jp, a philosophical question: If one doesn’t know enough about a (somewhat complicated) subject to rebut an author’s contentions… what is the point of reading said author’s book? If all one is going to do is read a book and just assume that the author is correct regarding the subject – because the reader doesn’t have the experience/knowledge/educational foundation to critique the author’s points – what’s the point?
“The Creature from Jekyll Island” may be a worthwhile book to read (I’m giving it the benefit of the doubt here – apologies, Allan). But before reading it, however, I would read a few books on money and banking (perhaps that 50-page operators manual put out by the Fed linked above), basic accounting, as well as micro and macroeconomics. (This is a crawl before walking before running argument.) Then perhaps one could read Griffin’s book with a critical eye and spot the flaws. Otherwise, it’s just an exercise in the blind leading the blind. Don’t we have enough of that already?
