The Federal Reserve

[Puddy]

No offense to Brent but until wiegie starts wearing beards of yarn on the innerweb I'm going to trust his opinion....just a smudge more.

[Brentastic]

PM an address and I'll send you something. I normally use Hubbard as my base text, but I only have one copy of the most recent edition of that book. I have a few other ones that would be similar (as you noted, most are pretty much the same), so later on this week, I will try to send you something.

 

Now, as for you thinking that I only (or even primarily) get from my information from textbooks, I'm not sure where you get off with that assumption.

 

And as for your assessment of the Fed, yes indeed, I do disagree with you in some aspects. In your historical narrative, you somehow overlook the fact that there were mutliple financial panics between the end of the 2nd Bank of the US and the creation of the Fed (1857, 1873, 1893 & 1907 to be specific). The Fed was actually set up in response to the Panic of 1907. You also seem to suggest that the Fed precipitated fractional reserve banking, but that is just plain wrong. Fractional reserve banking has been around for centuries. As for the Fed being set up to monetize the national debt, it's just not true either.

You mis-interpreted my text - I only stated that we have a fractional reserve system. I never infered that the Fed created it. I don't know when the FR system began but I know it was around in the late 1700s at the very earliest. And your last dispute (backed by nothing factual) is completely wrong. That is exactly what happens when new money is created for government spending - the new money is created by a promise to pay. It's created out of thin air and decreases the value of all the other money in the system. I mean, it's pretty cut and dry - there's really no grey area for interpretation.

[Brentastic]

No offense to Brent but until wiegie starts wearing beards of yarn on the innerweb I'm going to trust his opinion....just a smudge more.

Perception often becomes an internal roadblock to pure truth.

[wiegie]

And your last dispute (backed by nothing factual) is completely wrong. That is exactly what happens when new money is created for government spending - the new money is created by a promise to pay. It's created out of thin air and decreases the value of all the other money in the system. I mean, it's pretty cut and dry - there's really no grey area for interpretation.

Please explain to me how the Fed monetizes debt under a gold standard. (Remember that the Fed was set up two decades before the US went off of the gold standard.)

 

If you are going to argue that the Fed was set up to monetize the debt, you must either explain how it monetizes the debt under the gold standard OR you must convince us that when the Fed was created it was already part of some secret conspiracy that the US would go off of the gold standard twenty years later. And if you are going to argue that, then you are going to need to explain why the US was one of the last major countries to go off of the gold standard during the Great Depression. (Concerning the whole state of central banking in the 1920s and early 1930s, I highly recommend Liaquat Ahamed's Amazon.com: Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke the World.)

[Brentastic]

Please explain to me how the Fed monetizes debt under a gold standard. (Remember that the Fed was set up two decades before the US went off of the gold standard.)

 

If you are going to argue that the Fed was set up to monetize the debt, you must either explain how it monetizes the debt under the gold standard OR you must convince us that when the Fed was created it was already part of some secret conspiracy that the US would go off of the gold standard twenty years later. And if you are going to argue that, then you are going to need to explain why the US was one of the last major countries to go off of the gold standard during the Great Depression. (Concerning the whole state of central banking in the 1920s and early 1930s, I highly recommend Liaquat Ahamed's Amazon.com: Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke the World.)

Wait, are you really saying that the dollar is backed by gold? Cuz it ain't nor has it been since 1933.

 

Originally a dollar was defined as a certain amount of gold. Initially when there was a gold standard you could go to a bank and exchange dollars for gold. Today the US Treasury will not give you anything tangible for your dollars and even though federal notes are considered obligations of the US those notes are not obligations to do anything. These 'notes' are backed by nothing.

 

I'm not saying that the Fed was setup to monetize debt - and whether or not they planned to make gold illegal at some point when they instituted the Fed is another discussion. What I'm saying is monetizing debt is certainly what they do now and what they have done at least since Nixon stopped gold payments to foreigners in exchange for dollars. If nothing tangible is backing the dollar yet new money is being created in the form of phantom checking accounts - then the Fed has simply monetized debt plain and simple.

