March FOMC Minutes: No Need To Taper QE2, GDP Outlook Revised Lower

Tyler Durden's picture

Key Highlights:

  • GDP revised modestly lower from January meeting on surging commodity prices
  • FOMC sees stronger recovery, higher inflation
  • Fed officials divided over tighter policy
  • Almost all Fed officials saw no need to taper QE2 buying

On inflation: "Sizable increases in prices of crude oil and other commodities pushed up headline inflation, but measures of  underlying inflation were subdued and longer-run inflation expectations remained stable."

"The staff revised up its projection for consumer price inflation in the near term, largely because of the recent increases in the prices of energy and food. However, in light of the projected persistence of slack in labor and product markets and the anticipated stability in longterm inflation expectations, the increase in inflation was expected to be mostly transitory if oil and other commodity prices did not rise significantly further. As a result, the forecast for consumer price inflation over the medium run was little changed relative to that prepared for the January meeting."

On ECB hiking: "The European Central Bank (ECB) left its benchmark policy rate unchanged at its March meeting, but the emphasis on upside risks to inflation at the postmeeting press conference led market participants to infer that the ECB might well tighten policy at its meeting in April."

On UK hiking: "In the United Kingdom, market-based readings on expected policy rates indicated that investors anticipated some tightening of policy before the end of this year."

On Brian Sack's QE2 Progress Update: "Since November, purchases by the Open Market Desk of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had increased the SOMA’s holdings by $310 billion. The Manager reported that achieving an increase of $600 billion in SOMA holdings by the end of June 2011 would require continuing to purchase additional securities at an unchanged pace of about $80 billion per month. There were no open market operations in foreign currencies for the System’s account over the intermeeting period. By unanimous vote, the Committee ratified the Desk’s transactions over the intermeeting period."

On labor: "The labor market continued to show signs of firming. Private nonfarm payroll employment rose noticeably in February after a small increase in January, with the swing in hiring likely magnified by widespread snowstorms, which may have held down the employment figure for January. Initial claims for unemployment insurance trended lower through early March,  and surveys of hiring plans had improved this year. The unemployment rate dropped markedly in January after a similar decrease in the preceding month, then ticked down to 8.9 percent in February; the labor force participation rate was roughly flat in January and February."

On the stock market as the economy:
"Broad U.S. stock price indexes were about unchanged, on net, over the intermeeting period. Option-implied volatility on the S&P 500 index rose sharply in mid-February in response to events in the MENA region and remained somewhat elevated thereafter.."

On increasing dealer leverage: "In response to special questions, dealers reported some increase in the use of leverage over the prior six months by traditionally unlevered investors—in particular, asset managers, insurance companies, and pension funds. More broadly, while the availability and use of dealer-intermediated leverage had increased since its post-crisis nadir in mid-2009, a review of information from a variety of sources suggested that leverage generally remained well below the levels reached prior to the recent financial crisis."

On the economic outlook: "The pace of economic activity appeared to have been a little slower around the turn of the year than the staff had anticipated at the time of the January FOMC meeting, and the near-term forecast for growth of real gross domestic product (GDP) was revised down modestly. However, the outlook for economic activity over the medium term was broadly similar to the projection prepared for the January FOMC meeting. Crude oil prices had risen sharply and federal fiscal policy seemed likely to be marginally more restrictive than the staff had judged in January, but these negative factors were counterbalanced by higher household net worth and a slightly lower foreign exchange value of the dollar. As a result, as in the January forecast, real GDP was expected to rise at a moderate pace over 2011 and 2012, supported by accommodative monetary policy, increasing credit availability, and greater household and business confidence."

On the yield curve:
"Measures of inflation compensation over the next 5 years rose, on net,
over the intermeeting period, with most of the increase concentrated at
the front end of the curve, likely reflecting the jump in oil prices. In
contrast, measures of forward inflation compensation 5 to 10 years
ahead were little changed, suggesting that longer-term inflation expectations remained stable."

No need to taper QE2: "As its earlier program of agency MBS purchases drew to a close, the Federal Reserve tapered its purchases during the first quarter of 2010 in order to avoid disruptions in the market for those securities. However, the Manager indicated that the greater depth and liquidity of the Treasury securities market suggested that it would not be necessary to taper purchases in this market. not be necessary to taper purchases in this market. The Manager noted that market participants appeared to have reached the same conclusion, as they generally did not seem to expect the Federal  Reserve to taper its purchases of Treasury securities. In light of the Manager’s report, almost all meeting participants indicated that they saw no need to taper the pace of the Committee’s purchases of Treasury securities when its current program of asset purchases approaches its end."

