[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor]Not that I don’t appreciate degrees. (I have more that you and Dave from Fallbrook combined, by the way.)[/quote]

I happen to think degrees are over-rated, myself. However, since YOU brought it up, I’ve got separate graduate degrees in business, finance and banking as well as an undergraduate degree in economics. So, that’s four right there. I’m going to bet that SK in CV has at least one degree, so that’s at least five between the two of us. So, do tell me about the six degrees that you have… Enquiring minds and all.[/quote]
Two doctorates, totaling 16 years of collage. But congrates on yours, that is alot of work and you should be proud of them. (I’m not being sarcastic either).

[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor]Not that I don’t appreciate degrees. (I have more that you and Dave from Fallbrook combined, by the way.)[/quote]

I happen to think degrees are over-rated, myself. However, since YOU brought it up, I’ve got separate graduate degrees in business, finance and banking as well as an undergraduate degree in economics. So, that’s four right there. I’m going to bet that SK in CV has at least one degree, so that’s at least five between the two of us. So, do tell me about the six degrees that you have… Enquiring minds and all.[/quote]
Two doctorates, totaling 16 years of collage. But congrates on yours, that is alot of work and you should be proud of them. (I’m not being sarcastic either).

[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor]Not that I don’t appreciate degrees. (I have more that you and Dave from Fallbrook combined, by the way.)[/quote]

I happen to think degrees are over-rated, myself. However, since YOU brought it up, I’ve got separate graduate degrees in business, finance and banking as well as an undergraduate degree in economics. So, that’s four right there. I’m going to bet that SK in CV has at least one degree, so that’s at least five between the two of us. So, do tell me about the six degrees that you have… Enquiring minds and all.[/quote]
Two doctorates, totaling 16 years of collage. But congrates on yours, that is alot of work and you should be proud of them. (I’m not being sarcastic either).

[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor]Not that I don’t appreciate degrees. (I have more that you and Dave from Fallbrook combined, by the way.)[/quote]

I happen to think degrees are over-rated, myself. However, since YOU brought it up, I’ve got separate graduate degrees in business, finance and banking as well as an undergraduate degree in economics. So, that’s four right there. I’m going to bet that SK in CV has at least one degree, so that’s at least five between the two of us. So, do tell me about the six degrees that you have… Enquiring minds and all.[/quote]
Two doctorates, totaling 16 years of collage. But congrates on yours, that is alot of work and you should be proud of them. (I’m not being sarcastic either).

[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor]Not that I don’t appreciate degrees. (I have more that you and Dave from Fallbrook combined, by the way.)[/quote]

I happen to think degrees are over-rated, myself. However, since YOU brought it up, I’ve got separate graduate degrees in business, finance and banking as well as an undergraduate degree in economics. So, that’s four right there. I’m going to bet that SK in CV has at least one degree, so that’s at least five between the two of us. So, do tell me about the six degrees that you have… Enquiring minds and all.[/quote]
Two doctorates, totaling 16 years of collage. But congrates on yours, that is alot of work and you should be proud of them. (I’m not being sarcastic either).

[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor][quote=davelj][quote=investor]People fighting griffin’s ideas just don’t want to question their own firmly held beliefs and get angry when you do. So what. Close mindedness is never appealing risk…[/quote]

Pot calls kettle black.

You Conveniently disappeared for a few months after you last brought up Griffin and I pointed out in clear prose – using his own words – that this man does not even understand the basics of banking. Please feel free to pick up the thread.

http://piggington.com/do_you_know_what_the_federal_reserve_is?page=4%5B/quote%5D
davelj. I work for a living. I cannot spend much of my time writing blogs. My blogs are more to enhance interest in subjects rather that stupidly arguing with you and dave from fallbrook. Both of you waste my time with your off the mark replies. But, I’ll try again. [/quote]

Ah yes, you work for a living. I forgot. So all of those conference calls with George Soros and Seth Klarman kept you away from the Pigg. Understand completely.

I actually work too. In fact, I’m away from the Pigg for months at a time as well, in various stretches. But I’m sensitive to following up on questions/comments that people have regarding comments that I MAKE in THREADS THAT I START. I don’t let those drop if the thread is still active. But that’s just me.

So, I think the best thing to do is just to re-activate the original thread so that you can pick up where you left off.[/quote]
George soros? boy, have you got me wrong. George Soros, in my book, is the main reason we have the socialistic trends in the federal Government right now. Not something, a die hard capitilist like me likes.

