do you know what the federal reserve is?

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Arraya]

Criminal liar conspiring against the american people or blithering idiot? you be the judge…

[/quote]

Arraya: Why can’t he be both?[/quote]

Methinks they are smarter than they act, well, maybe a little delusional…

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6542#comments_top

I am perplexed; I really cannot understand how the world’s economists and commentators on the present precarious global financial situation have not come to the conclusion that must be obvious to all persons who have followed peak oil.

snip

The debt information is pretty suggestive of what is going on, and that is, the reason the world has been able to keep increasing GDP since 2005 is because it has been borrowing from the future to fund the addiction to economic growth. But this situation cannot continue without serious problems in terms of repayment. And we have imminent peak oil, with the consensus dawning that soon after 2011 oil supply is highly likely to start declining with decline rates anywhere between 2% and 8% per annum.

The 64 trillion dollar question is what will happen to world GDP? Robert Hirsh in his 2008 Energy Policy paper has suggested that GDP will decline at around the same rate as oil supply, so if oil supply declines at 4% per annum then world GDP will also decline at 4% per annum. If the current ratio is anything to go on, then 4% decline in oil may produce an 8% decline in GDP, but the situation is not likely to be symmetric or for that matter linear. With a large debt hanging around it is also likely that the world monetary system is at risk of imploding (see Gail Tverberg’s recent posts on debt repayments in a situation of decreasing wealth. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6439).

I would think that the people that control the money, might have a little information on the oil situation. I know intelligence think tanks have for decades. When we have the biggest bubble in the history of the world pop precisely at the moment world oil production peaks my little tin foil antenna charges up. A collapse of the world banking system acts pretty well as forced conservation plan in the face of oil shortages.

I wonder what our masters have planned next for us

[aldante]

Here is a Speech from Dr. Paul in 2002. He lays the blame squarely on the Fed not only on the GSE’s:

“From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts. ”

Read the whole thing here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul53.html

Dr. Paul sees the Fed’s policies of creating bubble after bubble. So when he pointed out the problems with the GSE’s he was not talking about just the GSE’s but a misallocation of prices. By the way, can you clairify why you think that the GSE’s “had virtually nothing to do with the bubble”? I have the opinion that they had quite a lot to do with the bubble.

[aldante]

Here is a Speech from Dr. Paul in 2002. He lays the blame squarely on the Fed not only on the GSE’s:

“From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts. ”

Read the whole thing here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul53.html

Dr. Paul sees the Fed’s policies of creating bubble after bubble. So when he pointed out the problems with the GSE’s he was not talking about just the GSE’s but a misallocation of prices. By the way, can you clairify why you think that the GSE’s “had virtually nothing to do with the bubble”? I have the opinion that they had quite a lot to do with the bubble.

[aldante]

Here is a Speech from Dr. Paul in 2002. He lays the blame squarely on the Fed not only on the GSE’s:

“From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts. ”

Read the whole thing here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul53.html

Dr. Paul sees the Fed’s policies of creating bubble after bubble. So when he pointed out the problems with the GSE’s he was not talking about just the GSE’s but a misallocation of prices. By the way, can you clairify why you think that the GSE’s “had virtually nothing to do with the bubble”? I have the opinion that they had quite a lot to do with the bubble.

[aldante]

Here is a Speech from Dr. Paul in 2002. He lays the blame squarely on the Fed not only on the GSE’s:

“From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts. ”

Read the whole thing here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul53.html

Dr. Paul sees the Fed’s policies of creating bubble after bubble. So when he pointed out the problems with the GSE’s he was not talking about just the GSE’s but a misallocation of prices. By the way, can you clairify why you think that the GSE’s “had virtually nothing to do with the bubble”? I have the opinion that they had quite a lot to do with the bubble.

[aldante]

Here is a Speech from Dr. Paul in 2002. He lays the blame squarely on the Fed not only on the GSE’s:

“From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts. ”

Read the whole thing here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul53.html

Dr. Paul sees the Fed’s policies of creating bubble after bubble. So when he pointed out the problems with the GSE’s he was not talking about just the GSE’s but a misallocation of prices. By the way, can you clairify why you think that the GSE’s “had virtually nothing to do with the bubble”? I have the opinion that they had quite a lot to do with the bubble.