Full Minutes:


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Caviar Emptor's picture

We gonna need more allowance money, Daddy-O!

Hard1's picture

You missed an important paragraph:

On decreasing the value of the dollar:  The Federal Reserve board of governors continues to mantain an accomodative dollar printing policy.  Prices of paper and ink have increased during the fourth quarter, but we continue our policy of mantaining the presses at full speed untill they break down.


Veni vidi printit   -  Ben S. Bernanke, 2011

oh_bama's picture


I Am The Unknown Comic's picture

Veni vidi printit...VENI  - (I came, I saw, I printed.....then I CAME AGAIN!)

- B.S. Bernankster, 2011

EscapeKey's picture

I wonder which parts of this will be read to Bernanke in court, as he's tried for treason post-crash.

Clueless Economist's picture

I deserve to be tried for treason/stupidity along with him

carbonmutant's picture

He's gonna have some company...

TradingJoe's picture

I laugh at anyone who believes these bastards will ever see a court of justice from the inside or even be in front of such, giving account! They will all leave when the time comes or will find some "eloquent" excuse and will get away with! lets face it folks, only a violent force may really CHANGE things, other then that go back to dancing with the brain dead and munching McShit! 

I Am The Unknown Comic's picture

EscapeKey, I keep hoping that one of these nights I will have that dream where that happens.  I keep trying but can't seem to cause myself to even dream about justice while I live and breathe in this land.  So, we might as well think and type on about justice becuase that is as close as we will get to justice.   

You know I think we ought to officially change Puerto Rico's name to "Beautiful Island" and rename the USSA "Casa-RICO" (as in house of racketeering)...

Maniac Researcher's picture

The [always] future crash is the ultimate fairy tale: All villans are destroyed by it.

When *anyone* here is ready to have an adult conversation on what a crash would actually look like, I'll be waiting. I won't hold my breath. There's this thing called history you may want to consult -- Try some Kindleberger, Wallerstein or Paul Kennedy instead of Rothbard and Rand for a change.

No, instead you have people wishing for a crash. Why? Because you don't contribute much to the world. You will be forgotten - and that makes you nervous. You feel like you have no control. You never did.

Hoping for the apocalypse takes all the responsibility out of your hands. Why are you people complaining about this corrupt system in the first place? You're the ones who are investing in it - you admit this daily. You think buying PMs is not contributing? That's simply wishful thinking at best and completely delusional at worst.

The complaint is nothing new: "Waaah. The debt is too high and it's ruining the returns on the investment I've made in the system that created the debt." You act as if this is the biggest problem only because it is causing you the most worry. Meanwhile, there are people sleeping on the street - and they don't care what you think about Bernanke.

No -- the collapse that you all want is not coming. Instead you'll get a long, drawn-out period of malaise which, incidentally, you are contributing to. Feel free to make the situation worse by demeaning women, lashing out at historically oppressed groups, blaming victims, etc. I'll continue to drop by once in a while to make the ride less comfortable by pointing out your gross hypocrisy. Have a nice day.

dogismyth's picture

I'd agree with most of your comment.  Essentially, no one wants to take responsibility so we are spoonfed shitburgers for longer than we want.  No one is interested in the common good although they may convince themselves they are advocates through their incessant whining and not action.  But what they are really saying is, "I'd better be right, or I'll be pissed off".   So the games continue.  I take from you.  They take from us.  We take from them...and so on down the line until some equilibrium is achieved for another  temporal period.

Of course nothing will ever change.  The change people pretend they want is change for someone else.

tmosley's picture

I guess you spend your time running back and forth between message boards judging all their members as though they were a single person.

Get off your high horse, douche.  Also, if you are gong to claim that no "crash" is coming, feel free to tell that to this chick:

Just another piece of collectivist garbage.  

Maniac Researcher's picture

I'm glad you're taking this personally, tmosely. I am talking about people like you - those who have been around ZH long enough to perpetrate the myth I am deflating. Again, because I have been observing quite a bit longer than I have been commenting, I have noticed that professions of some future crash are both lazily constructed and promoted by individuals just like you.