[Duchess Jack]

Perception often becomes an internal roadblock to pure truth.

shaggy: check

mindless noodler: check

drugs: check

astrology: check

conspiracy theories: check

far out conspiracy theories: check

"the truth man": check

arrogance: check

belittling: check

 

what cartoon network are you trying out for? you're kind of like one of those PETA people that flips out about folk treating animals poorly but fail to see that its not about the animals - its about them - because at the end of the day, they treat the people around them far worse than 99% of the animals in the world are treated. How is it that you can try to play yourself off as deep and seeking the truth but somehow you have zero understanding of people. Is the truth you seek just a jumble of facts - or is it something more profound - because for a guy seeking 'the truth' you seem to lack a basic enough understanding of people to interprit whatever truths you might stumble upon.

 

Did you really just try to drop economic knowlege on Weigie? I get it, you've read some books, articles and/or oped pieces on the econony. You are interested in the economy. Sounds like you know more about the economy than a lot of people. You certainly know more than me - whatever your conclusions might be.

 

But do you honestly think that Weigie doesn't read about the economy on the side too? Do you think that all he reads are text books - or that perhaps as somebody interested enough in the economy to go into his field - he might have done so because he is interested in it? Economics seems to deal with a lot of broad rules of human nature and cause and effect - so economists need to keep their ear to the ground. They need to spot the catalyst for that whole cause and effect thing and that kind of suggests to me that they are paying at least as much attention as you.

 

I can assure you - that he has heard whatever theories you have. Maybe not whatever theories you might have - just the ones grounded enough in reality to actually be considered by an economist. If there was truth there - a truth so clear that it would leave you thinking that the vast majorty of the US is brainwashed and that you are the clear thinking one - he'd have heard it. He'd have read it, observed it, heard it from a colleague or student, heard it debated - etc. Either that or it would have been vetted as trash before it even got to him.

 

But somehow its you in the know and everyone else - including experts on the matter - that are brainwashed.

 

You say you don't care about 'feelings' at this stage. But if its important, shouldn't you? If your message is so important and you feel that it is important that people hear it - than feelings are important as well. So I call BS. I think that you making noise is more important than getting your message across. Otherwise you wouldn't have come out swinging and would have set the stage for more of a teaching enviroment and the exchanging of ideas.

 

Instead - your noise invites emails like this one - that don't address the info you are trying to share, but instead address you being a toolshed.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[bpwallace49]

[Duchess Jack]

 

[Brentastic]

shaggy: check

mindless noodler: check

drugs: check

astrology: check

conspiracy theories: check

far out conspiracy theories: check

"the truth man": check

arrogance: check

belittling: check

 

what cartoon network are you trying out for? you're kind of like one of those PETA people that flips out about folk treating animals poorly but fail to see that its not about the animals - its about them - because at the end of the day, they treat the people around them far worse than 99% of the animals in the world are treated. How is it that you can try to play yourself off as deep and seeking the truth but somehow you have zero understanding of people. Is the truth you seek just a jumble of facts - or is it something more profound - because for a guy seeking 'the truth' you seem to lack a basic enough understanding of people to interprit whatever truths you might stumble upon.

 

Did you really just try to drop economic knowlege on Weigie? I get it, you've read some books, articles and/or oped pieces on the econony. You are interested in the economy. Sounds like you know more about the economy than a lot of people. You certainly know more than me - whatever your conclusions might be.

 

But do you honestly think that Weigie doesn't read about the economy on the side too? Do you think that all he reads are text books - or that perhaps as somebody interested enough in the economy to go into his field - he might have done so because he is interested in it? Economics seems to deal with a lot of broad rules of human nature and cause and effect - so economists need to keep their ear to the ground. They need to spot the catalyst for that whole cause and effect thing and that kind of suggests to me that they are paying at least as much attention as you.

 

I can assure you - that he has heard whatever theories you have. Maybe not whatever theories you might have - just the ones grounded enough in reality to actually be considered by an economist. If there was truth there - a truth so clear that it would leave you thinking that the vast majorty of the US is brainwashed and that you are the clear thinking one - he'd have heard it. He'd have read it, observed it, heard it from a colleague or student, heard it debated - etc. Either that or it would have been vetted as trash before it even got to him.

 

But somehow its you in the know and everyone else - including experts on the matter - that are brainwashed.

 

You say you don't care about 'feelings' at this stage. But if its important, shouldn't you? If your message is so important and you feel that it is important that people hear it - than feelings are important as well. So I call BS. I think that you making noise is more important than getting your message across. Otherwise you wouldn't have come out swinging and would have set the stage for more of a teaching enviroment and the exchanging of ideas.