[investor]

[quote=Arraya]

Ben S. Bernanke testified on Capitol Hill just before being nominated to succeed Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. (By Ron Edmonds — Associated Press)
By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Ben S. Bernanke does not think the national housing boom is a bubble that is about to burst, he indicated to Congress last week, just a few days before President Bush nominated him to become the next chairman of the Federal Reserve

Criminal liar conspiring against the american people or blithering idiot? you be the judge…

Each Federal reserve bank shall keep itself informed of the general character and amount of the loans and investments of its member banks with a view to ascertaining whether undue use is being made of bank credit for the speculative carrying of or trading in securities, real estate, or commodities, or for any other purpose inconsistent with the maintenance of sound credit conditions; and, in determining whether to grant or refuse advances, rediscounts, or other credit accommodations, the Federal reserve bank shall give consideration to such information. The chairman of the Federal reserve bank shall report to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System any such undue use of bank credit by any member bank, together with his recommendation. Whenever, in the judgment of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, any member bank is making such undue use of bank credit, the Board may, in its discretion, after reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing, suspend such bank from the use of the credit facilities of the Federal Reserve System and may terminate such suspension or may renew it from time to time.

The punishment for making false statements or reports that overvalue an asset is also stated in the U.S. Code:[58]

Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or report, or willfully overvalues any land, property or security, for the purpose of influencing in any way…shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

[/quote]
This is exactly what I am saying. If the fed is a privatly owned/operated company, its spokesman will give the best propaganda foot forward for the fed, screw the american people. Just as any republican/democrat hack would do for thier repective party. Now I have to go and address another blogger who is quoting a federal reserve paper on how the fed works. Sigh….

[investor]

[quote=Arraya]

Ben S. Bernanke testified on Capitol Hill just before being nominated to succeed Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. (By Ron Edmonds — Associated Press)
By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Ben S. Bernanke does not think the national housing boom is a bubble that is about to burst, he indicated to Congress last week, just a few days before President Bush nominated him to become the next chairman of the Federal Reserve

Criminal liar conspiring against the american people or blithering idiot? you be the judge…

Each Federal reserve bank shall keep itself informed of the general character and amount of the loans and investments of its member banks with a view to ascertaining whether undue use is being made of bank credit for the speculative carrying of or trading in securities, real estate, or commodities, or for any other purpose inconsistent with the maintenance of sound credit conditions; and, in determining whether to grant or refuse advances, rediscounts, or other credit accommodations, the Federal reserve bank shall give consideration to such information. The chairman of the Federal reserve bank shall report to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System any such undue use of bank credit by any member bank, together with his recommendation. Whenever, in the judgment of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, any member bank is making such undue use of bank credit, the Board may, in its discretion, after reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing, suspend such bank from the use of the credit facilities of the Federal Reserve System and may terminate such suspension or may renew it from time to time.

The punishment for making false statements or reports that overvalue an asset is also stated in the U.S. Code:[58]

Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or report, or willfully overvalues any land, property or security, for the purpose of influencing in any way…shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

[/quote]
This is exactly what I am saying. If the fed is a privatly owned/operated company, its spokesman will give the best propaganda foot forward for the fed, screw the american people. Just as any republican/democrat hack would do for thier repective party. Now I have to go and address another blogger who is quoting a federal reserve paper on how the fed works. Sigh….

[investor]

[quote=Arraya]

Ben S. Bernanke testified on Capitol Hill just before being nominated to succeed Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. (By Ron Edmonds — Associated Press)
By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Ben S. Bernanke does not think the national housing boom is a bubble that is about to burst, he indicated to Congress last week, just a few days before President Bush nominated him to become the next chairman of the Federal Reserve

Criminal liar conspiring against the american people or blithering idiot? you be the judge…

Each Federal reserve bank shall keep itself informed of the general character and amount of the loans and investments of its member banks with a view to ascertaining whether undue use is being made of bank credit for the speculative carrying of or trading in securities, real estate, or commodities, or for any other purpose inconsistent with the maintenance of sound credit conditions; and, in determining whether to grant or refuse advances, rediscounts, or other credit accommodations, the Federal reserve bank shall give consideration to such information. The chairman of the Federal reserve bank shall report to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System any such undue use of bank credit by any member bank, together with his recommendation. Whenever, in the judgment of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, any member bank is making such undue use of bank credit, the Board may, in its discretion, after reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing, suspend such bank from the use of the credit facilities of the Federal Reserve System and may terminate such suspension or may renew it from time to time.

