Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › do you know what the federal reserve is?
- This topic has 715 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
davelj.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM #556999May 28, 2010 at 3:23 PM #556081
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=investor]
Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.
I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?
I agree with you. Especially the last paragraph. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. [/quote]Investor: Couple of things here. First, you talk about SK putting aside his/her political leanings. What about you and your clear biases (i.e. taking information from a single book and treating it as gospel)?
Second, did you do any research on “Jekyll Island” author Griffin? I notice you didn’t respond to my post showing his background and a definite lack of credibility.
Third, I didn’t claim to “see” Enron’s shady dealings, that’s a strawman of your construction. What I said, and quote me correctly, please, is that all of the information WAS contained in their financials, but you did have to comb through the footnotes and annotations to find it. Two very, very different things.
You have a tendency to misread and misquote posters and you like to play the strawman game, too. You also like to claim bias and prejudice, without recognizing that you fall prey to the same thing.
Griffin is a crank, pure and simple. His professional background, such as it is, does not make him a credible source, but you seem all too willing to jump on the bandwagon and cry out about some evil, perfidious scheme going on at the Fed. The Wiki entry regarding the “secret voice vote” is hooey, hence my suggestion to do more research (which you clearly did not), as is your assertion that a “complete” Fed audit has not been done. You never answered what a “complete” or “real” Fed audit would look like, just that one needs to be done.
May 28, 2010 at 3:23 PM #556183Participant[quote=investor]
Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.
I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?
I agree with you. Especially the last paragraph. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. [/quote]Investor: Couple of things here. First, you talk about SK putting aside his/her political leanings. What about you and your clear biases (i.e. taking information from a single book and treating it as gospel)?
Second, did you do any research on “Jekyll Island” author Griffin? I notice you didn’t respond to my post showing his background and a definite lack of credibility.
Third, I didn’t claim to “see” Enron’s shady dealings, that’s a strawman of your construction. What I said, and quote me correctly, please, is that all of the information WAS contained in their financials, but you did have to comb through the footnotes and annotations to find it. Two very, very different things.
You have a tendency to misread and misquote posters and you like to play the strawman game, too. You also like to claim bias and prejudice, without recognizing that you fall prey to the same thing.
Griffin is a crank, pure and simple. His professional background, such as it is, does not make him a credible source, but you seem all too willing to jump on the bandwagon and cry out about some evil, perfidious scheme going on at the Fed. The Wiki entry regarding the “secret voice vote” is hooey, hence my suggestion to do more research (which you clearly did not), as is your assertion that a “complete” Fed audit has not been done. You never answered what a “complete” or “real” Fed audit would look like, just that one needs to be done.
May 28, 2010 at 3:23 PM #556671Participant[quote=investor]
Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.
I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?
I agree with you. Especially the last paragraph. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. [/quote]Investor: Couple of things here. First, you talk about SK putting aside his/her political leanings. What about you and your clear biases (i.e. taking information from a single book and treating it as gospel)?
Second, did you do any research on “Jekyll Island” author Griffin? I notice you didn’t respond to my post showing his background and a definite lack of credibility.
Third, I didn’t claim to “see” Enron’s shady dealings, that’s a strawman of your construction. What I said, and quote me correctly, please, is that all of the information WAS contained in their financials, but you did have to comb through the footnotes and annotations to find it. Two very, very different things.
You have a tendency to misread and misquote posters and you like to play the strawman game, too. You also like to claim bias and prejudice, without recognizing that you fall prey to the same thing.
Griffin is a crank, pure and simple. His professional background, such as it is, does not make him a credible source, but you seem all too willing to jump on the bandwagon and cry out about some evil, perfidious scheme going on at the Fed. The Wiki entry regarding the “secret voice vote” is hooey, hence my suggestion to do more research (which you clearly did not), as is your assertion that a “complete” Fed audit has not been done. You never answered what a “complete” or “real” Fed audit would look like, just that one needs to be done.
May 28, 2010 at 3:23 PM #556770Participant[quote=investor]
Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.
I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?
I agree with you. Especially the last paragraph. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. [/quote]Investor: Couple of things here. First, you talk about SK putting aside his/her political leanings. What about you and your clear biases (i.e. taking information from a single book and treating it as gospel)?
Second, did you do any research on “Jekyll Island” author Griffin? I notice you didn’t respond to my post showing his background and a definite lack of credibility.
