[quote=investor]
davelj. you could have read the 6 pages in griffin’s book in less than the time it took to write this blog entry. [/quote]
Yes, and then I’d have to spend GodKnowsHowMuchTime rebutting parts of his argument, right? I’m assuming the guy’s not totally off his rocker and that a nuanced response would require some analysis and thought. And therein lies the “time” problem that you are pretending doesn’t exist.
[quote=investor]
Your inflammatory language is abrasive and non-productive. Speaking for myself – “I just don’t care enough what you think or why you think it to bother. And I doubt anyone else here does either” as well as the last paragraphs above. [/quote]
My delicate flower… I’m sorry you’re so sensitive to harsh words… I’m sure Mommy will give you a kiss if you’ll finish your vegetables.
[quote=investor]
I have never told you that you are wrong. I have stated that the 6 pages in griffin’s book details the money flow well and is hard to refute. You quote a 50 page article from the fed about how the fed runs. don’t you think that the articel may be alittle biased since it is written by the same people who refuse to be audited? [/quote]
The article from the Fed isn’t an opinion piece, friendo. It’s a technical manual. With debits and credits and flow charts (oh my!). It’s as biased as the owner’s manual to your microwave oven. What YOU might want to do – since this thread is of YOUR own making, after all – is compare and contrast what Griffin is suggesting with what the manual is saying (along with other sources). I think that could prove pretty interesting, frankly. Time consuming, yes. But perhaps also interesting.
[quote=investor]
I think that you like to argue more than you like to discuss intelligently since, again, you refuse to read the 6 pages from griffin and spend much time quoteing biased sources. your tone is blantly offensive. you are obviously in need of some etiquette training since you devoid of any. You can make your points without insulting people but since you refuse to engage in a discussion of my sources, your input is not helpful and is in fact negative. You, to put it bluntly, are an arrogant, abrasive know-it-all who doesn’t and who likes to argue more than discuss topics. I have thoiught this for awhile but I have held my opnion back out of repect for this web site.[/quote]
You’ve held back your opinion “out of repect [sic] for this website”? Bwahahaha… that is rich, “investor.” You’re such a gentleman. I picture you with a pipe, handlebar mustache, and a pocket watch. But I digress…
Am I an asshole? Guilty as charged. (And I have acknowledged this MANY times here at the Pig.) Am I abrasive? Occasionally, but mostly to people who come out of the gates suggesting THEY know it all (like yourself). Am I a know-it-all? Quite the contrary. (File under: Pot Calls Kettle Black… Again.) If you go back and read my posts over the years I OFTEN state derivations of “I don’t know much about this,” “however, the future is uncertain,” “my OPINION is… but I could be wrong,” etc. etc. I am a big fan of Taleb’s and often discuss in these threads how humans aren’t good at acknowledging what they don’t know. I FREELY acknowledge when I don’t know something and/or when I’m in the realm of opinion versus fact. So, labeling me as a “know-it-all” is misreading me COMPLETELY and anyone who has been at this site for a while knows it. I have a lot of opinions, but I label them as such. In fact, I’ve been hard on you because of the haughty, know-it-all tone YOU’VE taken since the original post.
Having said that, our discussion here is about the machinations of the Fed, which is *relatively* straightforward from a “flow” perspective (if not from a “policy” perspective, which is another issue entirely, admittedly). Now, you want ME to do all the work here. But, you see, this is YOUR thread. So, my response is simple: You first. If you want to go about proving Griffin right and the “non-conspiratorialists” (for lack of a better word) wrong regarding the flow in and out of the Fed, then by all means… I encourage you to do so. And AFTER you’ve presented a real case, hell, I might even dig into the whole thing myself. So, again: You first. We await your enlightenment. Godspeed, Enlightened Gentleman of the Internet code named “investor.” (I love your screen name, by the way… it’s so understated. Like if I called myself “privateequitymanager.” Uh oh… that was abrasive and non-productive, right? Dammit, I did it again!)