What I am doing is merely expositing your motivations. Seems I've touched a nerve that has triggered [gasp] more name calling. Your response tells me you have little else to offer - which only adds weight to my earlier point. Thanks.

What are my motivations? to restate - I am exposing your hypocrisy for the benefit of your less incisive members. Your welcome.

Note: You may want to read Furet rather than wikipedia for a deeper knowledge of the French Revolution - me'thinks your grasp of the historiographical controversies surrounding the event are remedial, at best.

EscapeKey's picture

What's actually interesting is not so much the motivation of tmosley or others - it's the motivation of you. You essentially enter a forum, which is known to be a libertarian doomers hangout, and post something really rather trivial to "gather the response".

From a psychological point of view, the oddity is you. You spend this time entering - what from your contrarian perspective could be considered the lions den - and start pulling its tail. You couldn't possibly know anyone's true intention unless you were located right next to the person you question, so your arguments with regards to "knowing" or "understanding" the persons true motivations basically just doesn't wash.

As for your "insights", you really expose very little. Your arguments boil down to more run-of-the-mill vague observations, with little actual reflectance upon the situation we're currently in. They're not terribly clever, and tomorrow they will have been completely forgotten.

But no doubt you'll be back, parading your desire to be the focus of attention once again, whatever it takes.


Reviewing your post history - I still don't understand why you post here:

"Unfortunately for Herd, "captial research" bloggers, and the rest of the ZH crowd, their own narrow, lazily-constructed view of history - the one that hinges primarily on personal experience rather than empirical research - informs their opinion."

"Yes...keep repeating to yourself that ZH is a credible source of information."

"It's cute how pervasive poverty and unemployment are a big joke to ZHers.

I suppose since the apocalypse is [always] tomorrow, all of you can sleep soundly knowing you did nothing about it but snarkily trade bigoted jokes, bad investment advice and poorly conceived conspiracy theories."

"why am I harping on this? because I observe a decent amount of history re-writing on ZH - especially when it comes to throwing around Weimar."

"You've got nothing to offer. So the guy who hates women and his ilk think the U.S. is acting as an imperialist power. So what? You going to do your part to fight for justice? Where are you going to start? by demeaning more women? blacks? jews?"

Maniac Researcher's picture

EscapeKey - Thank you for addressing my comment. Let's go over your shakily constructed rebuttal now, shall we?

A) First, you've decided to characterize my motivation, which I have already stated clearly multiple times [to expose the hypocricy of bigoted and semi-affluent individuals crying foul at corporate corruption] as my desire for attention. This tactic may work with the uninitiated, but I am quite familiar with this dismissive ploy - it has no bearing on my posts. No offense, but you've created an easy bubble to burst. Try harder next time.

As far as your claim that my insights do not reveal much - let me ask you a question: Why are you addressing them then? And furthermore, why have you foolishly provided a long list of cases where I have?

For those that want to rewrite the French Revolution or the New Deal, please go ahead and refute. I'll be waiting. For those of you who want to put Rothbard on a pedestal, I'll happily knock him off for you. For those of you who think you know something about the MBS industry - I'd be amused to match whatever you think you know with insider experience - For those of you who want to mischaracterize political developments in Weimar Germany - I'd be happy to provide reading assignments from past doctoral courses - For those of you studying corporate crime, I'd be happy to compare the many years worth of notes I've amassed. Time and again I've invited other ZHers to engage a multitude of topics. But for the most part [as I have stated ad nauseum] the responses are ignorant, lazy, bigoted, and disappointing. Thus, my primary interest in engaging this community now is to point out the hypocricy of its claim to "openess" in addressing these topics. That, and the more general dishonesty I have already illustrated above.

Oh yeah - one final point in this section -- do you really think you are going to win a lot of allies with the near constant unmoderated bigotry? Eventually, as is the rule of consolodating opinions on the internet, you will only have supporters who share these discriminatory attitudes. If you want to make the claim that this represents a diversity of opinion - I'd like to take the opportunity to laugh in your face.

B) It is amusing that you consider ZH the "lions den" - way to inflate your own self-importance. Feel threatened much? Maybe you ought to strengthen your own ideals.