Third, I didn’t claim to “see” Enron’s shady dealings, that’s a strawman of your construction. What I said, and quote me correctly, please, is that all of the information WAS contained in their financials, but you did have to comb through the footnotes and annotations to find it. Two very, very different things.
You have a tendency to misread and misquote posters and you like to play the strawman game, too. You also like to claim bias and prejudice, without recognizing that you fall prey to the same thing.
Griffin is a crank, pure and simple. His professional background, such as it is, does not make him a credible source, but you seem all too willing to jump on the bandwagon and cry out about some evil, perfidious scheme going on at the Fed. The Wiki entry regarding the “secret voice vote” is hooey, hence my suggestion to do more research (which you clearly did not), as is your assertion that a “complete” Fed audit has not been done. You never answered what a “complete” or “real” Fed audit would look like, just that one needs to be done.
May 28, 2010 at 3:23 PM #557047Participant[quote=investor]
Are you saying that you were able to see through the Andersen audit and see Enrons shady deals? Very Impressive. I am glad that you can see exactly what the FED is doing with taxpayer committment. I am confident that you (haveing read the FEDS audit) can succintly let us know the answers to the questions I raised above.
I do not understand how you could try and counter my arguement using the “few analysts” who saw Enron coming and not see how that contradicts you own arguement. Anyone who is not in favor of an audit is drinking from the FED’s Koolaid – that same “buying the hype” crowd you spoke of in your post. Or they suspect that a real audit might reveal a gigantic ponzi scheme. 99% of Americans are worse off after our credit crisis. Mr. Bernenke, the guy people are defending (by not advocating a real audit) told us all in May 2008 all would be fine and we would not hit a recession. He also told us Freddie and Fannie would be fine. And you want to use his figures? You would read the “free info” and take it as fact?
I agree with you. Especially the last paragraph. SV in CV; I did some more research from the wikipedia site for the fed. What I heard from a mike malony youtube.com about the fed being passed on a voice vote of 3 may or not be correct. The bill was passed as you/wikipedia state and I don’t know if the final settlement between the two houses of congress was on a voice vote or not but the main thrust of the point was that the bill was carried with both houses and I agree with your point. It doesn’t change the main concern about the fed tho. The secrecy of the people who control the most important currency in the world and the lack of a complete audit of where the money goes and ownership of the fed. [/quote]Investor: Couple of things here. First, you talk about SK putting aside his/her political leanings. What about you and your clear biases (i.e. taking information from a single book and treating it as gospel)?
Second, did you do any research on “Jekyll Island” author Griffin? I notice you didn’t respond to my post showing his background and a definite lack of credibility.
Third, I didn’t claim to “see” Enron’s shady dealings, that’s a strawman of your construction. What I said, and quote me correctly, please, is that all of the information WAS contained in their financials, but you did have to comb through the footnotes and annotations to find it. Two very, very different things.
You have a tendency to misread and misquote posters and you like to play the strawman game, too. You also like to claim bias and prejudice, without recognizing that you fall prey to the same thing.
Griffin is a crank, pure and simple. His professional background, such as it is, does not make him a credible source, but you seem all too willing to jump on the bandwagon and cry out about some evil, perfidious scheme going on at the Fed. The Wiki entry regarding the “secret voice vote” is hooey, hence my suggestion to do more research (which you clearly did not), as is your assertion that a “complete” Fed audit has not been done. You never answered what a “complete” or “real” Fed audit would look like, just that one needs to be done.
May 28, 2010 at 3:48 PM #556089investor
ParticipantAllen, boy you like to fight. I though I was talking to SV from CV. (The above quote is not from me. I don’t know why it says that it is. Go back to the original post to see who wrote it.)I actually did not address the enron situation. I don’t know much about it so I can’t comment on it. I don’t like to use strawmen arguements, I like to base opinions on facts as you seem to do too. (that is a compliment so put your fists down). Yes, the book i am reading now, “bailout nation” by ritholtz also says that griffin is heavily biased against the federal reserve so maybe he is.The fact that he might be does not invalidate everything he says just as what bernanke says is not completly invalidated because he is obviously working for the fed. The facts presented in Griffin’s book are hard to argue with however. The task is to filter through the bias and come up with your own analysis of the facts which is why I emphasize the flow of money through the fed as the key to understanding the fed. And, unless griffin is wrong about the flow, the flow causes me great concern because the fed makes a ton of interset/money off of our curency, supposedly giving some/all of it back but we don’t know if they do since a full accounting of all of the money flowing through their system has never been done as evidenced by the refusal to tell congress where it goes. A complete audit would reveal where all of the cash flows to and from as well as all of the stck holders names and associations. No double talk there. I did do more research on the fed, as evidenced by my using the reference that you used in your congresional vote tally from the wikipewdia web site. I said that “maybe” the 3 people voice vote thing came from the final compliation of both congessional bills before wilson signed the bill into law. My saying maybe means that it may or may not have occured. I’m trying to figure out why an seemingly honest man, mike maloney, said that. Everyone has biases. An honest attempt to see other points of view are important to seeing through them and arriving at some sort of truth. Do you agree?
