[investor]

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

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

In other words: Pot, meet Kettle.

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

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

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

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

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

This whole “compare notes” thing, quite frankly, sounds awfully time consuming from my end. And, more importantly, I don’t really care *that much* what you think you know. Believe what you want – it’s no skin off my back.[/quote]
davelj. you could have read the 6 pages in griffin’s book in less than the time it took to write this blog entry. Your inflammatory language is abrasive and non-productive. Example “Speaking for myself – I just don’t care enough what you think or why you think it to bother. And I doubt anyone else here does either” as well as the last paragraphs above. I have never told you that you are wrong. I have stated that the 6 pages in griffin’s book details the money flow well and is hard to refute. You quote a 50 page article from the fed about how the fed runs. don’t you think that the article may be a little biased since it is written by the same people (the fed) who refuse to be audited? I think that you like to argue more than you like to discuss intelligently since, again, you refuse to spend 10 minutes reading the 6 pages from griffin and spend much time quoting biased sources. your tone is also blantly offensive. you are obviously in need of some etiquette training since you devoid of any. You can make your points without insulting people but since you refuse to engage in a discussion of my sources, your input is not helpful and is in fact negative. You, to put it bluntly, are an arrogant, abrasive know-it-all who doesn’t know it all, refuses to expand by 10 minutes your knowledge base and who likes to argue more than discuss topics. I have thought this for awhile but I have held my opnion back out of respect for this web site. You contribute nothing to intelligent conversation and you take much interaction away. This is why I asked you to stop writing futher entries until you can act like an adult. To other bloggers, please excuse my directness but people like this guy need a hammer over the head before they get any point.

[investor]

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

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

In other words: Pot, meet Kettle.

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

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

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

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

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

This whole “compare notes” thing, quite frankly, sounds awfully time consuming from my end. And, more importantly, I don’t really care *that much* what you think you know. Believe what you want – it’s no skin off my back.[/quote]
davelj. you could have read the 6 pages in griffin’s book in less than the time it took to write this blog entry. Your inflammatory language is abrasive and non-productive. Example “Speaking for myself – I just don’t care enough what you think or why you think it to bother. And I doubt anyone else here does either” as well as the last paragraphs above. I have never told you that you are wrong. I have stated that the 6 pages in griffin’s book details the money flow well and is hard to refute. You quote a 50 page article from the fed about how the fed runs. don’t you think that the article may be a little biased since it is written by the same people (the fed) who refuse to be audited? I think that you like to argue more than you like to discuss intelligently since, again, you refuse to spend 10 minutes reading the 6 pages from griffin and spend much time quoting biased sources. your tone is also blantly offensive. you are obviously in need of some etiquette training since you devoid of any. You can make your points without insulting people but since you refuse to engage in a discussion of my sources, your input is not helpful and is in fact negative. You, to put it bluntly, are an arrogant, abrasive know-it-all who doesn’t know it all, refuses to expand by 10 minutes your knowledge base and who likes to argue more than discuss topics. I have thought this for awhile but I have held my opnion back out of respect for this web site. You contribute nothing to intelligent conversation and you take much interaction away. This is why I asked you to stop writing futher entries until you can act like an adult. To other bloggers, please excuse my directness but people like this guy need a hammer over the head before they get any point.

[investor]

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

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

In other words: Pot, meet Kettle.

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

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

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

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

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

This whole “compare notes” thing, quite frankly, sounds awfully time consuming from my end. And, more importantly, I don’t really care *that much* what you think you know. Believe what you want – it’s no skin off my back.[/quote]
davelj. you could have read the 6 pages in griffin’s book in less than the time it took to write this blog entry. Your inflammatory language is abrasive and non-productive. Example “Speaking for myself – I just don’t care enough what you think or why you think it to bother. And I doubt anyone else here does either” as well as the last paragraphs above. I have never told you that you are wrong. I have stated that the 6 pages in griffin’s book details the money flow well and is hard to refute. You quote a 50 page article from the fed about how the fed runs. don’t you think that the article may be a little biased since it is written by the same people (the fed) who refuse to be audited? I think that you like to argue more than you like to discuss intelligently since, again, you refuse to spend 10 minutes reading the 6 pages from griffin and spend much time quoting biased sources. your tone is also blantly offensive. you are obviously in need of some etiquette training since you devoid of any. You can make your points without insulting people but since you refuse to engage in a discussion of my sources, your input is not helpful and is in fact negative. You, to put it bluntly, are an arrogant, abrasive know-it-all who doesn’t know it all, refuses to expand by 10 minutes your knowledge base and who likes to argue more than discuss topics. I have thought this for awhile but I have held my opnion back out of respect for this web site. You contribute nothing to intelligent conversation and you take much interaction away. This is why I asked you to stop writing futher entries until you can act like an adult. To other bloggers, please excuse my directness but people like this guy need a hammer over the head before they get any point.

