do you know what the federal reserve is?

[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?

[Veritas]

IOUSA How’s that hope and change working for you Obamanites now? “WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, warned on Wednesday that “the federal budget appears to be on an unsustainable path,” but also recognized that the “exceptional increase” in the deficit had been necessary to ease the recession.”

P.S. Go ahead and blame Bush.

[Veritas]

IOUSA How’s that hope and change working for you Obamanites now? “WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, warned on Wednesday that “the federal budget appears to be on an unsustainable path,” but also recognized that the “exceptional increase” in the deficit had been necessary to ease the recession.”

P.S. Go ahead and blame Bush.

[Veritas]

IOUSA How’s that hope and change working for you Obamanites now? “WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, warned on Wednesday that “the federal budget appears to be on an unsustainable path,” but also recognized that the “exceptional increase” in the deficit had been necessary to ease the recession.”

P.S. Go ahead and blame Bush.

[Veritas]

IOUSA How’s that hope and change working for you Obamanites now? “WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, warned on Wednesday that “the federal budget appears to be on an unsustainable path,” but also recognized that the “exceptional increase” in the deficit had been necessary to ease the recession.”

P.S. Go ahead and blame Bush.

[Veritas]

IOUSA How’s that hope and change working for you Obamanites now? “WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, warned on Wednesday that “the federal budget appears to be on an unsustainable path,” but also recognized that the “exceptional increase” in the deficit had been necessary to ease the recession.”

P.S. Go ahead and blame Bush.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

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?[/quote]

I apologize in advance for butting in here, Allan (and yet I do so anyway!). In “investor’s” defense, he wants someone to explain exactly WHY and WHERE Griffin is wrong. And given where he’s coming from (that is, a conspiratorialist), I can actually understand why. My problem with this is twofold (to which I’ve alluded herein): (1) Reading 6 pages is one thing; rebutting 6 pages in a manner that all concerned can understand (and – sorry here – but “dumbing it down” so that a non-professional – as I presume “investor” to be – can understand it) is another issue entirely. I know I’m going to get a ration of “arrogance” grief for that statement, but it’s true nonetheless. I’ve taught a fair amount of finance in various professional capacities, so I know how this generally works. (2) The burden of proof should be on the original poster to make his point first. He wants someone ELSE to do all the work and I’m not biting. And he’s complaining about it. And that’s patently absurd.

Now… let’s try to get down to brass tacks here and bring this around to the REAL issue, as I see it, anyway. Griffin is a conspiratorialist regarding the Fed and thinks all manner of immoral and illegal things are going on at the Fed (again, admittedly, I haven’t read his book). Now, we can argue about what the role of the Fed should be, whether there should be a Fed, etc. etc. These are “policy” issues and are all debatable.

But “investor” seems to be trying to convince us that Griffin is saying that there’s some sort of illegal/immoral/conspiratorial issue with the “flow” of money into and out of the Fed and with and between the Fed and Treasury. And THIS is where I have a problem. Because for this to be true, the Fed would have to have fooled EVERY professor of Money and Banking (and, in fact, most professors of Economics, Finance and Banking, generally, in the world) regarding how the Fed “works.” That’s right – the ENTIRE profession is either (a) in the dark and doesn’t understand, or (b) part of the conspiracy. And that’s where it all breaks down for me. Again, from a “flow” – not a “policy” – perspective. (One could successfully argue from a “policy” perspective that the Fed is largely a tool of the Officialdom and Powers That Be. But, again, we’re discussing a “flow” argument, as “investor” has framed it.)