May 28, 2010 at 3:48 PM #556193ParticipantAllen, boy you like to fight. I though I was talking to SV from CV. (The above quote is not from me. I don’t know why it says that it is. Go back to the original post to see who wrote it.)I actually did not address the enron situation. I don’t know much about it so I can’t comment on it. I don’t like to use strawmen arguements, I like to base opinions on facts as you seem to do too. (that is a compliment so put your fists down). Yes, the book i am reading now, “bailout nation” by ritholtz also says that griffin is heavily biased against the federal reserve so maybe he is.The fact that he might be does not invalidate everything he says just as what bernanke says is not completly invalidated because he is obviously working for the fed. The facts presented in Griffin’s book are hard to argue with however. The task is to filter through the bias and come up with your own analysis of the facts which is why I emphasize the flow of money through the fed as the key to understanding the fed. And, unless griffin is wrong about the flow, the flow causes me great concern because the fed makes a ton of interset/money off of our curency, supposedly giving some/all of it back but we don’t know if they do since a full accounting of all of the money flowing through their system has never been done as evidenced by the refusal to tell congress where it goes. A complete audit would reveal where all of the cash flows to and from as well as all of the stck holders names and associations. No double talk there. I did do more research on the fed, as evidenced by my using the reference that you used in your congresional vote tally from the wikipewdia web site. I said that “maybe” the 3 people voice vote thing came from the final compliation of both congessional bills before wilson signed the bill into law. My saying maybe means that it may or may not have occured. I’m trying to figure out why an seemingly honest man, mike maloney, said that. Everyone has biases. An honest attempt to see other points of view are important to seeing through them and arriving at some sort of truth. Do you agree?
May 28, 2010 at 3:48 PM #556681ParticipantAllen, boy you like to fight. I though I was talking to SV from CV. (The above quote is not from me. I don’t know why it says that it is. Go back to the original post to see who wrote it.)I actually did not address the enron situation. I don’t know much about it so I can’t comment on it. I don’t like to use strawmen arguements, I like to base opinions on facts as you seem to do too. (that is a compliment so put your fists down). Yes, the book i am reading now, “bailout nation” by ritholtz also says that griffin is heavily biased against the federal reserve so maybe he is.The fact that he might be does not invalidate everything he says just as what bernanke says is not completly invalidated because he is obviously working for the fed. The facts presented in Griffin’s book are hard to argue with however. The task is to filter through the bias and come up with your own analysis of the facts which is why I emphasize the flow of money through the fed as the key to understanding the fed. And, unless griffin is wrong about the flow, the flow causes me great concern because the fed makes a ton of interset/money off of our curency, supposedly giving some/all of it back but we don’t know if they do since a full accounting of all of the money flowing through their system has never been done as evidenced by the refusal to tell congress where it goes. A complete audit would reveal where all of the cash flows to and from as well as all of the stck holders names and associations. No double talk there. I did do more research on the fed, as evidenced by my using the reference that you used in your congresional vote tally from the wikipewdia web site. I said that “maybe” the 3 people voice vote thing came from the final compliation of both congessional bills before wilson signed the bill into law. My saying maybe means that it may or may not have occured. I’m trying to figure out why an seemingly honest man, mike maloney, said that. Everyone has biases. An honest attempt to see other points of view are important to seeing through them and arriving at some sort of truth. Do you agree?