 

Instead - your noise invites emails like this one - that don't address the info you are trying to share, but instead address you being a toolshed.

Wow, discriminate much? I am not shaggy nor am I a mindless noodler - I write songs with no noodling.

 

My weakness has always been that I'm not sensitive enough to others feelings. I grew up on tough love and was mentally and physically abused most of my childhood - so yeah, my attitude toward 'feelings' is meh. I'm not saying my style is right or best, but it's all I know. I suppose I should work on that if I want to bring awareness to people.

 

Regarding Weige and his knowledge, he's a textbook keynesian economist and he's probably very knowledgeable on that topic. But that's not the only approach to economics nor is it necessarily the 'correct' approach to economics. It's apparent that his views and what he considers truth is nowhere near what I consider truth - my approach is more from the Austrian school. But just because he has a degree in said subject or because he teaches it - doesn't mean his views/teachings/thoughts on the subject are correct. It's not his fault, most American economists are living in a keynesian fantasy land and have been been brain-washed over time that the Fed is necessary to sustain economic growth with minimal recessions and blah blah blah. This belief is false and everyone will soon find out the devastation that has been created from decades of fiscal manipulation. Also, economists are notorious for only dealing with the now - in other words, they have no forecasting ability and only when things are obviously bad, will they point the finger (in hindsight).

 

My problem with Weigie and most americans is that nobody is thinking outside the box. People think they do, but it's an illusion. People who think outside the box mostly question authority, they do not accept it. Outside the box thinkers ask embarassing questions because they do not fear ridicule they only seek truth and they always ask questions. From the moment our government was created, they have attempted and successfully dummied down the masses through every avenue possible.

 

And finally, I didn't come out swinging, I asked a question invited other's answers and then provided my own assesment. I am not the only one in the know, but I think very few people truly seek the truth. There are many intelligent people who share my views, but because the media is controlled by the real rulers of our country, you don't hear much from them - and when you do, it's usually a slanted view aided by ridicule.

 

I will try to work on massaging feelings more, though. You're definitely right on about me with that one.

[Duchess Jack]

Wow, discriminate much? I am not shaggy nor am I a mindless noodler - I write songs with no noodling.

shaggy comes from the only picture I ever saw of you and mindless noodler was a term - with its history involving you here - I thought it would be a fun way to communicate the musician thing. Sorry about the inaccruacy on these two issues.

 

You say that people might think they think outside of the box, but that its an illusion - but not you - whatever you think is clearly not an illusion - just like how its everyone else being brainwashed.

 

Economics aside - I am a big seeker of truth as well - but feel what you see as 'the truth' isn't truth at all but symptoms, window dressing and ad space. Any searching for a truth that doesn't involve a genuine desire to become a better person and some honest to goodness self reflection and evaluation isn't a search for truth at all, but for power. That's not deep - that's vain - so you can cool it with the seeking for the truth, because I don't think that anybody buys it.

 

And you did come out with guns blazing. You set a ball on a tee - waited than went of the offensive. If you know that most people are brainwashed you'd have expected some resistance. If you had a message you wanted to get across and expected resistance - you'd have accepted resistance without feeling the need to strike back so quickly. If you felt that what you had to say is so important that you didn't care if you hurt feelings. You'd have used simple game theory and realized that if you started out open and friendly, that you could always revert to deebag later on - but that if you started out as a deebag that there'd be little chance to trying the other way. You'd effectively cut your chances of getting your point across in half.

 

If that little bit of common sense was so hard to see for you, then you might be best served to take a step back and try to understand the reality that is right there in front of our faces - then to spend your time looking for aliens and geodes

Edited April 18, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[bushwacked]

Nah, I don't worry about 'feelings' at this stage in the game -

 

I wasn't really talking about that as much as your condensation makes it more difficult to take you seriously than it already is.

 

E2A: I forgot to ask you - does my view make any sense to you or are you dellusional too? Since you're not an economist, I presume there's hope for you yet.

 

I'm not an economist but I have a great appreciation of the Method and a disdain for quackery.

Edited April 18, 2010 by bushwacked

[Brentastic]

shaggy comes from the only picture I ever saw of you and mindless noodler was a term - with its history involving you here - I thought it would be a fun way to communicate the musician thing. Sorry about the inaccruacy on these two issues.