[investor]

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

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

In other words: Pot, meet Kettle.

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

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

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

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

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

This whole “compare notes” thing, quite frankly, sounds awfully time consuming from my end. And, more importantly, I don’t really care *that much* what you think you know. Believe what you want – it’s no skin off my back.[/quote]
davelj. you could have read the 6 pages in griffin’s book in less than the time it took to write this blog entry. Your inflammatory language is abrasive and non-productive. Example “Speaking for myself – I just don’t care enough what you think or why you think it to bother. And I doubt anyone else here does either” as well as the last paragraphs above. I have never told you that you are wrong. I have stated that the 6 pages in griffin’s book details the money flow well and is hard to refute. You quote a 50 page article from the fed about how the fed runs. don’t you think that the article may be a little biased since it is written by the same people (the fed) who refuse to be audited? I think that you like to argue more than you like to discuss intelligently since, again, you refuse to spend 10 minutes reading the 6 pages from griffin and spend much time quoting biased sources. your tone is also blantly offensive. you are obviously in need of some etiquette training since you devoid of any. You can make your points without insulting people but since you refuse to engage in a discussion of my sources, your input is not helpful and is in fact negative. You, to put it bluntly, are an arrogant, abrasive know-it-all who doesn’t know it all, refuses to expand by 10 minutes your knowledge base and who likes to argue more than discuss topics. I have thought this for awhile but I have held my opnion back out of respect for this web site. You contribute nothing to intelligent conversation and you take much interaction away. This is why I asked you to stop writing futher entries until you can act like an adult. To other bloggers, please excuse my directness but people like this guy need a hammer over the head before they get any point.

[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=Arraya]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[investor]

[quote=Arraya]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[investor]

[quote=Arraya]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[investor]

[quote=Arraya]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[investor]

[quote=Arraya]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[investor]

[quote=aldante]Well we can discuss history of the Fed all we want but why not talk about the effectiveness of this secret organization?
One small observation that I will make. The Federal Reserve Chairman in MAY of 2008 told this country that we need not worry about the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He also said that we need not worry about a recession. Meanwhile the “anti fed” crowd – Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Marc Faber had been telling us for years that we were in a massive bubble and more importantly why we were in the bubble. They also predicted what would happen! So people on this site think that the Federal Reserve is valuable and are “smart” when it could not even predict the bubble that it created? (Head spinning now……..) This is the greatest financial debacle of our generation (so far). I think the Fed has lost all credibility and must be audited.
There seems to be an underlying current that we “need” the Federal Reserve. If you look at the loss of buying power since 1913 – we need the Federal Reserve like a hole in the head. That is when the Fed was created and depending on who you listen too the dollar has lost 93% of its purchasing power. What does that mean? I think that it means that kids have to take out massive amounts of loans to get a decent education. It means that the single income household is a thing of the past. It means that healthcare costs have skyrocketed. It means that many of us who have been paying into the Social Security system are seriously questioning if we will ever get any $$ back out.[/quote]
exactly. This is why jeferson and jackson fought the idea of a central bank so hard.

[investor]

[quote=aldante]Well we can discuss history of the Fed all we want but why not talk about the effectiveness of this secret organization?
One small observation that I will make. The Federal Reserve Chairman in MAY of 2008 told this country that we need not worry about the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He also said that we need not worry about a recession. Meanwhile the “anti fed” crowd – Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Marc Faber had been telling us for years that we were in a massive bubble and more importantly why we were in the bubble. They also predicted what would happen! So people on this site think that the Federal Reserve is valuable and are “smart” when it could not even predict the bubble that it created? (Head spinning now……..) This is the greatest financial debacle of our generation (so far). I think the Fed has lost all credibility and must be audited.
There seems to be an underlying current that we “need” the Federal Reserve. If you look at the loss of buying power since 1913 – we need the Federal Reserve like a hole in the head. That is when the Fed was created and depending on who you listen too the dollar has lost 93% of its purchasing power. What does that mean? I think that it means that kids have to take out massive amounts of loans to get a decent education. It means that the single income household is a thing of the past. It means that healthcare costs have skyrocketed. It means that many of us who have been paying into the Social Security system are seriously questioning if we will ever get any $$ back out.[/quote]
exactly. This is why jeferson and jackson fought the idea of a central bank so hard.

