do you know what the federal reserve is?

[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=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=investor]n 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]

Investor: Read that last section you wrote, please. Discourse implies a free and open EXCHANGE of ideas, along with the recognition that, if you’re wrong, you need to admit it.

You accuse Dave of failing to engage fairly, but you refuse to countenance, for a second, that Griffin can be remotely incorrect regarding those six pages. Dave, SK and others have gone to great lengths to rebut or refute Griffin, but no sale for you. Griffin is right and logic and facts be damned. You accuse Dave of being an arrogant SOB, but you seem to be the one that refuses to bend or accept ANY position other than your own. Doesn’t that sound just a tiny bit arrogant and close-minded?

If you demand fairness in others, you need to be prepared to give it yourself.[/quote]
The problem I have with those responces to this blog is that they havn’t even taken the time to read 6 pages from a book in order to discuss that entry intelligently. Nor have you. If griffin is wrong, fine but lets have you at least read the entry so we can discuss it based on what he says. you distort my positions constantly as well as misquote me. (you did apologize for misquoting me so you get a pass on that). (“refuse to countenance, for a second, that Griffin can be remotely incorrect regarding those six pages.”)I do not think that griffin is the end all and of course he may be wrong. You are inventing all of these ideas from me in your head for lord knows what reason. No one is right all of the time. But how can you put your nose in the air over what grifin has written without even reading the passages? That is what I refuse to let go of. Is not that the height of arrogance and ignorance, to say someone/griffin/ is wrong without even reading what they have writte? You imply I am wrong. (“along with the recognition that, if you’re wrong, you need to admit it.”)
Over what? That I want to discuss what griffin has written? Are you that blinded by your desire to argue instead of discuss? And what could you have possibly have differences with with the last part of my last entry above?(“We may not be able to change who is president but sharing opinions and ideas is the basic building block of a free society”). Your arguing style takes away from the pleasure of reading this blog, frankly. Please don not reply to this blog until you have broken down and read the entry from griffin. Anything you write is a waste of my time until you do. Again, I apologize to the readers of this blog for my bluntness. In this guys case, like davelj, you need a hammer to make your point. Subtlety is wasted on them.

[investor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=investor]n 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]

Investor: Read that last section you wrote, please. Discourse implies a free and open EXCHANGE of ideas, along with the recognition that, if you’re wrong, you need to admit it.

You accuse Dave of failing to engage fairly, but you refuse to countenance, for a second, that Griffin can be remotely incorrect regarding those six pages. Dave, SK and others have gone to great lengths to rebut or refute Griffin, but no sale for you. Griffin is right and logic and facts be damned. You accuse Dave of being an arrogant SOB, but you seem to be the one that refuses to bend or accept ANY position other than your own. Doesn’t that sound just a tiny bit arrogant and close-minded?

If you demand fairness in others, you need to be prepared to give it yourself.[/quote]
The problem I have with those responces to this blog is that they havn’t even taken the time to read 6 pages from a book in order to discuss that entry intelligently. Nor have you. If griffin is wrong, fine but lets have you at least read the entry so we can discuss it based on what he says. you distort my positions constantly as well as misquote me. (you did apologize for misquoting me so you get a pass on that). (“refuse to countenance, for a second, that Griffin can be remotely incorrect regarding those six pages.”)I do not think that griffin is the end all and of course he may be wrong. You are inventing all of these ideas from me in your head for lord knows what reason. No one is right all of the time. But how can you put your nose in the air over what grifin has written without even reading the passages? That is what I refuse to let go of. Is not that the height of arrogance and ignorance, to say someone/griffin/ is wrong without even reading what they have writte? You imply I am wrong. (“along with the recognition that, if you’re wrong, you need to admit it.”)
Over what? That I want to discuss what griffin has written? Are you that blinded by your desire to argue instead of discuss? And what could you have possibly have differences with with the last part of my last entry above?(“We may not be able to change who is president but sharing opinions and ideas is the basic building block of a free society”). Your arguing style takes away from the pleasure of reading this blog, frankly. Please don not reply to this blog until you have broken down and read the entry from griffin. Anything you write is a waste of my time until you do. Again, I apologize to the readers of this blog for my bluntness. In this guys case, like davelj, you need a hammer to make your point. Subtlety is wasted on them.