 

You say that people might think they think outside of the box, but that its an illusion - but not you - whatever you think is clearly not an illusion - just like how its everyone else being brainwashed.

 

Economics aside - I am a big seeker of truth as well - but feel what you see as 'the truth' isn't truth at all but symptoms, window dressing and ad space. Any searching for a truth that doesn't involve a genuine desire to become a better person and some honest to goodness self reflection and evaluation isn't a search for truth at all, but for power. That's not deep - that's vain - so you can cool it with the seeking for the truth, because I don't think that anybody buys it.

 

And you did come out with guns blazing. You set a ball on a tee - waited than went of the offensive. If you know that most people are brainwashed you'd have expected some resistance. If you had a message you wanted to get across and expected resistance - you'd have accepted resistance without feeling the need to strike back so quickly. If you felt that what you had to say is so important that you didn't care if you hurt feelings. You'd have used simple game theory and realized that if you started out open and friendly, that you could always revert to deebag later on - but that if you started out as a deebag that there'd be little chance to trying the other way. You'd effectively cut your chances of getting your point across in half.

 

If that little bit of common sense was so hard to see for you, then you might be best served to take a step back and try to understand the reality that is right there in front of our faces - then to spend your time looking for aliens and geodes

You're going out on a pretty big limb by inferring I don't have a desire to become a better person and that I lack an ability to evaluate myself. You know nothing about me, where I've been or where I'm at now - and you look like a fool for insinuating otherwise. This is a discussion on a message board about the Federal Reserve and you're now challenging my character and what I stand for and how I approach my search for truth. Nobody is perfect and there is always room for improvement - I realize that, but apparently your previous post suggests you don't comprehend this - I guess I should be flattered that you expect more from me. I have not made it a practice to properly convey my thoughts to where I can successfully garner the most support. And although I desire more people to think for themselves, that desire is less pressing than seeking my own satisfaction. I guess I'm guilty of being selfish.

 

Please tell me how I was offensive or inappropriate in my posts? I stated my take on the Fed and there was nothing more to it than that. Weige belittles me all the time as he hides behind a widely-accepted theory on economics but that's ok because he has the support of the masses. However, when someboday has a contrarian opinion (I have many), the general reaction is ridicule - so I guess you could say I do have a little bit of a chip on my shoulder because I've see the patterened reactions. It doesn't mean I have to change my approach, maybe I like the abuse. My approach has nothing to do with common sense - you're approaching this from your angle, I'm approaching it from mine. I'm trying to search for my own truth, and my approach will never be ideal for you or anybody else, only me. I will learn from mistakes along the way and realize I am far from perfect.

 

None of this changes the fact that there's a diaper dirt storm brewing in our American economy and few people understand what's really going on.

[Brentastic]

I wasn't really talking about that as much as your condensation makes it more difficult to take you seriously than it already is.

 

 

 

I'm not an economist but I have a great appreciation of the Method and a disdain for quackery.

My description of the Fed is not quackery, it is backed by facts. Do your own research and see what you find.

 

Go back and read what Weigie described as the Feds function and then research HOW they accomplish those goals. Did you notice Weigie provided no evidence on how they supposedly accomplish those functions? I mean, anyone can make a list of functions but if it's not backed by evidence, it's just a list.

 

Then read my description of the Fed and notice how I provide exactly what the fed does (actions) to accomplish those functions - again, do follow up research on your own to see if you can dispute any of my facts.

 

Weigie is a great guy and all and I don't think he's intentionally lying - I just think he's a product of the system, like almost everybody is. All I'm saying, is if you think what I wrote is quackery, then you've either failed to do any research and are only basing that thought on your perception of me. OR you are also victim of the system and you have no ability to comprehend contrarian opinions and think for yourself. OR, finally, you don't know how to read. I'm fairly confident that if none of those reasons apply to you - then you would have accept my definition of what the Fed's function currently is in our economy.

 

It's important to remember that the FED may appear to be large and complex but it's still a bank. The FED will not do anything to jeopardize it's future or it's own portfolio.

 

Bottom line - the Fed and the US govt encouraged all the bad lending practices and the bad loans that resulted from it. By the end of this depression, people will see (even economists like Weigie) that the Fed is only interested in sustaining itself.

