And finally ahhaha ...
You stated:
"The source should consider me because I wrote the book on all this that the authors had to study to become pseudo-qualified to make these silly statements about the functioning of the bank. And let me say right here and now, practically everything you hear about FED and related topics is false, and explicitly misleading. I haven't heard one person in 30 years who understands even the basic operations of the federal reserve system.
With all respect, "pseudo-qualified" about "silly statement about the functioning of the bank" is what I am sensing from your analysis. Obviously, I don't know who you are, and I would definitely not claim to be any expert on Central Bank functioning (though I am very willing to learn), but some of your statement are somewhat dubious. For instance the following:
"And let me say right here and now, practically everything you hear about FED and related topics is false, and explicitly misleading."
Your statement above strikes me as somewhat arrogant. As if you, and you alone, have found the "only right way" to understand the Fed's operation.
But your next statement is really interesting:
"I haven't heard one person in 30 years who understands even the basic operations of the federal reserve system."
... Do you not feel the above statement indicates a very profound and substantial problem with the nature of the Federal Reserve board, and the functioning of the nation's Credit and Banking system? I mean, if you haven't heard "one person in 30 years" who understands "even the basic operations of the federal reserve system", then American society has a real problem ... dare I say monster? ... on its hands. I mean, isn't a public entity (which you claim the Federal Reserve is), supposed to represent the interests of the people? How can it do this if its nature and mechanics are so unbelievably convoluted and secretive (or is it just overly academic and theoretical?) that not "one person in 30 years" can understand "even the basic operations of the federal reserve system".
My own experience in life ... with even the most complex of subject matters ... is there is always a way to explain the even the most complex of topics if the "essence" of a thing is understood, and care is taken to explain it in a common vocabulary free from technical jargon. If such an explanation can not be devised, then either (i) the explainer does not understand the "essence" of the thing, or (ii) it is in someone's interest to confer the belief that the nature of a thing can only be understood by "experts", and therefore participation or involvement of an "average person" is simply beyond the realm of possibility.
Thoughts ahhaha?
Regards,
Glenn |