[investor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=investor]n 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]

Investor: Read that last section you wrote, please. Discourse implies a free and open EXCHANGE of ideas, along with the recognition that, if you’re wrong, you need to admit it.

You accuse Dave of failing to engage fairly, but you refuse to countenance, for a second, that Griffin can be remotely incorrect regarding those six pages. Dave, SK and others have gone to great lengths to rebut or refute Griffin, but no sale for you. Griffin is right and logic and facts be damned. You accuse Dave of being an arrogant SOB, but you seem to be the one that refuses to bend or accept ANY position other than your own. Doesn’t that sound just a tiny bit arrogant and close-minded?

If you demand fairness in others, you need to be prepared to give it yourself.[/quote]
The problem I have with those responces to this blog is that they havn’t even taken the time to read 6 pages from a book in order to discuss that entry intelligently. Nor have you. If griffin is wrong, fine but lets have you at least read the entry so we can discuss it based on what he says. you distort my positions constantly as well as misquote me. (you did apologize for misquoting me so you get a pass on that). (“refuse to countenance, for a second, that Griffin can be remotely incorrect regarding those six pages.”)I do not think that griffin is the end all and of course he may be wrong. You are inventing all of these ideas from me in your head for lord knows what reason. No one is right all of the time. But how can you put your nose in the air over what grifin has written without even reading the passages? That is what I refuse to let go of. Is not that the height of arrogance and ignorance, to say someone/griffin/ is wrong without even reading what they have writte? You imply I am wrong. (“along with the recognition that, if you’re wrong, you need to admit it.”)
Over what? That I want to discuss what griffin has written? Are you that blinded by your desire to argue instead of discuss? And what could you have possibly have differences with with the last part of my last entry above?(“We may not be able to change who is president but sharing opinions and ideas is the basic building block of a free society”). Your arguing style takes away from the pleasure of reading this blog, frankly. Please don not reply to this blog until you have broken down and read the entry from griffin. Anything you write is a waste of my time until you do. Again, I apologize to the readers of this blog for my bluntness. In this guys case, like davelj, you need a hammer to make your point. Subtlety is wasted on them.

[investor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=investor]n 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]

Investor: Read that last section you wrote, please. Discourse implies a free and open EXCHANGE of ideas, along with the recognition that, if you’re wrong, you need to admit it.

You accuse Dave of failing to engage fairly, but you refuse to countenance, for a second, that Griffin can be remotely incorrect regarding those six pages. Dave, SK and others have gone to great lengths to rebut or refute Griffin, but no sale for you. Griffin is right and logic and facts be damned. You accuse Dave of being an arrogant SOB, but you seem to be the one that refuses to bend or accept ANY position other than your own. Doesn’t that sound just a tiny bit arrogant and close-minded?

If you demand fairness in others, you need to be prepared to give it yourself.[/quote]
The problem I have with those responces to this blog is that they havn’t even taken the time to read 6 pages from a book in order to discuss that entry intelligently. Nor have you. If griffin is wrong, fine but lets have you at least read the entry so we can discuss it based on what he says. you distort my positions constantly as well as misquote me. (you did apologize for misquoting me so you get a pass on that). (“refuse to countenance, for a second, that Griffin can be remotely incorrect regarding those six pages.”)I do not think that griffin is the end all and of course he may be wrong. You are inventing all of these ideas from me in your head for lord knows what reason. No one is right all of the time. But how can you put your nose in the air over what grifin has written without even reading the passages? That is what I refuse to let go of. Is not that the height of arrogance and ignorance, to say someone/griffin/ is wrong without even reading what they have writte? You imply I am wrong. (“along with the recognition that, if you’re wrong, you need to admit it.”)
Over what? That I want to discuss what griffin has written? Are you that blinded by your desire to argue instead of discuss? And what could you have possibly have differences with with the last part of my last entry above?(“We may not be able to change who is president but sharing opinions and ideas is the basic building block of a free society”). Your arguing style takes away from the pleasure of reading this blog, frankly. Please don not reply to this blog until you have broken down and read the entry from griffin. Anything you write is a waste of my time until you do. Again, I apologize to the readers of this blog for my bluntness. In this guys case, like davelj, you need a hammer to make your point. Subtlety is wasted on them.