The punishment for making false statements or reports that overvalue an asset is also stated in the U.S. Code:[58]

Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or report, or willfully overvalues any land, property or security, for the purpose of influencing in any way…shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

[/quote]
This is exactly what I am saying. If the fed is a privatly owned/operated company, its spokesman will give the best propaganda foot forward for the fed, screw the american people. Just as any republican/democrat hack would do for thier repective party. Now I have to go and address another blogger who is quoting a federal reserve paper on how the fed works. Sigh….

[investor]

[quote=Arraya]

Ben S. Bernanke testified on Capitol Hill just before being nominated to succeed Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. (By Ron Edmonds — Associated Press)
By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Ben S. Bernanke does not think the national housing boom is a bubble that is about to burst, he indicated to Congress last week, just a few days before President Bush nominated him to become the next chairman of the Federal Reserve

Criminal liar conspiring against the american people or blithering idiot? you be the judge…

Each Federal reserve bank shall keep itself informed of the general character and amount of the loans and investments of its member banks with a view to ascertaining whether undue use is being made of bank credit for the speculative carrying of or trading in securities, real estate, or commodities, or for any other purpose inconsistent with the maintenance of sound credit conditions; and, in determining whether to grant or refuse advances, rediscounts, or other credit accommodations, the Federal reserve bank shall give consideration to such information. The chairman of the Federal reserve bank shall report to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System any such undue use of bank credit by any member bank, together with his recommendation. Whenever, in the judgment of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, any member bank is making such undue use of bank credit, the Board may, in its discretion, after reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing, suspend such bank from the use of the credit facilities of the Federal Reserve System and may terminate such suspension or may renew it from time to time.

The punishment for making false statements or reports that overvalue an asset is also stated in the U.S. Code:[58]

Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or report, or willfully overvalues any land, property or security, for the purpose of influencing in any way…shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

[/quote]
This is exactly what I am saying. If the fed is a privatly owned/operated company, its spokesman will give the best propaganda foot forward for the fed, screw the american people. Just as any republican/democrat hack would do for thier repective party. Now I have to go and address another blogger who is quoting a federal reserve paper on how the fed works. Sigh….

[investor]

[quote=Arraya]

Ben S. Bernanke testified on Capitol Hill just before being nominated to succeed Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. (By Ron Edmonds — Associated Press)
By Nell Henderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Ben S. Bernanke does not think the national housing boom is a bubble that is about to burst, he indicated to Congress last week, just a few days before President Bush nominated him to become the next chairman of the Federal Reserve

Criminal liar conspiring against the american people or blithering idiot? you be the judge…

Each Federal reserve bank shall keep itself informed of the general character and amount of the loans and investments of its member banks with a view to ascertaining whether undue use is being made of bank credit for the speculative carrying of or trading in securities, real estate, or commodities, or for any other purpose inconsistent with the maintenance of sound credit conditions; and, in determining whether to grant or refuse advances, rediscounts, or other credit accommodations, the Federal reserve bank shall give consideration to such information. The chairman of the Federal reserve bank shall report to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System any such undue use of bank credit by any member bank, together with his recommendation. Whenever, in the judgment of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, any member bank is making such undue use of bank credit, the Board may, in its discretion, after reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing, suspend such bank from the use of the credit facilities of the Federal Reserve System and may terminate such suspension or may renew it from time to time.

The punishment for making false statements or reports that overvalue an asset is also stated in the U.S. Code:[58]

Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or report, or willfully overvalues any land, property or security, for the purpose of influencing in any way…shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

[/quote]
This is exactly what I am saying. If the fed is a privatly owned/operated company, its spokesman will give the best propaganda foot forward for the fed, screw the american people. Just as any republican/democrat hack would do for thier repective party. Now I have to go and address another blogger who is quoting a federal reserve paper on how the fed works. Sigh….