So, given that there appear to be zero PhD’s that support Certified Financial Planner Griffin’s conspiratorialist musings (again, I don’t like playing the “credentials” card, but…) regarding the Fed, yet there are many who have bothered to take him (and others) to task… I just don’t find myself compelled to spend the time to rebut him until “investor” has put in the time to make his case first. And, under the circumstances, I just don’t feel that this is an unreasonable position. But everyone’s got an opinion.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

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?[/quote]

I apologize in advance for butting in here, Allan (and yet I do so anyway!). In “investor’s” defense, he wants someone to explain exactly WHY and WHERE Griffin is wrong. And given where he’s coming from (that is, a conspiratorialist), I can actually understand why. My problem with this is twofold (to which I’ve alluded herein): (1) Reading 6 pages is one thing; rebutting 6 pages in a manner that all concerned can understand (and – sorry here – but “dumbing it down” so that a non-professional – as I presume “investor” to be – can understand it) is another issue entirely. I know I’m going to get a ration of “arrogance” grief for that statement, but it’s true nonetheless. I’ve taught a fair amount of finance in various professional capacities, so I know how this generally works. (2) The burden of proof should be on the original poster to make his point first. He wants someone ELSE to do all the work and I’m not biting. And he’s complaining about it. And that’s patently absurd.

Now… let’s try to get down to brass tacks here and bring this around to the REAL issue, as I see it, anyway. Griffin is a conspiratorialist regarding the Fed and thinks all manner of immoral and illegal things are going on at the Fed (again, admittedly, I haven’t read his book). Now, we can argue about what the role of the Fed should be, whether there should be a Fed, etc. etc. These are “policy” issues and are all debatable.

But “investor” seems to be trying to convince us that Griffin is saying that there’s some sort of illegal/immoral/conspiratorial issue with the “flow” of money into and out of the Fed and with and between the Fed and Treasury. And THIS is where I have a problem. Because for this to be true, the Fed would have to have fooled EVERY professor of Money and Banking (and, in fact, most professors of Economics, Finance and Banking, generally, in the world) regarding how the Fed “works.” That’s right – the ENTIRE profession is either (a) in the dark and doesn’t understand, or (b) part of the conspiracy. And that’s where it all breaks down for me. Again, from a “flow” – not a “policy” – perspective. (One could successfully argue from a “policy” perspective that the Fed is largely a tool of the Officialdom and Powers That Be. But, again, we’re discussing a “flow” argument, as “investor” has framed it.)

So, given that there appear to be zero PhD’s that support Certified Financial Planner Griffin’s conspiratorialist musings (again, I don’t like playing the “credentials” card, but…) regarding the Fed, yet there are many who have bothered to take him (and others) to task… I just don’t find myself compelled to spend the time to rebut him until “investor” has put in the time to make his case first. And, under the circumstances, I just don’t feel that this is an unreasonable position. But everyone’s got an opinion.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

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?[/quote]

I apologize in advance for butting in here, Allan (and yet I do so anyway!). In “investor’s” defense, he wants someone to explain exactly WHY and WHERE Griffin is wrong. And given where he’s coming from (that is, a conspiratorialist), I can actually understand why. My problem with this is twofold (to which I’ve alluded herein): (1) Reading 6 pages is one thing; rebutting 6 pages in a manner that all concerned can understand (and – sorry here – but “dumbing it down” so that a non-professional – as I presume “investor” to be – can understand it) is another issue entirely. I know I’m going to get a ration of “arrogance” grief for that statement, but it’s true nonetheless. I’ve taught a fair amount of finance in various professional capacities, so I know how this generally works. (2) The burden of proof should be on the original poster to make his point first. He wants someone ELSE to do all the work and I’m not biting. And he’s complaining about it. And that’s patently absurd.

Now… let’s try to get down to brass tacks here and bring this around to the REAL issue, as I see it, anyway. Griffin is a conspiratorialist regarding the Fed and thinks all manner of immoral and illegal things are going on at the Fed (again, admittedly, I haven’t read his book). Now, we can argue about what the role of the Fed should be, whether there should be a Fed, etc. etc. These are “policy” issues and are all debatable.