C) The observations I am making do two things: they address the hypocricy of the individual comments - and then make a wider statement about the community. These  statements, unfortunately for your narrow interpretation, are based on my long-time readership of ZH - rather than a new development. I appreciate that you have cited numerous conversations I have had revolving around this subject to demonstrate that hypocricy is, in fact, a reccurring issue on ZH.

D) Your own comments support my claim rather than diminish it. How so? By arguing that any contrarians do not belong, you are inadvertantly supporting the idea that there should be a continuity of opinion on Zerohedge. I have been noting this decidely widespread desire for homogenity of sentiment among ZHer's for awhile. And I'm not the only one.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, too - you cannot say "Waah! If you don't like what we say here, then GTFO" and then turn around and whine when someone calls it an echochamber. Do you see where you've painted yourself into a corner? Good.

E) Finally, thank you for providing the highlights of my most recent commentary. I hope I'm not the only one who has noticed that you've reprinted them with out rebutting any of the points I have made. Please feel free to address any of them. I'll be waiting.

EscapeKey's picture

First off, I don't really care what you think of me, I'll never meet you, and I don't care about your post in detail, but the pattern is obvious. Thanks for proving my point. I really do think you need to seek help, as your posts are nothing, long lists of grumpy tirades contributing very little but bile. No doubt you'll reply with more of the same, but I've tried assembling the most obvious for you to see below.

Your posts reflect an arrogant, self-perceived importance, which makes you the biggest hypocrite of them all.

shakily constructed rebuttal now


expose the hypocricy of bigoted and semi-affluent individuals


 the responses are ignorant, lazy, bigoted, and disappointing. 


general dishonesty I have already illustrated above.


do you really think you are going to win a lot of allies with the near constant unmoderated bigotry


 I'd like to take the opportunity to laugh in your face.


 way to inflate your own self-importance


unfortunately for your narrow interpretation


demonstrate that hypocricy is, in fact, a reccurring issue on ZH.


And finally,

I hope I'm not the only one who has noticed that you've reprinted them with out rebutting any of the points I have made. 


There's no point. In your warped mind you are inmeasurably superior regardless, and no-one from a feeble society, such as ZH, will ever tell you differently. Seek help.

Maniac Researcher's picture

Nice non-response. By the way, name calling isn't a rebuttal. It's a defence mechanism.

What you read as superiority and arrogance are, in reality, your own failings to address any of the points I have brought up.

Again - your use of the common ploy of projecting your own inabilities as someone else's problem might convince the uninitiated; however, it does nothing to address the subject(s) at hand. Instead, you've conveniently utilized this rhetorical device as a means of dodging the conversation. Unsubstantiated psychoanalysis aside, you may need assistance understanding the purposes of the language you are employing -- that and the repeating of your dismissive "seek help" phrase makes it sound like you have nothing else to offer.

Smedley Noshbone's picture

you use a lot of big words, especially that Historyografic.....anyway,  what are you?  some kind of Scientist or Genius or something?

im not used to reading things like that cause it's confusing to me.

oh well, some people write lengthy Pontifications (thank you father) and some people just like to get laid once in a while.

I Am The Unknown Comic's picture

@ Maniac Researcher:  you're right, honey, it' all my fault.  I accept full responsibility for everything that has happened.  If it wasn't for me, the criminals on Wall St. and the private corporation known as "The Fed" (Hey, they don't call them "The Hungry" for damn good reason!), would never have been forced to profit wildly through regulatory capture, fraud, and blatant racketeering while so many continue to suffer. 

I caused all of this, all by myself (though maybe with a little help from my friends here at 0-Hedge). You're right.  I also caused the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and the Rwandan genocide, amongst others.  I'm sorry. 

Please put blame on the perpetrators and not the victims. 

Maniac Researcher's picture

I am sure such snark can be well balanced with an account of how you have been *greatly* victimized by the evils of the banksters and their system. Please enlighten us with an anecdote about your brutal trevails.