[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor]
Davelj. Well, I have been reading this site for about 5 years but I have only begun to enter threads recently. As far as the tone of your blogs.Lets say that we are at a social gathering. You meet someone for the first time and the discussion turns to the federal reserve. The person that you are talking to has a different opinion than you. That person then begins to tell you that you cannot seriously believe what you are saying, no-one would take you seriously and that your opinions are irrelevant. Oh, and he seems angry at you while he is saying this. All on the first meeting. What kind of impression does that person give you? Would you care to converse further with that person or write them off as a rude, arrogant SOB whom you never hpoe to meet again? Responding to blogs is similar in that you are interfacing with real people who do have feelings. Some level of etiquette should be followed, don’t you think? [/quote]

That is a rather dramatic mischaracterization of our discussion here thus far, which is par for the course for you. Here’s our discussion in a nutshell: You read Griffin’s book on the Fed, took it all in as The Truth, and posted about it here, ending with the haughty and arrogant:”All of you economics professors, don’t feel bad if you don’t know the real power behind the money/ central banks. NO ONE is taught this.” To paraphrase your original post: “I know The Truth!! Everyone else is a bunch of Dummies!! Look at me, look at me!!” I subsequently pointed out that there was one little obvious niggling problem with your supposition that – and I quote (again) – the Fed’s ownership is “mostly unknown” but probably is comprised of “the wealthiest people on earth.” This inconvenient observation irritated you a little, then we went back and forth a little bit and you pulled out the cheapest debate stunt there is, which is basically saying, “Well if you’re unwilling to read part of Griffin’s book and refute it point by point, then I’m right, you’re wrong and the discussion’s over.” THAT leads me back to YOUR questions above (and I quote): “What kind of impression does that person give you? Would you care to converse further with that person or write them off as a rude, arrogant SOB whom you never hpoe to meet again?”

In other words: Pot, meet Kettle.

I have two problems with your posting style in this thread:

(1) You seem awfully sure of everything on this topic you post and I don’t get the impression that you really have the background to be so sure (that is, if anyone can be so sure of anything – as I occasionally tell folks with this affliction, “You seem more sure of everything than I am of anything”);
(2) As I mentioned above, declaring that someone’s wrong about a particular issue simply because they’re unwilling to spend a bunch of time refuting some obscure passage of a relatively obscure book is a ridiculous debate tactic, and one worthy of extreme mockery, frankly.
[quote=investor]
Now, for the topic at hand.I don’t think any economics books cover the cash flow through the fed well at all. Especially the in depth way that griffin does. I could be wrong as I have not read what you have. I have re-read my macro-economics book (Mankiw) who does not give a good explanation of how the money goes through the fed. I’ll make you a deal. You give me an economics book (with page numbers) that does explain how the money flows and I will read it. you borrow the griffin book (since I am sure you do not want to support his ridiculous book), read those 6 pages and then write back on this site to compare notes. Deal? (Also, my opinion does matter as does yours. We may not be able to change who is president but sharing opinions and ideas is the basic building block of a free society.)[/quote]

First of all, re-reading a Macro textbook for this discussion is a step in the wrong direction. I said, “Money and Banking,” which is a very different subject from Macro (albeit tangentially related) and deals with the very issue we’ve been discussing. That you don’t realize this speaks volumes. It took me all of 30 seconds to find the following article online:

http://www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf

Honestly, I just skimmed it – it’s 50 pages long – and deals mostly with the expansion of the money supply. But… it also spends several pages on flows between the Treasury and the Fed. And what I REALLY like about it is that it is extremely detailed and actually outlines the debits and credits associated with each financial interaction within the Fed System. I’ll assume since you think you know a lot about all of this that you have a background in accounting, as I do, and will be able to follow the entries. (I’m guessing – and please tell me if I’m wrong – that Griffin’s manifesto doesn’t contain the words debit or credit… anywhere. Just an observation.) So, while this article probably isn’t *exactly* what you’re looking for, I bet it’s a big step in the right direction – that is, pretty close. So, instead of asking ME to spend MY time reading a widely discredited book and then explaining things to YOU, why don’t YOU spend YOUR time educating YOURSELF. And this has the additional benefit of your not having to converse with someone – me – that you find so unpleasant. It’s a win-win!!

