vanguard's lineup of tax-managed index mutual funds in terms of never reporting distributions. It provides investors with more tax-savvy options for different asset classes that can be used in a taxable account.

Another interesting thread discussed a Researchmag.com interview with Boston University professor Zvi Brodie. He argues that a lot of asset allocators are missing the boat and overdiversifying by not setting realistic time guidelines for their goals. He argues that once a proper time frame is established for investing, people need to move into bonds to provide steady income streams over a lifetime.

Posters pointed out that Brodie isn't totally against investing in stocks. Diehard Greenspam wrote: "I generally like this approach, but you definitely need to save more because your expected return is less. But I would rather save more and invest it conservatively than save less and put it all in the stock market."

But AzRunner wasn't so sure: "I have no problem with having investors fully understand the risks of equity investing. That said, for many risk tolerant investors, the stock market offers an opportunity to benefit due to the real growth that companies generate. A widely diversified portfolio based on indexing still seems like the way to go assuming that one stays the course," he wrote.

The discussion can be found here.

Even stagflation reared its ugly head at Diehards this week. 

"As I recall, the last period of stagflation in the US was early 70's. Were any investment strategies successful under those conditions?" asked Denismurf.

"I am far from an expert but I am doing what the experts are doing. Nothing," responded DocHolliday.

EmergDoc noted that gold worked great during past periods of stagflation. And while TIPs weren't around in the 1970s, he observed such a type of bond fund might do fairly decently these days. "Also, keep in mind that it certainly is not a given that we are in stagflation or soon will enter stagflation. So any investing strategies designed for that type of environment could easily backfire if it turns out not to be the case," he added.

And there's a lot more interesting points brought up here. 

The week wouldn't be complete without another real estate debate. This one wasn't a rehash of current dour economic conditions. Instead, it probed an age-old dilemma facing many homeowners - do you pay off your mortgage sooner, or is it better to take your own sweet time?

The discussion referenced an article by a financial advisor who believes that you should never own a home outright. And never pay it off.

Mptfan agreed for the most part. But he cautioned that the advisor didn't consider two major issues. "First, he simply assumes that mortgage interest is tax deductible for everyone at the highest marginal rate. The fact is that some people do not qualify for the mortgage interest deduction, possibly because they take the standard deduction, or, they only partially qualify, or they are in a low tax bracket anyway," Mptfan wrote.

He also found that such advice assumed homeowners will invest the amount they save from not paying off their principal. "Most people are not that disciplined. If you take away this assumption, and you realize that most people will spend the difference on stuff they don't need, then the advice is less compelling," Mptfan added.

Raybo called the planner's suggestion "pure hogwash." And Liverust55 termed it "absurd advice."

Believe it or not, the discussion gets even livelier as it goes along. It can be found here.