[investor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=investor]n 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]

Investor: Read that last section you wrote, please. Discourse implies a free and open EXCHANGE of ideas, along with the recognition that, if you’re wrong, you need to admit it.

You accuse Dave of failing to engage fairly, but you refuse to countenance, for a second, that Griffin can be remotely incorrect regarding those six pages. Dave, SK and others have gone to great lengths to rebut or refute Griffin, but no sale for you. Griffin is right and logic and facts be damned. You accuse Dave of being an arrogant SOB, but you seem to be the one that refuses to bend or accept ANY position other than your own. Doesn’t that sound just a tiny bit arrogant and close-minded?

If you demand fairness in others, you need to be prepared to give it yourself.[/quote]
The problem I have with those responces to this blog is that they havn’t even taken the time to read 6 pages from a book in order to discuss that entry intelligently. Nor have you. If griffin is wrong, fine but lets have you at least read the entry so we can discuss it based on what he says. you distort my positions constantly as well as misquote me. (you did apologize for misquoting me so you get a pass on that). (“refuse to countenance, for a second, that Griffin can be remotely incorrect regarding those six pages.”)I do not think that griffin is the end all and of course he may be wrong. You are inventing all of these ideas from me in your head for lord knows what reason. No one is right all of the time. But how can you put your nose in the air over what grifin has written without even reading the passages? That is what I refuse to let go of. Is not that the height of arrogance and ignorance, to say someone/griffin/ is wrong without even reading what they have writte? You imply I am wrong. (“along with the recognition that, if you’re wrong, you need to admit it.”)
Over what? That I want to discuss what griffin has written? Are you that blinded by your desire to argue instead of discuss? And what could you have possibly have differences with with the last part of my last entry above?(“We may not be able to change who is president but sharing opinions and ideas is the basic building block of a free society”). Your arguing style takes away from the pleasure of reading this blog, frankly. Please don not reply to this blog until you have broken down and read the entry from griffin. Anything you write is a waste of my time until you do. Again, I apologize to the readers of this blog for my bluntness. In this guys case, like davelj, you need a hammer to make your point. Subtlety is wasted on them.

[davelj]

[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!)

Signed,
Davelj, Abrasive Asshole

[davelj]

[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!)

Signed,
Davelj, Abrasive Asshole

[davelj]

[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!)

Signed,
Davelj, Abrasive Asshole

[davelj]

[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!)

Signed,
Davelj, Abrasive Asshole

[davelj]

[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!)

Signed,
Davelj, Abrasive Asshole

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=investor]The problem I have with those responces to this blog is that they havn’t even taken the time to read 6 pages from a book in order to discuss that entry intelligently. Nor have you. If griffin is wrong, fine but lets have you at least read the entry so we can discuss it based on what he says. you distort my positions constantly as well as misquote me. (you did apologize for misquoting me so you get a pass on that). (“refuse to countenance, for a second, that Griffin can be remotely incorrect regarding those six pages.”)I do not think that griffin is the end all and of course he may be wrong. You are inventing all of these ideas from me in your head for lord knows what reason. No one is right all of the time. But how can you put your nose in the air over what grifin has written without even reading the passages? That is what I refuse to let go of. Is not that the height of arrogance and ignorance, to say someone/griffin/ is wrong without even reading what they have writte? You imply I am wrong. (“along with the recognition that, if you’re wrong, you need to admit it.”)
Over what? That I want to discuss what griffin has written? Are you that blinded by your desire to argue instead of discuss? And what could you have possibly have differences with with the last part of my last entry above?(“We may not be able to change who is president but sharing opinions and ideas is the basic building block of a free society”). Your arguing style takes away from the pleasure of reading this blog, frankly. Please don not reply to this blog until you have broken down and read the entry from griffin. Anything you write is a waste of my time until you do. Again, I apologize to the readers of this blog for my bluntness. In this guys case, like davelj, you need a hammer to make your point. Subtlety is wasted on them.[/quote]

Investor: Let’s start off with a simple assertion from my side: I HAVE READ GRIFFIN’S BOOK. I have read those six pages. Griffin is a crank and he lacks a fundamental understanding of his subject, a fact that numerous authors have taken him to task for.