[skylive5]

I have been keeping up with this from the get go and I have come to some conclusions.

 

If I do not believe, as an absolute truth, what Brentastic says, I am an unthinking product of the system.

 

Wiegie, a Professor of Economics, and all around great person, is a lying product of said system and thus should be disrespected and disbelieved by all who believe as Brentastic does.

 

Those that do not believe as Brentastic believes are not able to handle the "truth" and thus are doomed to a life of woe.

 

 

So.... even though I like Wiegie, and always have, and even though I enjoy his economics threads greatly, I do not want to be a product of the system or live a life of woe..... so I have decided to believe, without reservation, that Brentastic speaks the absolute truth and that everyone else is an idiot for not doing so.

 

Whew.... I feel saved.

[Jackass]

And although I desire more people to think for themselves, that desire is less pressing than seeking my own satisfaction. I guess I'm guilty of being selfish.

 

Just because your opinion is in the minority and is "contrarian" does not mean that you are thinking for yourself and noone else is. That's rather egotistical.

[Duchess Jack]

post whatever you want - how ever you want. you're the guy who bought your search for truth into this and you seem to see your search for truth as reason enough to insult others. I mean - other people know things too - but according to you they are brain washed and if they think they are thinking outside of the box, its only an illusion. The only difference between you and other people seems to be that you think that you are on some grand quest for truth. And somehow that makes your opinion and observations right and allows you to say when folk are being delutional.

 

it seemed like fair game to try to understand if your search for truth provided you not only the ability to say who is and who is not brainwashed, but also a guide on how to use the power responsibly. Its got to be hard, with 'truth' meaning different things to different people - to know when to drop that imaginary hammer that invalidates somebody else's point of view for no other reason than because you decide its not relevant. I guess I was not so much questioning your character as I was trying to better understand the truths it follows

 

that's all I was saying. the finance talk is actually interesting. I enjoy what can be learned from the point counter point.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[wiegie]

Weige belittles me all the time

what?

 

I belittle you?!? I strongly encourage you to reread our posts.

[wiegie]

By the end of this depression, people will see (even economists like Weigie) that the Fed is only interested in sustaining itself.

Here is the thing, Brent... you seem to think that I have never even considered the views that you are raising. But in fact, over the course of the last two decades or so, I actually have considered many of the ideas you are now promoting. For instance, concerning your point above, the quote below is posted directly out of my Money and Banking lecture notes:

What motivates the Fed?

1) Public-interest view:

FED wants to help the public through low inflation and high employment

2) Principle-agent view:

Fed acts in its own self-interests

--like any other economic agent

In class I then go on and discuss the evidence for both points of view.

 

And the same is true for many of the other points about the Fed you have raised in this thread.

 

It's not so much that I have been brainwashed into thinking the things that I do, it's that I have actually researched the issues and have concluded that the things I believe are much more likely to be correct than much of the things you are talking about. If new evidence comes up that shows that my current thinking is wrong, I will change my beliefs... but as it is right now, I have not seen evidence that your beliefs are correct.

 

(And one more thing, I consider myself a fairly Neo-Classical economist (perhaps with an institutionalist bent), but I would not really call myself a Keynesian. (In fact, I don't even teach the standard Keynesian models in any of my classes).)

[BillyBalata]

I have been keeping up with this from the get go and I have come to some conclusions.

 

If I do not believe, as an absolute truth, what Brentastic says, I am an unthinking product of the system.

 

Wiegie, a Professor of Economics, and all around great person, is a lying product of said system and thus should be disrespected and disbelieved by all who believe as Brentastic does.

 

Those that do not believe as Brentastic believes are not able to handle the "truth" and thus are doomed to a life of woe.

 

 

So.... even though I like Wiegie, and always have, and even though I enjoy his economics threads greatly, I do not want to be a product of the system or live a life of woe..... so I have decided to believe, without reservation, that Brentastic speaks the absolute truth and that everyone else is an idiot for not doing so.

 

Whew.... I feel saved.

 

 

Well said. The only thing left for you to do is light up a joint.

[Ursa Majoris]

Well said. The only thing left for you to do is light up a joint.