May 28, 2010 at 3:48 PM #556780ParticipantAllen, boy you like to fight. I though I was talking to SV from CV. (The above quote is not from me. I don’t know why it says that it is. Go back to the original post to see who wrote it.)I actually did not address the enron situation. I don’t know much about it so I can’t comment on it. I don’t like to use strawmen arguements, I like to base opinions on facts as you seem to do too. (that is a compliment so put your fists down). Yes, the book i am reading now, “bailout nation” by ritholtz also says that griffin is heavily biased against the federal reserve so maybe he is.The fact that he might be does not invalidate everything he says just as what bernanke says is not completly invalidated because he is obviously working for the fed. The facts presented in Griffin’s book are hard to argue with however. The task is to filter through the bias and come up with your own analysis of the facts which is why I emphasize the flow of money through the fed as the key to understanding the fed. And, unless griffin is wrong about the flow, the flow causes me great concern because the fed makes a ton of interset/money off of our curency, supposedly giving some/all of it back but we don’t know if they do since a full accounting of all of the money flowing through their system has never been done as evidenced by the refusal to tell congress where it goes. A complete audit would reveal where all of the cash flows to and from as well as all of the stck holders names and associations. No double talk there. I did do more research on the fed, as evidenced by my using the reference that you used in your congresional vote tally from the wikipewdia web site. I said that “maybe” the 3 people voice vote thing came from the final compliation of both congessional bills before wilson signed the bill into law. My saying maybe means that it may or may not have occured. I’m trying to figure out why an seemingly honest man, mike maloney, said that. Everyone has biases. An honest attempt to see other points of view are important to seeing through them and arriving at some sort of truth. Do you agree?
May 28, 2010 at 3:48 PM #557057ParticipantAllen, boy you like to fight. I though I was talking to SV from CV. (The above quote is not from me. I don’t know why it says that it is. Go back to the original post to see who wrote it.)I actually did not address the enron situation. I don’t know much about it so I can’t comment on it. I don’t like to use strawmen arguements, I like to base opinions on facts as you seem to do too. (that is a compliment so put your fists down). Yes, the book i am reading now, “bailout nation” by ritholtz also says that griffin is heavily biased against the federal reserve so maybe he is.The fact that he might be does not invalidate everything he says just as what bernanke says is not completly invalidated because he is obviously working for the fed. The facts presented in Griffin’s book are hard to argue with however. The task is to filter through the bias and come up with your own analysis of the facts which is why I emphasize the flow of money through the fed as the key to understanding the fed. And, unless griffin is wrong about the flow, the flow causes me great concern because the fed makes a ton of interset/money off of our curency, supposedly giving some/all of it back but we don’t know if they do since a full accounting of all of the money flowing through their system has never been done as evidenced by the refusal to tell congress where it goes. A complete audit would reveal where all of the cash flows to and from as well as all of the stck holders names and associations. No double talk there. I did do more research on the fed, as evidenced by my using the reference that you used in your congresional vote tally from the wikipewdia web site. I said that “maybe” the 3 people voice vote thing came from the final compliation of both congessional bills before wilson signed the bill into law. My saying maybe means that it may or may not have occured. I’m trying to figure out why an seemingly honest man, mike maloney, said that. Everyone has biases. An honest attempt to see other points of view are important to seeing through them and arriving at some sort of truth. Do you agree?
May 28, 2010 at 4:24 PM #556122davelj
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Second, did you do any research on “Jekyll Island” author Griffin? I notice you didn’t respond to my post showing his background and a definite lack of credibility.[snip]
Griffin is a crank, pure and simple. His professional background, such as it is, does not make him a credible source, but you seem all too willing to jump on the bandwagon and cry out about some evil, perfidious scheme going on at the Fed. The Wiki entry regarding the “secret voice vote” is hooey, hence my suggestion to do more research (which you clearly did not), as is your assertion that a “complete” Fed audit has not been done. You never answered what a “complete” or “real” Fed audit would look like, just that one needs to be done.[/quote]
I haven’t read “Jekyll Island” (full disclosure), although I recall bringing it up (I was thinking of reading it) several years back (like a decade ago, if memory serves) with a former professor of mine whose specific area of expertise is the Fed and monetary policy. He said something on the order of, “Only someone who knew very little about the Fed would take the book seriously. Don’t bother.” He also said, “Greider’s book is flawed, but much better.” (Referring to “Secrets of the Temple,” which I subsequently read.)