[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor][quote=davelj][quote=investor]People fighting griffin’s ideas just don’t want to question their own firmly held beliefs and get angry when you do. So what. Close mindedness is never appealing risk…[/quote]

Pot calls kettle black.

You Conveniently disappeared for a few months after you last brought up Griffin and I pointed out in clear prose – using his own words – that this man does not even understand the basics of banking. Please feel free to pick up the thread.

http://piggington.com/do_you_know_what_the_federal_reserve_is?page=4%5B/quote%5D
davelj. I work for a living. I cannot spend much of my time writing blogs. My blogs are more to enhance interest in subjects rather that stupidly arguing with you and dave from fallbrook. Both of you waste my time with your off the mark replies. But, I’ll try again. [/quote]

Ah yes, you work for a living. I forgot. So all of those conference calls with George Soros and Seth Klarman kept you away from the Pigg. Understand completely.

I actually work too. In fact, I’m away from the Pigg for months at a time as well, in various stretches. But I’m sensitive to following up on questions/comments that people have regarding comments that I MAKE in THREADS THAT I START. I don’t let those drop if the thread is still active. But that’s just me.

So, I think the best thing to do is just to re-activate the original thread so that you can pick up where you left off.[/quote]
George soros? boy, have you got me wrong. George Soros, in my book, is the main reason we have the socialistic trends in the federal Government right now. Not something, a die hard capitilist like me likes.

[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor][quote=davelj][quote=investor]People fighting griffin’s ideas just don’t want to question their own firmly held beliefs and get angry when you do. So what. Close mindedness is never appealing risk…[/quote]

Pot calls kettle black.

You Conveniently disappeared for a few months after you last brought up Griffin and I pointed out in clear prose – using his own words – that this man does not even understand the basics of banking. Please feel free to pick up the thread.

http://piggington.com/do_you_know_what_the_federal_reserve_is?page=4%5B/quote%5D
davelj. I work for a living. I cannot spend much of my time writing blogs. My blogs are more to enhance interest in subjects rather that stupidly arguing with you and dave from fallbrook. Both of you waste my time with your off the mark replies. But, I’ll try again. [/quote]

Ah yes, you work for a living. I forgot. So all of those conference calls with George Soros and Seth Klarman kept you away from the Pigg. Understand completely.

I actually work too. In fact, I’m away from the Pigg for months at a time as well, in various stretches. But I’m sensitive to following up on questions/comments that people have regarding comments that I MAKE in THREADS THAT I START. I don’t let those drop if the thread is still active. But that’s just me.

So, I think the best thing to do is just to re-activate the original thread so that you can pick up where you left off.[/quote]
George soros? boy, have you got me wrong. George Soros, in my book, is the main reason we have the socialistic trends in the federal Government right now. Not something, a die hard capitilist like me likes.

[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor][quote=davelj][quote=investor]People fighting griffin’s ideas just don’t want to question their own firmly held beliefs and get angry when you do. So what. Close mindedness is never appealing risk…[/quote]

Pot calls kettle black.

You Conveniently disappeared for a few months after you last brought up Griffin and I pointed out in clear prose – using his own words – that this man does not even understand the basics of banking. Please feel free to pick up the thread.

http://piggington.com/do_you_know_what_the_federal_reserve_is?page=4%5B/quote%5D
davelj. I work for a living. I cannot spend much of my time writing blogs. My blogs are more to enhance interest in subjects rather that stupidly arguing with you and dave from fallbrook. Both of you waste my time with your off the mark replies. But, I’ll try again. [/quote]

Ah yes, you work for a living. I forgot. So all of those conference calls with George Soros and Seth Klarman kept you away from the Pigg. Understand completely.

I actually work too. In fact, I’m away from the Pigg for months at a time as well, in various stretches. But I’m sensitive to following up on questions/comments that people have regarding comments that I MAKE in THREADS THAT I START. I don’t let those drop if the thread is still active. But that’s just me.

So, I think the best thing to do is just to re-activate the original thread so that you can pick up where you left off.[/quote]
George soros? boy, have you got me wrong. George Soros, in my book, is the main reason we have the socialistic trends in the federal Government right now. Not something, a die hard capitilist like me likes.

[investor]

[quote=davelj][quote=investor][quote=davelj][quote=investor]People fighting griffin’s ideas just don’t want to question their own firmly held beliefs and get angry when you do. So what. Close mindedness is never appealing risk…[/quote]

Pot calls kettle black.