This whole “compare notes” thing, quite frankly, sounds awfully time consuming from my end. And, more importantly, I don’t really care *that much* what you think you know. Believe what you want – it’s no skin off my back.[/quote]
davelj. you could have read the 6 pages in griffin’s book in less than the time it took to write this blog entry. Your inflammatory language is abrasive and non-productive. Example “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. 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 article may be a little biased since it is written by the same people (the fed) who refuse to be audited? I think that you like to argue more than you like to discuss intelligently since, again, you refuse to spend 10 minutes reading the 6 pages from griffin and spend much time quoting biased sources. your tone is also 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 know it all, refuses to expand by 10 minutes your knowledge base and who likes to argue more than discuss topics. I have thought this for awhile but I have held my opnion back out of respect for this web site. You contribute nothing to intelligent conversation and you take much interaction away. This is why I asked you to stop writing futher entries until you can act like an adult. To other bloggers, please excuse my directness but people like this guy need a hammer over the head before they get any point.

[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor]
Davelj. Well, I have been reading this site for about 5 years but I have only begun to enter threads recently. As far as the tone of your blogs.Lets say that we are at a social gathering. You meet someone for the first time and the discussion turns to the federal reserve. The person that you are talking to has a different opinion than you. That person then begins to tell you that you cannot seriously believe what you are saying, no-one would take you seriously and that your opinions are irrelevant. Oh, and he seems angry at you while he is saying this. All on the first meeting. What kind of impression does that person give you? Would you care to converse further with that person or write them off as a rude, arrogant SOB whom you never hpoe to meet again? Responding to blogs is similar in that you are interfacing with real people who do have feelings. Some level of etiquette should be followed, don’t you think? [/quote]

That is a rather dramatic mischaracterization of our discussion here thus far, which is par for the course for you. Here’s our discussion in a nutshell: You read Griffin’s book on the Fed, took it all in as The Truth, and posted about it here, ending with the haughty and arrogant:”All of you economics professors, don’t feel bad if you don’t know the real power behind the money/ central banks. NO ONE is taught this.” To paraphrase your original post: “I know The Truth!! Everyone else is a bunch of Dummies!! Look at me, look at me!!” I subsequently pointed out that there was one little obvious niggling problem with your supposition that – and I quote (again) – the Fed’s ownership is “mostly unknown” but probably is comprised of “the wealthiest people on earth.” This inconvenient observation irritated you a little, then we went back and forth a little bit and you pulled out the cheapest debate stunt there is, which is basically saying, “Well if you’re unwilling to read part of Griffin’s book and refute it point by point, then I’m right, you’re wrong and the discussion’s over.” THAT leads me back to YOUR questions above (and I quote): “What kind of impression does that person give you? Would you care to converse further with that person or write them off as a rude, arrogant SOB whom you never hpoe to meet again?”

In other words: Pot, meet Kettle.

I have two problems with your posting style in this thread:

(1) You seem awfully sure of everything on this topic you post and I don’t get the impression that you really have the background to be so sure (that is, if anyone can be so sure of anything – as I occasionally tell folks with this affliction, “You seem more sure of everything than I am of anything”);
(2) As I mentioned above, declaring that someone’s wrong about a particular issue simply because they’re unwilling to spend a bunch of time refuting some obscure passage of a relatively obscure book is a ridiculous debate tactic, and one worthy of extreme mockery, frankly.
[quote=investor]
Now, for the topic at hand.I don’t think any economics books cover the cash flow through the fed well at all. Especially the in depth way that griffin does. I could be wrong as I have not read what you have. I have re-read my macro-economics book (Mankiw) who does not give a good explanation of how the money goes through the fed. I’ll make you a deal. You give me an economics book (with page numbers) that does explain how the money flows and I will read it. you borrow the griffin book (since I am sure you do not want to support his ridiculous book), read those 6 pages and then write back on this site to compare notes. Deal? (Also, my opinion does matter as does yours. We may not be able to change who is president but sharing opinions and ideas is the basic building block of a free society.)[/quote]