But “investor” seems to be trying to convince us that Griffin is saying that there’s some sort of illegal/immoral/conspiratorial issue with the “flow” of money into and out of the Fed and with and between the Fed and Treasury. And THIS is where I have a problem. Because for this to be true, the Fed would have to have fooled EVERY professor of Money and Banking (and, in fact, most professors of Economics, Finance and Banking, generally, in the world) regarding how the Fed “works.” That’s right – the ENTIRE profession is either (a) in the dark and doesn’t understand, or (b) part of the conspiracy. And that’s where it all breaks down for me. Again, from a “flow” – not a “policy” – perspective. (One could successfully argue from a “policy” perspective that the Fed is largely a tool of the Officialdom and Powers That Be. But, again, we’re discussing a “flow” argument, as “investor” has framed it.)

So, given that there appear to be zero PhD’s that support Certified Financial Planner Griffin’s conspiratorialist musings (again, I don’t like playing the “credentials” card, but…) regarding the Fed, yet there are many who have bothered to take him (and others) to task… I just don’t find myself compelled to spend the time to rebut him until “investor” has put in the time to make his case first. And, under the circumstances, I just don’t feel that this is an unreasonable position. But everyone’s got an opinion.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

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?[/quote]

I apologize in advance for butting in here, Allan (and yet I do so anyway!). In “investor’s” defense, he wants someone to explain exactly WHY and WHERE Griffin is wrong. And given where he’s coming from (that is, a conspiratorialist), I can actually understand why. My problem with this is twofold (to which I’ve alluded herein): (1) Reading 6 pages is one thing; rebutting 6 pages in a manner that all concerned can understand (and – sorry here – but “dumbing it down” so that a non-professional – as I presume “investor” to be – can understand it) is another issue entirely. I know I’m going to get a ration of “arrogance” grief for that statement, but it’s true nonetheless. I’ve taught a fair amount of finance in various professional capacities, so I know how this generally works. (2) The burden of proof should be on the original poster to make his point first. He wants someone ELSE to do all the work and I’m not biting. And he’s complaining about it. And that’s patently absurd.

Now… let’s try to get down to brass tacks here and bring this around to the REAL issue, as I see it, anyway. Griffin is a conspiratorialist regarding the Fed and thinks all manner of immoral and illegal things are going on at the Fed (again, admittedly, I haven’t read his book). Now, we can argue about what the role of the Fed should be, whether there should be a Fed, etc. etc. These are “policy” issues and are all debatable.

But “investor” seems to be trying to convince us that Griffin is saying that there’s some sort of illegal/immoral/conspiratorial issue with the “flow” of money into and out of the Fed and with and between the Fed and Treasury. And THIS is where I have a problem. Because for this to be true, the Fed would have to have fooled EVERY professor of Money and Banking (and, in fact, most professors of Economics, Finance and Banking, generally, in the world) regarding how the Fed “works.” That’s right – the ENTIRE profession is either (a) in the dark and doesn’t understand, or (b) part of the conspiracy. And that’s where it all breaks down for me. Again, from a “flow” – not a “policy” – perspective. (One could successfully argue from a “policy” perspective that the Fed is largely a tool of the Officialdom and Powers That Be. But, again, we’re discussing a “flow” argument, as “investor” has framed it.)

So, given that there appear to be zero PhD’s that support Certified Financial Planner Griffin’s conspiratorialist musings (again, I don’t like playing the “credentials” card, but…) regarding the Fed, yet there are many who have bothered to take him (and others) to task… I just don’t find myself compelled to spend the time to rebut him until “investor” has put in the time to make his case first. And, under the circumstances, I just don’t feel that this is an unreasonable position. But everyone’s got an opinion.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

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?[/quote]

I apologize in advance for butting in here, Allan (and yet I do so anyway!). In “investor’s” defense, he wants someone to explain exactly WHY and WHERE Griffin is wrong. And given where he’s coming from (that is, a conspiratorialist), I can actually understand why. My problem with this is twofold (to which I’ve alluded herein): (1) Reading 6 pages is one thing; rebutting 6 pages in a manner that all concerned can understand (and – sorry here – but “dumbing it down” so that a non-professional – as I presume “investor” to be – can understand it) is another issue entirely. I know I’m going to get a ration of “arrogance” grief for that statement, but it’s true nonetheless. I’ve taught a fair amount of finance in various professional capacities, so I know how this generally works. (2) The burden of proof should be on the original poster to make his point first. He wants someone ELSE to do all the work and I’m not biting. And he’s complaining about it. And that’s patently absurd.