You Conveniently disappeared for a few months after you last brought up Griffin and I pointed out in clear prose – using his own words – that this man does not even understand the basics of banking. Please feel free to pick up the thread.

http://piggington.com/do_you_know_what_the_federal_reserve_is?page=4%5B/quote%5D
davelj. I work for a living. I cannot spend much of my time writing blogs. My blogs are more to enhance interest in subjects rather that stupidly arguing with you and dave from fallbrook. Both of you waste my time with your off the mark replies. But, I’ll try again. [/quote]

Ah yes, you work for a living. I forgot. So all of those conference calls with George Soros and Seth Klarman kept you away from the Pigg. Understand completely.

I actually work too. In fact, I’m away from the Pigg for months at a time as well, in various stretches. But I’m sensitive to following up on questions/comments that people have regarding comments that I MAKE in THREADS THAT I START. I don’t let those drop if the thread is still active. But that’s just me.

So, I think the best thing to do is just to re-activate the original thread so that you can pick up where you left off.[/quote]
George soros? boy, have you got me wrong. George Soros, in my book, is the main reason we have the socialistic trends in the federal Government right now. Not something, a die hard capitilist like me likes.

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]Cute. Answer me this, why has the organization that controls the money in the US never been audited to see who owns what and who is making money off of the selling of our money? [/quote]

It HAS been audited. In fact, every single year. The profits are divided, with substantially all of the profits going to the federal government, with a relatively small amount going to pay dividends to the shareholder banks at a statutory rate based on their investment. (I believe it’s 4%) While the specific ownership isn’t public record, the no member banks are getting rich with that dividend. There may be information you want. It won’t be revealed in any kind of audit. It isn’t in the flow of specific dollars, or in any Fed transactions. It’s in the policy.

(And I haven’t read griffen’s book. But if you have accurately portrayed his arguments, he’s a moron. Most of these claims are just too easily debunked.)[/quote]
The main assertion of griffin, Robert kiosk, bill still, ron Paul is that it has not been audited thoroughly. We do not know how much of the interest paid to the fed is forwarded to the treasury. You are a CPA and, I believe, blinded to defending the accounting profession. How can you say it has been audited when so many others say it has not? If the fed is keeping much of the interest paid to it, that is what I think we need to find out. There is no more powerful thing in the world except for the money supply. It should be the most openly discussed entity there is since it is so powerful. There is a long history of central bank mis-behavior going back to the beginnings of this country. (Look up “money matters” by bill still on DVD at Amazon. COM.) Dave from Fallbrook gave a long discussion about what a liability/ asset is in an earlier post based on what griffin said in those 6 pages. Dave missed the entire meaning of griffin’s writings. Griffin said that the whole movement of money between the fed/ treasury/ banks and to us is not meant to make sense. It is designed to confuse. Dave missed that point entirely; in fact supporting it by saying that griffin’s description of movement did not make sense. In my experience, trying to understand a business’s worth/ how it operates is all about following the money. Accountants don’t necessarily understand investing. Two different subjects entirely. You say it is in the fed policy to keep 6% (not 4%) is in their policy. Do they do it? That is the basis for the need to audit the fed, not what has been done up until now. I guess Ron Paul is an idiot and doesn’t understand that the fed has been audited completely as you say. I guess he is just grandstanding. Frankly, I take his word over yours. I am not a CPA so I have to read many books on the subject. Sometimes a new approach, unencumbered by potential biases from degrees may be an advantage, which is what griffin is saying about himself. Not that I don’t appreciate degrees. (I have more that you and Dave from Fallbrook combined, by the way.)

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]Cute. Answer me this, why has the organization that controls the money in the US never been audited to see who owns what and who is making money off of the selling of our money? [/quote]

It HAS been audited. In fact, every single year. The profits are divided, with substantially all of the profits going to the federal government, with a relatively small amount going to pay dividends to the shareholder banks at a statutory rate based on their investment. (I believe it’s 4%) While the specific ownership isn’t public record, the no member banks are getting rich with that dividend. There may be information you want. It won’t be revealed in any kind of audit. It isn’t in the flow of specific dollars, or in any Fed transactions. It’s in the policy.