I Am The Unknown Comic's picture

you betcha:   putting up with bankster apologist sludgebrains like yourself is anecdote enough about the brutal trevails I've had to endure.  Read the MSM news much?  It's a daily onslaught of brutality against the founding principles of this once great country.  Constant and consistent unregulated criminal acts from banksters is a worse form of daily onslaught of crimes against humanity.  All the above are an assault on our freedoms, our land, our society, and most importantly, our Constitution (which I'm sure you would love to re-write/revise/redact/re-interpret to suit your judgements).  Without this thing called Rule of Law (maybe you should look that up) applying equally to all as Justice should be blind (that's why the lady with the scales is wearing the blindfold in case you didn't know [FYI - it's NOT because she's a produce merchant who's into kinky sex]); these affronts are indeed "Greatly" victimizing all of us, including you, whether you are too self-absorbed and arrogant to realize it or not.   

Why don't you tell us all how your life is so much better post bankster financial terrorist actions of 9/2008?  Tell us all, please, how you have profited and continue to profit.  Oh enlightened, initiated and wise one, please educate us all just exactly how the US is doing better, how far we have come, and how we are heading to a state of nirvana and prosperity for all.   

Do you get paid post your comments?  How much do you make?  Who pays you?  I honestly would like to know.  It looks so easy, and I post here anyway, so why shouldn't I set up an alternate screen name and make some extra cash?  How do I get in on this gig?  Can you enlighten me on that, eh guru?        

Maniac Researcher's picture

Let's deconstruct Comic's "analysis":

I asked how Comic has suffered during the current recession to make a point about the affluence [and its underlying hypocricy] of ZH posters and their complaints about widespread corporate exploitation. As I have noted time and again, if you are contributing to the system that is causing you misery, you have to include yourself in the blame-game. Instead Comic has implied the tired device of turning the question on the poster rather than addressing it. For the umpteenth time, this ploy may work on the inexperienced - but to me, it only demonstrates that you have nothing substantive to respond with.

Comic has then decided to use this rhetorical device twice - accusing me of sympathizing with those who have perpetrated the massive financial fraud of the last two years. This is simply a strawman - and even a casual reading of my comments demonstrate that the case is quite the opposite. To refresh your memory, I work exposing white collar crime. That is my expertise.

Like EscapeKey above, Comic reads his own impotence in addressing the points I have made as my arrogance. Again, this is a lack of competence on your part, Comic, not mine.

[your odd non-sequiturs about the constitution and the rule of law were mildly entertaining, btw]

Oh and you know what I love? When ZHers hearken back to some American "golden age" - why don't you tell us exactly when that era took place? [and for whom?] I am genuinely curious.

To top it off, of course, Comic then employs the fevered, conspiracy tactic of accusing me of being some kind of paid poster. Come on. Many of us have read enough blogs to know the warning signs: short posts lacking any kind of analysis - often cut and pasted over and over again. I'm sure you'd like to believe that I am a paid opponent. Unfortunately for you, this rebuttal is supplied independently and for free. Enjoy.

tickhound's picture

"...this rebuttal is supplied independently and for free."

Irrespective of right or wrong... There is nothing "independent" to be found among the self-appointed guardians of the status quo...

Should read "...this rebuttal is supplied regurgitatingly and despite my freedom for original thought"

I won't call you arrogant, nor unintelligent... Just unoriginal.

Maniac Researcher's picture

Your response here is simply another straw man. I invite you to review any of my past comments for evidence that I defend the status quo.

You've foolishly found yourself equating my criticism with sympathy for the "opposition." Of course, this is failed thinking to begin with - because reality doesn't fit neatly into binary sides that win or lose.

I am not even sure where your accusation of "unoriginality" comes from -- this isn't an art critique - this is me calling out individuals and the community of hypocrisy. Rather than addressing my claims via counterexamples, each one of you has only offered fallacy arguments. Feel free to continue your backpedaling..


Maniac Researcher's picture

Laughs - I love how none of you thought to jump on me about my misspellings of hypocrisy. That's ironic. Luckily, the coffee beat you to it. You guys are slipping.

tickhound's picture

"Unoriginality" as it pertains to an "art critique"...  I'd claim pseudo ignorance since reality doesn't fit neatly into this binary assumption, but that would suggest you a "straw man" and include you within the community of hypocrisy.  I dare not.

"continue backpedaling" lost me... Words usually reserved after the introduction and dialogue has begun and positions clearly stated and counter(s) been made.  There is something impulsive about these words, almost desperate.  But we'll leave Freud out of this.  Has a subtle tone of a failed industry leader within a failed industry... "Exposing white collar crime"... Such that the fox admits he guards the henhouse.  But suggesting this of you would mean describing this industry as a collective, or that you may be part of a "community of hypocrisy."  I dare not.