Now… let’s try to get down to brass tacks here and bring this around to the REAL issue, as I see it, anyway. Griffin is a conspiratorialist regarding the Fed and thinks all manner of immoral and illegal things are going on at the Fed (again, admittedly, I haven’t read his book). Now, we can argue about what the role of the Fed should be, whether there should be a Fed, etc. etc. These are “policy” issues and are all debatable.

But “investor” seems to be trying to convince us that Griffin is saying that there’s some sort of illegal/immoral/conspiratorial issue with the “flow” of money into and out of the Fed and with and between the Fed and Treasury. And THIS is where I have a problem. Because for this to be true, the Fed would have to have fooled EVERY professor of Money and Banking (and, in fact, most professors of Economics, Finance and Banking, generally, in the world) regarding how the Fed “works.” That’s right – the ENTIRE profession is either (a) in the dark and doesn’t understand, or (b) part of the conspiracy. And that’s where it all breaks down for me. Again, from a “flow” – not a “policy” – perspective. (One could successfully argue from a “policy” perspective that the Fed is largely a tool of the Officialdom and Powers That Be. But, again, we’re discussing a “flow” argument, as “investor” has framed it.)

So, given that there appear to be zero PhD’s that support Certified Financial Planner Griffin’s conspiratorialist musings (again, I don’t like playing the “credentials” card, but…) regarding the Fed, yet there are many who have bothered to take him (and others) to task… I just don’t find myself compelled to spend the time to rebut him until “investor” has put in the time to make his case first. And, under the circumstances, I just don’t feel that this is an unreasonable position. But everyone’s got an opinion.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Veritas]IOUSA How’s that hope and change working for you Obamanites now? “WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, warned on Wednesday that “the federal budget appears to be on an unsustainable path,” but also recognized that the “exceptional increase” in the deficit had been necessary to ease the recession.”

P.S. Go ahead and blame Bush.[/quote]

I will.

I do.

Along with the congress which approved his budgets, which built a much larger piece of the federal deficit than any administration before him, and, at least for the moment, since.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Veritas]IOUSA How’s that hope and change working for you Obamanites now? “WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, warned on Wednesday that “the federal budget appears to be on an unsustainable path,” but also recognized that the “exceptional increase” in the deficit had been necessary to ease the recession.”

P.S. Go ahead and blame Bush.[/quote]

I will.

I do.

Along with the congress which approved his budgets, which built a much larger piece of the federal deficit than any administration before him, and, at least for the moment, since.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Veritas]IOUSA How’s that hope and change working for you Obamanites now? “WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, warned on Wednesday that “the federal budget appears to be on an unsustainable path,” but also recognized that the “exceptional increase” in the deficit had been necessary to ease the recession.”

P.S. Go ahead and blame Bush.[/quote]

I will.

I do.

Along with the congress which approved his budgets, which built a much larger piece of the federal deficit than any administration before him, and, at least for the moment, since.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Veritas]IOUSA How’s that hope and change working for you Obamanites now? “WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, warned on Wednesday that “the federal budget appears to be on an unsustainable path,” but also recognized that the “exceptional increase” in the deficit had been necessary to ease the recession.”

P.S. Go ahead and blame Bush.[/quote]

I will.

I do.

Along with the congress which approved his budgets, which built a much larger piece of the federal deficit than any administration before him, and, at least for the moment, since.

[Author]

Posts