I made the point from the outset that I had read Griffin’s book. I also made the point that I disagreed with him and why, as well as my feelings about his background, which is entirely germane, especially given some of his political meanderings in the book, which were alarming, to say the least.

You come across here as though you’re on the side of the angels, but you frankly are loathe to admit that you suffer from confirmation bias, nor are you willing to answer questions or queries from intelligent posters, like SK, who have a strong background in Accounting and Finance. While I’m not a CPA, I did hold a corporate CFO position for a large insurance brokerage, and know my way around how banks function.

However, if it doesn’t correspond to what you hold as Revealed Truth, you don’t want to talk about. Yeah, I like a good argument, but this isn’t an argument, nor is it a debate. Its you simply refusing to acknowledge that the Fed isn’t some grand conspiracy as cooked up by a noted crackpot. I READ THE SIX PAGES. Griffin IS WRONG.

What more to say is there?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=investor]The problem I have with those responces to this blog is that they havn’t even taken the time to read 6 pages from a book in order to discuss that entry intelligently. Nor have you. If griffin is wrong, fine but lets have you at least read the entry so we can discuss it based on what he says. you distort my positions constantly as well as misquote me. (you did apologize for misquoting me so you get a pass on that). (“refuse to countenance, for a second, that Griffin can be remotely incorrect regarding those six pages.”)I do not think that griffin is the end all and of course he may be wrong. You are inventing all of these ideas from me in your head for lord knows what reason. No one is right all of the time. But how can you put your nose in the air over what grifin has written without even reading the passages? That is what I refuse to let go of. Is not that the height of arrogance and ignorance, to say someone/griffin/ is wrong without even reading what they have writte? You imply I am wrong. (“along with the recognition that, if you’re wrong, you need to admit it.”)
Over what? That I want to discuss what griffin has written? Are you that blinded by your desire to argue instead of discuss? And what could you have possibly have differences with with the last part of my last entry above?(“We may not be able to change who is president but sharing opinions and ideas is the basic building block of a free society”). Your arguing style takes away from the pleasure of reading this blog, frankly. Please don not reply to this blog until you have broken down and read the entry from griffin. Anything you write is a waste of my time until you do. Again, I apologize to the readers of this blog for my bluntness. In this guys case, like davelj, you need a hammer to make your point. Subtlety is wasted on them.[/quote]

Investor: Let’s start off with a simple assertion from my side: I HAVE READ GRIFFIN’S BOOK. I have read those six pages. Griffin is a crank and he lacks a fundamental understanding of his subject, a fact that numerous authors have taken him to task for.

I made the point from the outset that I had read Griffin’s book. I also made the point that I disagreed with him and why, as well as my feelings about his background, which is entirely germane, especially given some of his political meanderings in the book, which were alarming, to say the least.

You come across here as though you’re on the side of the angels, but you frankly are loathe to admit that you suffer from confirmation bias, nor are you willing to answer questions or queries from intelligent posters, like SK, who have a strong background in Accounting and Finance. While I’m not a CPA, I did hold a corporate CFO position for a large insurance brokerage, and know my way around how banks function.

However, if it doesn’t correspond to what you hold as Revealed Truth, you don’t want to talk about. Yeah, I like a good argument, but this isn’t an argument, nor is it a debate. Its you simply refusing to acknowledge that the Fed isn’t some grand conspiracy as cooked up by a noted crackpot. I READ THE SIX PAGES. Griffin IS WRONG.

What more to say is there?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=investor]The problem I have with those responces to this blog is that they havn’t even taken the time to read 6 pages from a book in order to discuss that entry intelligently. Nor have you. If griffin is wrong, fine but lets have you at least read the entry so we can discuss it based on what he says. you distort my positions constantly as well as misquote me. (you did apologize for misquoting me so you get a pass on that). (“refuse to countenance, for a second, that Griffin can be remotely incorrect regarding those six pages.”)I do not think that griffin is the end all and of course he may be wrong. You are inventing all of these ideas from me in your head for lord knows what reason. No one is right all of the time. But how can you put your nose in the air over what grifin has written without even reading the passages? That is what I refuse to let go of. Is not that the height of arrogance and ignorance, to say someone/griffin/ is wrong without even reading what they have writte? You imply I am wrong. (“along with the recognition that, if you’re wrong, you need to admit it.”)
Over what? That I want to discuss what griffin has written? Are you that blinded by your desire to argue instead of discuss? And what could you have possibly have differences with with the last part of my last entry above?(“We may not be able to change who is president but sharing opinions and ideas is the basic building block of a free society”). Your arguing style takes away from the pleasure of reading this blog, frankly. Please don not reply to this blog until you have broken down and read the entry from griffin. Anything you write is a waste of my time until you do. Again, I apologize to the readers of this blog for my bluntness. In this guys case, like davelj, you need a hammer to make your point. Subtlety is wasted on them.[/quote]