[investor]

[quote=aldante]Well we can discuss history of the Fed all we want but why not talk about the effectiveness of this secret organization?
One small observation that I will make. The Federal Reserve Chairman in MAY of 2008 told this country that we need not worry about the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He also said that we need not worry about a recession. Meanwhile the “anti fed” crowd – Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Marc Faber had been telling us for years that we were in a massive bubble and more importantly why we were in the bubble. They also predicted what would happen! So people on this site think that the Federal Reserve is valuable and are “smart” when it could not even predict the bubble that it created? (Head spinning now……..) This is the greatest financial debacle of our generation (so far). I think the Fed has lost all credibility and must be audited.
There seems to be an underlying current that we “need” the Federal Reserve. If you look at the loss of buying power since 1913 – we need the Federal Reserve like a hole in the head. That is when the Fed was created and depending on who you listen too the dollar has lost 93% of its purchasing power. What does that mean? I think that it means that kids have to take out massive amounts of loans to get a decent education. It means that the single income household is a thing of the past. It means that healthcare costs have skyrocketed. It means that many of us who have been paying into the Social Security system are seriously questioning if we will ever get any $$ back out.[/quote]
exactly. This is why jeferson and jackson fought the idea of a central bank so hard.

[investor]

[quote=aldante]Well we can discuss history of the Fed all we want but why not talk about the effectiveness of this secret organization?
One small observation that I will make. The Federal Reserve Chairman in MAY of 2008 told this country that we need not worry about the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He also said that we need not worry about a recession. Meanwhile the “anti fed” crowd – Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Marc Faber had been telling us for years that we were in a massive bubble and more importantly why we were in the bubble. They also predicted what would happen! So people on this site think that the Federal Reserve is valuable and are “smart” when it could not even predict the bubble that it created? (Head spinning now……..) This is the greatest financial debacle of our generation (so far). I think the Fed has lost all credibility and must be audited.
There seems to be an underlying current that we “need” the Federal Reserve. If you look at the loss of buying power since 1913 – we need the Federal Reserve like a hole in the head. That is when the Fed was created and depending on who you listen too the dollar has lost 93% of its purchasing power. What does that mean? I think that it means that kids have to take out massive amounts of loans to get a decent education. It means that the single income household is a thing of the past. It means that healthcare costs have skyrocketed. It means that many of us who have been paying into the Social Security system are seriously questioning if we will ever get any $$ back out.[/quote]
exactly. This is why jeferson and jackson fought the idea of a central bank so hard.

[investor]

[quote=aldante]Well we can discuss history of the Fed all we want but why not talk about the effectiveness of this secret organization?
One small observation that I will make. The Federal Reserve Chairman in MAY of 2008 told this country that we need not worry about the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He also said that we need not worry about a recession. Meanwhile the “anti fed” crowd – Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Marc Faber had been telling us for years that we were in a massive bubble and more importantly why we were in the bubble. They also predicted what would happen! So people on this site think that the Federal Reserve is valuable and are “smart” when it could not even predict the bubble that it created? (Head spinning now……..) This is the greatest financial debacle of our generation (so far). I think the Fed has lost all credibility and must be audited.
There seems to be an underlying current that we “need” the Federal Reserve. If you look at the loss of buying power since 1913 – we need the Federal Reserve like a hole in the head. That is when the Fed was created and depending on who you listen too the dollar has lost 93% of its purchasing power. What does that mean? I think that it means that kids have to take out massive amounts of loans to get a decent education. It means that the single income household is a thing of the past. It means that healthcare costs have skyrocketed. It means that many of us who have been paying into the Social Security system are seriously questioning if we will ever get any $$ back out.[/quote]
exactly. This is why jeferson and jackson fought the idea of a central bank so hard.

[Author]

Posts