And make a video of himself noodling playing guitar

[Brentastic]

post whatever you want - how ever you want. you're the guy who bought your search for truth into this and you seem to see your search for truth as reason enough to insult others. I mean - other people know things too - but according to you they are brain washed and if they think they are thinking outside of the box, its only an illusion. The only difference between you and other people seems to be that you think that you are on some grand quest for truth. And somehow that makes your opinion and observations right and allows you to say when folk are being delutional.

 

it seemed like fair game to try to understand if your search for truth provided you not only the ability to say who is and who is not brainwashed, but also a guide on how to use the power responsibly. Its got to be hard, with 'truth' meaning different things to different people - to know when to drop that imaginary hammer that invalidates somebody else's point of view for no other reason than because you decide its not relevant. I guess I was not so much questioning your character as I was trying to better understand the truths it follows

 

that's all I was saying. the finance talk is actually interesting. I enjoy what can be learned from the point counter point.

Fair enough. I know I can come across as arrogant, it's a challenge for me to find a better way to speak my thoughts and ideas. All I can say is I'm working on it. When you grow up constantly being told you're worthless and then realize that is not true, it breeds an constant chip on your shoulder. I actually appreciate your posts.

[Brentastic]

Here is the thing, Brent... you seem to think that I have never even considered the views that you are raising. But in fact, over the course of the last two decades or so, I actually have considered many of the ideas you are now promoting. For instance, concerning your point above, the quote below is posted directly out of my Money and Banking lecture notes:

 

In class I then go on and discuss the evidence for both points of view.

 

And the same is true for many of the other points about the Fed you have raised in this thread.

 

It's not so much that I have been brainwashed into thinking the things that I do, it's that I have actually researched the issues and have concluded that the things I believe are much more likely to be correct than much of the things you are talking about. If new evidence comes up that shows that my current thinking is wrong, I will change my beliefs... but as it is right now, I have not seen evidence that your beliefs are correct.

 

(And one more thing, I consider myself a fairly Neo-Classical economist (perhaps with an institutionalist bent), but I would not really call myself a Keynesian. (In fact, I don't even teach the standard Keynesian models in any of my classes).)

Fair enough as well.

 

I'm an overly passionate person, I think that much is clear with me. Please don't mistake it as disdain for you - I like you. We just have vastly different opinions on the economy.

[wiegie]

Please don't mistake it as disdain for you - I like you.

Never thought that for a minute (the feeling is likewise... if I didn't like you, I wouldn't have offered to send you a textbook, I would have driven over to Chicago and popped you in the grill with one)

Edited April 18, 2010 by wiegie

[Duchess Jack]

Fair enough. I know I can come across as arrogant, it's a challenge for me to find a better way to speak my thoughts and ideas. All I can say is I'm working on it. When you grow up constantly being told you're worthless and then realize that is not true, it breeds an constant chip on your shoulder. I actually appreciate your posts.

cool. thanks for opening up a little. I know I get overly passionate about things here and there as well and deep down I appriciate when people point it out - I might not act as such at the time - but I certainly appriciate the chance to adjust my tone. I find most of the time - I don't mean to be coming across as I do - so I tend to be unaware of it. So - somebody pointing it out is a very important oppertunity for growth for me.

 

with that said - you do seem to know a bit about economics and you know a hell of a lot more than I do. I was surprised when I started reading that from you as it only seems to be a recent thing . perhaps I missed prior posts where you mentioned your interest in economics and the market

[Brentastic]

cool. thanks for opening up a little. I know I get overly passionate about things here and there as well and deep down I appriciate when people point it out - I might not act as such at the time - but I certainly appriciate the chance to adjust my tone. I find most of the time - I don't mean to be coming across as I do - so I tend to be unaware of it. So - somebody pointing it out is a very important oppertunity for growth for me.

 

with that said - you do seem to know a bit about economics and you know a hell of a lot more than I do. I was surprised when I started reading that from you as it only seems to be a recent thing . perhaps I missed prior posts where you mentioned your interest in economics and the market

It is sort of a recent love affair. I did get my B.S. in Finance, which required a fair amount of economics (which I loved more than my finance classes). After school, I was a trader for a few years. Then I took about 4 years off from anything market related. The 2008 crash peaked my interest and so I started getting into the market again right around the bottom last March. This time with a much different approach and a stronger passion for it. I finally transferred all of my passion for FF analysis into the market - which is a much better use of time.