Now, I don’t like pitting “expert vs. expert” while discussing an issue like this because then it turns into a game of which expert deserves more credit, which is difficult to prove to anyone’s satisfaction. I also don’t like to play the game of “who has greater credentials.” However… Griffin’s background in finance is pretty much limited to being a Certified Financial Planner. I’m not saying you have to have a PhD in economics for your views on the Fed to be taken seriously (see Greider for just one very obvious example), but… sometimes having a more formal, technical education in a field is helpful in understanding the nuances (“sometimes” being the operative word). [In fairness, however, Greenspan and Bernanke have doctorates and a fat lotta good that’s done us – in fact, it’s probably been harmful. But that’s a different topic.] So, to be clear, LOTS of folks without a formal education in economics and finance have valid intelligent opinions regarding the Fed and all sorts of other financial topics that don’t necessarily jibe with conventional wisdom. LOTS of them. But… if you’re going to write a book about the Fed that’s as conspiratorial and off-the-reservation as the reviews indicate, you better make sure it’s tighter than tight, particularly if your academic/research/professional credentials are a little light (pardon the rhyme) given the topic…
Anyhow, it took me all of 30 seconds to find this criticism of Jekyll Island, specifically, and Fed conspiratorialists in general (see “Myths” at the bottom):
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html
My point is an obvious one (and applies to BOTH sides of any issue): Just because it’s in writing don’t make it so. Lots of legitimate thinkers clearly think Griffin’s a quack and his book is toilet paper. (Doesn’t make them right, but it’s a data point to consider when deciding whether to hang your hat on some specific author’s views.)
May 28, 2010 at 4:24 PM #556224Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Second, did you do any research on “Jekyll Island” author Griffin? I notice you didn’t respond to my post showing his background and a definite lack of credibility.[snip]
Griffin is a crank, pure and simple. His professional background, such as it is, does not make him a credible source, but you seem all too willing to jump on the bandwagon and cry out about some evil, perfidious scheme going on at the Fed. The Wiki entry regarding the “secret voice vote” is hooey, hence my suggestion to do more research (which you clearly did not), as is your assertion that a “complete” Fed audit has not been done. You never answered what a “complete” or “real” Fed audit would look like, just that one needs to be done.[/quote]
I haven’t read “Jekyll Island” (full disclosure), although I recall bringing it up (I was thinking of reading it) several years back (like a decade ago, if memory serves) with a former professor of mine whose specific area of expertise is the Fed and monetary policy. He said something on the order of, “Only someone who knew very little about the Fed would take the book seriously. Don’t bother.” He also said, “Greider’s book is flawed, but much better.” (Referring to “Secrets of the Temple,” which I subsequently read.)
Now, I don’t like pitting “expert vs. expert” while discussing an issue like this because then it turns into a game of which expert deserves more credit, which is difficult to prove to anyone’s satisfaction. I also don’t like to play the game of “who has greater credentials.” However… Griffin’s background in finance is pretty much limited to being a Certified Financial Planner. I’m not saying you have to have a PhD in economics for your views on the Fed to be taken seriously (see Greider for just one very obvious example), but… sometimes having a more formal, technical education in a field is helpful in understanding the nuances (“sometimes” being the operative word). [In fairness, however, Greenspan and Bernanke have doctorates and a fat lotta good that’s done us – in fact, it’s probably been harmful. But that’s a different topic.] So, to be clear, LOTS of folks without a formal education in economics and finance have valid intelligent opinions regarding the Fed and all sorts of other financial topics that don’t necessarily jibe with conventional wisdom. LOTS of them. But… if you’re going to write a book about the Fed that’s as conspiratorial and off-the-reservation as the reviews indicate, you better make sure it’s tighter than tight, particularly if your academic/research/professional credentials are a little light (pardon the rhyme) given the topic…
Anyhow, it took me all of 30 seconds to find this criticism of Jekyll Island, specifically, and Fed conspiratorialists in general (see “Myths” at the bottom):
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html
My point is an obvious one (and applies to BOTH sides of any issue): Just because it’s in writing don’t make it so. Lots of legitimate thinkers clearly think Griffin’s a quack and his book is toilet paper. (Doesn’t make them right, but it’s a data point to consider when deciding whether to hang your hat on some specific author’s views.)
May 28, 2010 at 4:24 PM #556713Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Second, did you do any research on “Jekyll Island” author Griffin? I notice you didn’t respond to my post showing his background and a definite lack of credibility.[snip]
Griffin is a crank, pure and simple. His professional background, such as it is, does not make him a credible source, but you seem all too willing to jump on the bandwagon and cry out about some evil, perfidious scheme going on at the Fed. The Wiki entry regarding the “secret voice vote” is hooey, hence my suggestion to do more research (which you clearly did not), as is your assertion that a “complete” Fed audit has not been done. You never answered what a “complete” or “real” Fed audit would look like, just that one needs to be done.[/quote]
I haven’t read “Jekyll Island” (full disclosure), although I recall bringing it up (I was thinking of reading it) several years back (like a decade ago, if memory serves) with a former professor of mine whose specific area of expertise is the Fed and monetary policy. He said something on the order of, “Only someone who knew very little about the Fed would take the book seriously. Don’t bother.” He also said, “Greider’s book is flawed, but much better.” (Referring to “Secrets of the Temple,” which I subsequently read.)