First of all, re-reading a Macro textbook for this discussion is a step in the wrong direction. I said, “Money and Banking,” which is a very different subject from Macro (albeit tangentially related) and deals with the very issue we’ve been discussing. That you don’t realize this speaks volumes. It took me all of 30 seconds to find the following article online:

http://www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf

Honestly, I just skimmed it – it’s 50 pages long – and deals mostly with the expansion of the money supply. But… it also spends several pages on flows between the Treasury and the Fed. And what I REALLY like about it is that it is extremely detailed and actually outlines the debits and credits associated with each financial interaction within the Fed System. I’ll assume since you think you know a lot about all of this that you have a background in accounting, as I do, and will be able to follow the entries. (I’m guessing – and please tell me if I’m wrong – that Griffin’s manifesto doesn’t contain the words debit or credit… anywhere. Just an observation.) So, while this article probably isn’t *exactly* what you’re looking for, I bet it’s a big step in the right direction – that is, pretty close. So, instead of asking ME to spend MY time reading a widely discredited book and then explaining things to YOU, why don’t YOU spend YOUR time educating YOURSELF. And this has the additional benefit of your not having to converse with someone – me – that you find so unpleasant. It’s a win-win!!

This whole “compare notes” thing, quite frankly, sounds awfully time consuming from my end. And, more importantly, I don’t really care *that much* what you think you know. Believe what you want – it’s no skin off my back.[/quote]
davelj. you could have read the 6 pages in griffin’s book in less than the time it took to write this blog entry. Your inflammatory language is abrasive and non-productive. Example “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. 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 article may be a little biased since it is written by the same people (the fed) who refuse to be audited? I think that you like to argue more than you like to discuss intelligently since, again, you refuse to spend 10 minutes reading the 6 pages from griffin and spend much time quoting biased sources. your tone is also 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 know it all, refuses to expand by 10 minutes your knowledge base and who likes to argue more than discuss topics. I have thought this for awhile but I have held my opnion back out of respect for this web site. You contribute nothing to intelligent conversation and you take much interaction away. This is why I asked you to stop writing futher entries until you can act like an adult. To other bloggers, please excuse my directness but people like this guy need a hammer over the head before they get any point.

[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor]
Davelj. Well, I have been reading this site for about 5 years but I have only begun to enter threads recently. As far as the tone of your blogs.Lets say that we are at a social gathering. You meet someone for the first time and the discussion turns to the federal reserve. The person that you are talking to has a different opinion than you. That person then begins to tell you that you cannot seriously believe what you are saying, no-one would take you seriously and that your opinions are irrelevant. Oh, and he seems angry at you while he is saying this. All on the first meeting. What kind of impression does that person give you? Would you care to converse further with that person or write them off as a rude, arrogant SOB whom you never hpoe to meet again? Responding to blogs is similar in that you are interfacing with real people who do have feelings. Some level of etiquette should be followed, don’t you think? [/quote]

That is a rather dramatic mischaracterization of our discussion here thus far, which is par for the course for you. Here’s our discussion in a nutshell: You read Griffin’s book on the Fed, took it all in as The Truth, and posted about it here, ending with the haughty and arrogant:”All of you economics professors, don’t feel bad if you don’t know the real power behind the money/ central banks. NO ONE is taught this.” To paraphrase your original post: “I know The Truth!! Everyone else is a bunch of Dummies!! Look at me, look at me!!” I subsequently pointed out that there was one little obvious niggling problem with your supposition that – and I quote (again) – the Fed’s ownership is “mostly unknown” but probably is comprised of “the wealthiest people on earth.” This inconvenient observation irritated you a little, then we went back and forth a little bit and you pulled out the cheapest debate stunt there is, which is basically saying, “Well if you’re unwilling to read part of Griffin’s book and refute it point by point, then I’m right, you’re wrong and the discussion’s over.” THAT leads me back to YOUR questions above (and I quote): “What kind of impression does that person give you? Would you care to converse further with that person or write them off as a rude, arrogant SOB whom you never hpoe to meet again?”

In other words: Pot, meet Kettle.