(And I haven’t read griffen’s book. But if you have accurately portrayed his arguments, he’s a moron. Most of these claims are just too easily debunked.)[/quote]
The main assertion of griffin, Robert kiosk, bill still, ron Paul is that it has not been audited thoroughly. We do not know how much of the interest paid to the fed is forwarded to the treasury. You are a CPA and, I believe, blinded to defending the accounting profession. How can you say it has been audited when so many others say it has not? If the fed is keeping much of the interest paid to it, that is what I think we need to find out. There is no more powerful thing in the world except for the money supply. It should be the most openly discussed entity there is since it is so powerful. There is a long history of central bank mis-behavior going back to the beginnings of this country. (Look up “money matters” by bill still on DVD at Amazon. COM.) Dave from Fallbrook gave a long discussion about what a liability/ asset is in an earlier post based on what griffin said in those 6 pages. Dave missed the entire meaning of griffin’s writings. Griffin said that the whole movement of money between the fed/ treasury/ banks and to us is not meant to make sense. It is designed to confuse. Dave missed that point entirely; in fact supporting it by saying that griffin’s description of movement did not make sense. In my experience, trying to understand a business’s worth/ how it operates is all about following the money. Accountants don’t necessarily understand investing. Two different subjects entirely. You say it is in the fed policy to keep 6% (not 4%) is in their policy. Do they do it? That is the basis for the need to audit the fed, not what has been done up until now. I guess Ron Paul is an idiot and doesn’t understand that the fed has been audited completely as you say. I guess he is just grandstanding. Frankly, I take his word over yours. I am not a CPA so I have to read many books on the subject. Sometimes a new approach, unencumbered by potential biases from degrees may be an advantage, which is what griffin is saying about himself. Not that I don’t appreciate degrees. (I have more that you and Dave from Fallbrook combined, by the way.)

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]Cute. Answer me this, why has the organization that controls the money in the US never been audited to see who owns what and who is making money off of the selling of our money? [/quote]

It HAS been audited. In fact, every single year. The profits are divided, with substantially all of the profits going to the federal government, with a relatively small amount going to pay dividends to the shareholder banks at a statutory rate based on their investment. (I believe it’s 4%) While the specific ownership isn’t public record, the no member banks are getting rich with that dividend. There may be information you want. It won’t be revealed in any kind of audit. It isn’t in the flow of specific dollars, or in any Fed transactions. It’s in the policy.

(And I haven’t read griffen’s book. But if you have accurately portrayed his arguments, he’s a moron. Most of these claims are just too easily debunked.)[/quote]
The main assertion of griffin, Robert kiosk, bill still, ron Paul is that it has not been audited thoroughly. We do not know how much of the interest paid to the fed is forwarded to the treasury. You are a CPA and, I believe, blinded to defending the accounting profession. How can you say it has been audited when so many others say it has not? If the fed is keeping much of the interest paid to it, that is what I think we need to find out. There is no more powerful thing in the world except for the money supply. It should be the most openly discussed entity there is since it is so powerful. There is a long history of central bank mis-behavior going back to the beginnings of this country. (Look up “money matters” by bill still on DVD at Amazon. COM.) Dave from Fallbrook gave a long discussion about what a liability/ asset is in an earlier post based on what griffin said in those 6 pages. Dave missed the entire meaning of griffin’s writings. Griffin said that the whole movement of money between the fed/ treasury/ banks and to us is not meant to make sense. It is designed to confuse. Dave missed that point entirely; in fact supporting it by saying that griffin’s description of movement did not make sense. In my experience, trying to understand a business’s worth/ how it operates is all about following the money. Accountants don’t necessarily understand investing. Two different subjects entirely. You say it is in the fed policy to keep 6% (not 4%) is in their policy. Do they do it? That is the basis for the need to audit the fed, not what has been done up until now. I guess Ron Paul is an idiot and doesn’t understand that the fed has been audited completely as you say. I guess he is just grandstanding. Frankly, I take his word over yours. I am not a CPA so I have to read many books on the subject. Sometimes a new approach, unencumbered by potential biases from degrees may be an advantage, which is what griffin is saying about himself. Not that I don’t appreciate degrees. (I have more that you and Dave from Fallbrook combined, by the way.)

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]Cute. Answer me this, why has the organization that controls the money in the US never been audited to see who owns what and who is making money off of the selling of our money? [/quote]

It HAS been audited. In fact, every single year. The profits are divided, with substantially all of the profits going to the federal government, with a relatively small amount going to pay dividends to the shareholder banks at a statutory rate based on their investment. (I believe it’s 4%) While the specific ownership isn’t public record, the no member banks are getting rich with that dividend. There may be information you want. It won’t be revealed in any kind of audit. It isn’t in the flow of specific dollars, or in any Fed transactions. It’s in the policy.