Now, I don’t like pitting “expert vs. expert” while discussing an issue like this because then it turns into a game of which expert deserves more credit, which is difficult to prove to anyone’s satisfaction. I also don’t like to play the game of “who has greater credentials.” However… Griffin’s background in finance is pretty much limited to being a Certified Financial Planner. I’m not saying you have to have a PhD in economics for your views on the Fed to be taken seriously (see Greider for just one very obvious example), but… sometimes having a more formal, technical education in a field is helpful in understanding the nuances (“sometimes” being the operative word). [In fairness, however, Greenspan and Bernanke have doctorates and a fat lotta good that’s done us – in fact, it’s probably been harmful. But that’s a different topic.] So, to be clear, LOTS of folks without a formal education in economics and finance have valid intelligent opinions regarding the Fed and all sorts of other financial topics that don’t necessarily jibe with conventional wisdom. LOTS of them. But… if you’re going to write a book about the Fed that’s as conspiratorial and off-the-reservation as the reviews indicate, you better make sure it’s tighter than tight, particularly if your academic/research/professional credentials are a little light (pardon the rhyme) given the topic…
Anyhow, it took me all of 30 seconds to find this criticism of Jekyll Island, specifically, and Fed conspiratorialists in general (see “Myths” at the bottom):
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html
My point is an obvious one (and applies to BOTH sides of any issue): Just because it’s in writing don’t make it so. Lots of legitimate thinkers clearly think Griffin’s a quack and his book is toilet paper. (Doesn’t make them right, but it’s a data point to consider when deciding whether to hang your hat on some specific author’s views.)
May 28, 2010 at 4:24 PM #556814Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Second, did you do any research on “Jekyll Island” author Griffin? I notice you didn’t respond to my post showing his background and a definite lack of credibility.[snip]
Griffin is a crank, pure and simple. His professional background, such as it is, does not make him a credible source, but you seem all too willing to jump on the bandwagon and cry out about some evil, perfidious scheme going on at the Fed. The Wiki entry regarding the “secret voice vote” is hooey, hence my suggestion to do more research (which you clearly did not), as is your assertion that a “complete” Fed audit has not been done. You never answered what a “complete” or “real” Fed audit would look like, just that one needs to be done.[/quote]
I haven’t read “Jekyll Island” (full disclosure), although I recall bringing it up (I was thinking of reading it) several years back (like a decade ago, if memory serves) with a former professor of mine whose specific area of expertise is the Fed and monetary policy. He said something on the order of, “Only someone who knew very little about the Fed would take the book seriously. Don’t bother.” He also said, “Greider’s book is flawed, but much better.” (Referring to “Secrets of the Temple,” which I subsequently read.)
Now, I don’t like pitting “expert vs. expert” while discussing an issue like this because then it turns into a game of which expert deserves more credit, which is difficult to prove to anyone’s satisfaction. I also don’t like to play the game of “who has greater credentials.” However… Griffin’s background in finance is pretty much limited to being a Certified Financial Planner. I’m not saying you have to have a PhD in economics for your views on the Fed to be taken seriously (see Greider for just one very obvious example), but… sometimes having a more formal, technical education in a field is helpful in understanding the nuances (“sometimes” being the operative word). [In fairness, however, Greenspan and Bernanke have doctorates and a fat lotta good that’s done us – in fact, it’s probably been harmful. But that’s a different topic.] So, to be clear, LOTS of folks without a formal education in economics and finance have valid intelligent opinions regarding the Fed and all sorts of other financial topics that don’t necessarily jibe with conventional wisdom. LOTS of them. But… if you’re going to write a book about the Fed that’s as conspiratorial and off-the-reservation as the reviews indicate, you better make sure it’s tighter than tight, particularly if your academic/research/professional credentials are a little light (pardon the rhyme) given the topic…
Anyhow, it took me all of 30 seconds to find this criticism of Jekyll Island, specifically, and Fed conspiratorialists in general (see “Myths” at the bottom):
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html
My point is an obvious one (and applies to BOTH sides of any issue): Just because it’s in writing don’t make it so. Lots of legitimate thinkers clearly think Griffin’s a quack and his book is toilet paper. (Doesn’t make them right, but it’s a data point to consider when deciding whether to hang your hat on some specific author’s views.)
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.