I have two problems with your posting style in this thread:

(1) You seem awfully sure of everything on this topic you post and I don’t get the impression that you really have the background to be so sure (that is, if anyone can be so sure of anything – as I occasionally tell folks with this affliction, “You seem more sure of everything than I am of anything”);
(2) As I mentioned above, declaring that someone’s wrong about a particular issue simply because they’re unwilling to spend a bunch of time refuting some obscure passage of a relatively obscure book is a ridiculous debate tactic, and one worthy of extreme mockery, frankly.
[quote=investor]
Now, for the topic at hand.I don’t think any economics books cover the cash flow through the fed well at all. Especially the in depth way that griffin does. I could be wrong as I have not read what you have. I have re-read my macro-economics book (Mankiw) who does not give a good explanation of how the money goes through the fed. I’ll make you a deal. You give me an economics book (with page numbers) that does explain how the money flows and I will read it. you borrow the griffin book (since I am sure you do not want to support his ridiculous book), read those 6 pages and then write back on this site to compare notes. Deal? (Also, my opinion does matter as does yours. We may not be able to change who is president but sharing opinions and ideas is the basic building block of a free society.)[/quote]

First of all, re-reading a Macro textbook for this discussion is a step in the wrong direction. I said, “Money and Banking,” which is a very different subject from Macro (albeit tangentially related) and deals with the very issue we’ve been discussing. That you don’t realize this speaks volumes. It took me all of 30 seconds to find the following article online:

http://www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf

Honestly, I just skimmed it – it’s 50 pages long – and deals mostly with the expansion of the money supply. But… it also spends several pages on flows between the Treasury and the Fed. And what I REALLY like about it is that it is extremely detailed and actually outlines the debits and credits associated with each financial interaction within the Fed System. I’ll assume since you think you know a lot about all of this that you have a background in accounting, as I do, and will be able to follow the entries. (I’m guessing – and please tell me if I’m wrong – that Griffin’s manifesto doesn’t contain the words debit or credit… anywhere. Just an observation.) So, while this article probably isn’t *exactly* what you’re looking for, I bet it’s a big step in the right direction – that is, pretty close. So, instead of asking ME to spend MY time reading a widely discredited book and then explaining things to YOU, why don’t YOU spend YOUR time educating YOURSELF. And this has the additional benefit of your not having to converse with someone – me – that you find so unpleasant. It’s a win-win!!

This whole “compare notes” thing, quite frankly, sounds awfully time consuming from my end. And, more importantly, I don’t really care *that much* what you think you know. Believe what you want – it’s no skin off my back.[/quote]
davelj. you could have read the 6 pages in griffin’s book in less than the time it took to write this blog entry. Your inflammatory language is abrasive and non-productive. Example “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. 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 article may be a little biased since it is written by the same people (the fed) who refuse to be audited? I think that you like to argue more than you like to discuss intelligently since, again, you refuse to spend 10 minutes reading the 6 pages from griffin and spend much time quoting biased sources. your tone is also 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 know it all, refuses to expand by 10 minutes your knowledge base and who likes to argue more than discuss topics. I have thought this for awhile but I have held my opnion back out of respect for this web site. You contribute nothing to intelligent conversation and you take much interaction away. This is why I asked you to stop writing futher entries until you can act like an adult. To other bloggers, please excuse my directness but people like this guy need a hammer over the head before they get any point.

[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor]
Davelj. Well, I have been reading this site for about 5 years but I have only begun to enter threads recently. As far as the tone of your blogs.Lets say that we are at a social gathering. You meet someone for the first time and the discussion turns to the federal reserve. The person that you are talking to has a different opinion than you. That person then begins to tell you that you cannot seriously believe what you are saying, no-one would take you seriously and that your opinions are irrelevant. Oh, and he seems angry at you while he is saying this. All on the first meeting. What kind of impression does that person give you? Would you care to converse further with that person or write them off as a rude, arrogant SOB whom you never hpoe to meet again? Responding to blogs is similar in that you are interfacing with real people who do have feelings. Some level of etiquette should be followed, don’t you think? [/quote]