Investor: Let’s start off with a simple assertion from my side: I HAVE READ GRIFFIN’S BOOK. I have read those six pages. Griffin is a crank and he lacks a fundamental understanding of his subject, a fact that numerous authors have taken him to task for.

I made the point from the outset that I had read Griffin’s book. I also made the point that I disagreed with him and why, as well as my feelings about his background, which is entirely germane, especially given some of his political meanderings in the book, which were alarming, to say the least.

You come across here as though you’re on the side of the angels, but you frankly are loathe to admit that you suffer from confirmation bias, nor are you willing to answer questions or queries from intelligent posters, like SK, who have a strong background in Accounting and Finance. While I’m not a CPA, I did hold a corporate CFO position for a large insurance brokerage, and know my way around how banks function.

However, if it doesn’t correspond to what you hold as Revealed Truth, you don’t want to talk about. Yeah, I like a good argument, but this isn’t an argument, nor is it a debate. Its you simply refusing to acknowledge that the Fed isn’t some grand conspiracy as cooked up by a noted crackpot. I READ THE SIX PAGES. Griffin IS WRONG.

What more to say is there?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=investor]The problem I have with those responces to this blog is that they havn’t even taken the time to read 6 pages from a book in order to discuss that entry intelligently. Nor have you. If griffin is wrong, fine but lets have you at least read the entry so we can discuss it based on what he says. you distort my positions constantly as well as misquote me. (you did apologize for misquoting me so you get a pass on that). (“refuse to countenance, for a second, that Griffin can be remotely incorrect regarding those six pages.”)I do not think that griffin is the end all and of course he may be wrong. You are inventing all of these ideas from me in your head for lord knows what reason. No one is right all of the time. But how can you put your nose in the air over what grifin has written without even reading the passages? That is what I refuse to let go of. Is not that the height of arrogance and ignorance, to say someone/griffin/ is wrong without even reading what they have writte? You imply I am wrong. (“along with the recognition that, if you’re wrong, you need to admit it.”)
Over what? That I want to discuss what griffin has written? Are you that blinded by your desire to argue instead of discuss? And what could you have possibly have differences with with the last part of my last entry above?(“We may not be able to change who is president but sharing opinions and ideas is the basic building block of a free society”). Your arguing style takes away from the pleasure of reading this blog, frankly. Please don not reply to this blog until you have broken down and read the entry from griffin. Anything you write is a waste of my time until you do. Again, I apologize to the readers of this blog for my bluntness. In this guys case, like davelj, you need a hammer to make your point. Subtlety is wasted on them.[/quote]

Investor: Let’s start off with a simple assertion from my side: I HAVE READ GRIFFIN’S BOOK. I have read those six pages. Griffin is a crank and he lacks a fundamental understanding of his subject, a fact that numerous authors have taken him to task for.

I made the point from the outset that I had read Griffin’s book. I also made the point that I disagreed with him and why, as well as my feelings about his background, which is entirely germane, especially given some of his political meanderings in the book, which were alarming, to say the least.

You come across here as though you’re on the side of the angels, but you frankly are loathe to admit that you suffer from confirmation bias, nor are you willing to answer questions or queries from intelligent posters, like SK, who have a strong background in Accounting and Finance. While I’m not a CPA, I did hold a corporate CFO position for a large insurance brokerage, and know my way around how banks function.

However, if it doesn’t correspond to what you hold as Revealed Truth, you don’t want to talk about. Yeah, I like a good argument, but this isn’t an argument, nor is it a debate. Its you simply refusing to acknowledge that the Fed isn’t some grand conspiracy as cooked up by a noted crackpot. I READ THE SIX PAGES. Griffin IS WRONG.

What more to say is there?

[Author]

Posts