(And I haven’t read griffen’s book. But if you have accurately portrayed his arguments, he’s a moron. Most of these claims are just too easily debunked.)[/quote]
The main assertion of griffin, Robert kiosk, bill still, ron Paul is that it has not been audited thoroughly. We do not know how much of the interest paid to the fed is forwarded to the treasury. You are a CPA and, I believe, blinded to defending the accounting profession. How can you say it has been audited when so many others say it has not? If the fed is keeping much of the interest paid to it, that is what I think we need to find out. There is no more powerful thing in the world except for the money supply. It should be the most openly discussed entity there is since it is so powerful. There is a long history of central bank mis-behavior going back to the beginnings of this country. (Look up “money matters” by bill still on DVD at Amazon. COM.) Dave from Fallbrook gave a long discussion about what a liability/ asset is in an earlier post based on what griffin said in those 6 pages. Dave missed the entire meaning of griffin’s writings. Griffin said that the whole movement of money between the fed/ treasury/ banks and to us is not meant to make sense. It is designed to confuse. Dave missed that point entirely; in fact supporting it by saying that griffin’s description of movement did not make sense. In my experience, trying to understand a business’s worth/ how it operates is all about following the money. Accountants don’t necessarily understand investing. Two different subjects entirely. You say it is in the fed policy to keep 6% (not 4%) is in their policy. Do they do it? That is the basis for the need to audit the fed, not what has been done up until now. I guess Ron Paul is an idiot and doesn’t understand that the fed has been audited completely as you say. I guess he is just grandstanding. Frankly, I take his word over yours. I am not a CPA so I have to read many books on the subject. Sometimes a new approach, unencumbered by potential biases from degrees may be an advantage, which is what griffin is saying about himself. Not that I don’t appreciate degrees. (I have more that you and Dave from Fallbrook combined, by the way.)

[investor]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=investor]Cute. Answer me this, why has the organization that controls the money in the US never been audited to see who owns what and who is making money off of the selling of our money? [/quote]

It HAS been audited. In fact, every single year. The profits are divided, with substantially all of the profits going to the federal government, with a relatively small amount going to pay dividends to the shareholder banks at a statutory rate based on their investment. (I believe it’s 4%) While the specific ownership isn’t public record, the no member banks are getting rich with that dividend. There may be information you want. It won’t be revealed in any kind of audit. It isn’t in the flow of specific dollars, or in any Fed transactions. It’s in the policy.

(And I haven’t read griffen’s book. But if you have accurately portrayed his arguments, he’s a moron. Most of these claims are just too easily debunked.)[/quote]
The main assertion of griffin, Robert kiosk, bill still, ron Paul is that it has not been audited thoroughly. We do not know how much of the interest paid to the fed is forwarded to the treasury. You are a CPA and, I believe, blinded to defending the accounting profession. How can you say it has been audited when so many others say it has not? If the fed is keeping much of the interest paid to it, that is what I think we need to find out. There is no more powerful thing in the world except for the money supply. It should be the most openly discussed entity there is since it is so powerful. There is a long history of central bank mis-behavior going back to the beginnings of this country. (Look up “money matters” by bill still on DVD at Amazon. COM.) Dave from Fallbrook gave a long discussion about what a liability/ asset is in an earlier post based on what griffin said in those 6 pages. Dave missed the entire meaning of griffin’s writings. Griffin said that the whole movement of money between the fed/ treasury/ banks and to us is not meant to make sense. It is designed to confuse. Dave missed that point entirely; in fact supporting it by saying that griffin’s description of movement did not make sense. In my experience, trying to understand a business’s worth/ how it operates is all about following the money. Accountants don’t necessarily understand investing. Two different subjects entirely. You say it is in the fed policy to keep 6% (not 4%) is in their policy. Do they do it? That is the basis for the need to audit the fed, not what has been done up until now. I guess Ron Paul is an idiot and doesn’t understand that the fed has been audited completely as you say. I guess he is just grandstanding. Frankly, I take his word over yours. I am not a CPA so I have to read many books on the subject. Sometimes a new approach, unencumbered by potential biases from degrees may be an advantage, which is what griffin is saying about himself. Not that I don’t appreciate degrees. (I have more that you and Dave from Fallbrook combined, by the way.)

[Author]

Posts