That is a rather dramatic mischaracterization of our discussion here thus far, which is par for the course for you. Here’s our discussion in a nutshell: You read Griffin’s book on the Fed, took it all in as The Truth, and posted about it here, ending with the haughty and arrogant:”All of you economics professors, don’t feel bad if you don’t know the real power behind the money/ central banks. NO ONE is taught this.” To paraphrase your original post: “I know The Truth!! Everyone else is a bunch of Dummies!! Look at me, look at me!!” I subsequently pointed out that there was one little obvious niggling problem with your supposition that – and I quote (again) – the Fed’s ownership is “mostly unknown” but probably is comprised of “the wealthiest people on earth.” This inconvenient observation irritated you a little, then we went back and forth a little bit and you pulled out the cheapest debate stunt there is, which is basically saying, “Well if you’re unwilling to read part of Griffin’s book and refute it point by point, then I’m right, you’re wrong and the discussion’s over.” THAT leads me back to YOUR questions above (and I quote): “What kind of impression does that person give you? Would you care to converse further with that person or write them off as a rude, arrogant SOB whom you never hpoe to meet again?”

In other words: Pot, meet Kettle.

I have two problems with your posting style in this thread:

(1) You seem awfully sure of everything on this topic you post and I don’t get the impression that you really have the background to be so sure (that is, if anyone can be so sure of anything – as I occasionally tell folks with this affliction, “You seem more sure of everything than I am of anything”);
(2) As I mentioned above, declaring that someone’s wrong about a particular issue simply because they’re unwilling to spend a bunch of time refuting some obscure passage of a relatively obscure book is a ridiculous debate tactic, and one worthy of extreme mockery, frankly.
[quote=investor]
Now, for the topic at hand.I don’t think any economics books cover the cash flow through the fed well at all. Especially the in depth way that griffin does. I could be wrong as I have not read what you have. I have re-read my macro-economics book (Mankiw) who does not give a good explanation of how the money goes through the fed. I’ll make you a deal. You give me an economics book (with page numbers) that does explain how the money flows and I will read it. you borrow the griffin book (since I am sure you do not want to support his ridiculous book), read those 6 pages and then write back on this site to compare notes. Deal? (Also, my opinion does matter as does yours. We may not be able to change who is president but sharing opinions and ideas is the basic building block of a free society.)[/quote]

First of all, re-reading a Macro textbook for this discussion is a step in the wrong direction. I said, “Money and Banking,” which is a very different subject from Macro (albeit tangentially related) and deals with the very issue we’ve been discussing. That you don’t realize this speaks volumes. It took me all of 30 seconds to find the following article online:

http://www.rayservers.com/images/ModernMoneyMechanics.pdf

Honestly, I just skimmed it – it’s 50 pages long – and deals mostly with the expansion of the money supply. But… it also spends several pages on flows between the Treasury and the Fed. And what I REALLY like about it is that it is extremely detailed and actually outlines the debits and credits associated with each financial interaction within the Fed System. I’ll assume since you think you know a lot about all of this that you have a background in accounting, as I do, and will be able to follow the entries. (I’m guessing – and please tell me if I’m wrong – that Griffin’s manifesto doesn’t contain the words debit or credit… anywhere. Just an observation.) So, while this article probably isn’t *exactly* what you’re looking for, I bet it’s a big step in the right direction – that is, pretty close. So, instead of asking ME to spend MY time reading a widely discredited book and then explaining things to YOU, why don’t YOU spend YOUR time educating YOURSELF. And this has the additional benefit of your not having to converse with someone – me – that you find so unpleasant. It’s a win-win!!

This whole “compare notes” thing, quite frankly, sounds awfully time consuming from my end. And, more importantly, I don’t really care *that much* what you think you know. Believe what you want – it’s no skin off my back.[/quote]
davelj. you could have read the 6 pages in griffin’s book in less than the time it took to write this blog entry. Your inflammatory language is abrasive and non-productive. Example “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. 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 article may be a little biased since it is written by the same people (the fed) who refuse to be audited? I think that you like to argue more than you like to discuss intelligently since, again, you refuse to spend 10 minutes reading the 6 pages from griffin and spend much time quoting biased sources. your tone is also 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 know it all, refuses to expand by 10 minutes your knowledge base and who likes to argue more than discuss topics. I have thought this for awhile but I have held my opnion back out of respect for this web site. You contribute nothing to intelligent conversation and you take much interaction away. This is why I asked you to stop writing futher entries until you can act like an adult. To other bloggers, please excuse my directness but people like this guy need a hammer over the head before they get any point.

[Author]

Posts