Regarding the "assumptions" you claim I've made... Its possible.

"Why are you people complaining about this corrupt system in the first place?  You're all investing in it." 

Investing and protecting are two separate actions, and reality doesn't fit in this binary.  But playing the game doesn't make me a willing participant.  And me "wishing" for doom, as you hold me guilty by association, doesn't make you right.  I wish for no such thing.  But I'm hedged, and gladly.  I'm here because I know something is wrong.  I can assume you are too, but something else is bothering you...

"When *anyone* here is ready to have an adult conversation on what a crash would actually look like, I'll be waiting"

So tell me... I'd like to hear your opinion.  Should you choose to attack out of reflex, well then, feel free to continue your backpedaling...

Maniac Researcher's picture

Yeaaah. I believe I was the one pointing out the problem of binary thinking earlier. So this false rant that somehow I'm employing it makes you look foolish.

Thanks for ascribing more responsibility than I actually have for my job though. I am committed to what I do, but am I the sole policeman of the corporate world? No. That tidbit about my career was simply to point out the irony of your (near constant) flow of mischaracterizations.

Investing and protecting, eh? The word I would choose is contributing.

What I'm doing is simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the community, and then addressing each of its defenders. Because that group includes you, you are, in fact, guilty by association. Again, let me ask you a question: when you see misogynistic, bigoted and hateful comments on ZH, what is your coping mechanism? Do you think of puppies? Sunlit beaches? A smiling aryan child? Inquiring minds want to know..

[Oh yeah - mirroring my comments does not indicate that you've utilized them correctly, they have anything to do with the conversation, or have any context. This is literally the rhetorical equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" and makes you look silly. I would joke about your own 'originality' but that would be redundant now, wouldn't it?]

tickhound's picture

"Silly", "foolish"... Weak repeated efforts.  Running out of names. 

AND, as far as "what IT will look like", that's what I thought.  You have nothing.  Nothing to offer.  No contribution.  No opinion.  Just fluff.  Like your industry.  Albeit committed.

It's not your fault.  You're a product.  Whether bred, formed, or free to decide... I'll call you for what you are... A waste.

As far as my own "unoriginality"... What is this, an "art critique?"  But that would be straw man, or hypocrisy.  You choose.

Maniac Researcher's picture

You don't know the difference between adjectives and nouns, do you?

Let me explain:

when I use adjectives, I am explaining why something you are saying is nonsensical, or has faulty logic, or is plain stupid. This is also called a value-based judgment.

When you use nouns, you are simply name-calling. This is also called a fallacy argument...or a waste, if you will.

So what I am using are descriptions not names. I know this can be difficult to understand. You see, if the conversation is built around descriptions, or value-based judgments, we can debate these. Some of your peers got it right [see above and below].

The reason you haven't directly attacked my claims are twofold: My argument has demonstrable results -- this comes from the use of descriptors [also known as adjectives or adjectival phrases].

A) This community constantly discusses its frustration with fraud in the financial system and yet also constantly discusses its participation in it. So the question becomes: Why are these people complaining? Oh yeah -- and a lot of people have it worse off than them. What are they, assholes?

B) This community also consistently allows hateful, discriminatory commentary to filter through their conversations. So the question becomes: Why does it matter what these bigoted people say? ..and if they have been hurt by financial fraud, who cares?

You see what I did there? I bolded the descriptors for you. Now you try!

Yes, you have left me an opening to be extremely sarcastic. Learn how to have a discussion.

My only [and continuing] point: Gee, isn't it ironic that bigoted assholes [aka Zerohedge] are playing activist by exposing injustices in the financial system?

tickhound's picture



And he brings the ad hom irrelevancy.  What a joke. 

Waste v. - to consume, spend, or employ uselessly or without adequate return; use to no avail; squander  n. - An unusable or unwanted substance or material, garbage; trash

Examples of "waste" would be your industry, your role within it, your role in the community, your contribution to society, and your last post.

I laugh in your fucking face.

Maniac Researcher's picture

I've given you scant details on what I do - so your pronouncements about my industry(?) have no merit - and not to sound like a broken record - make you look stupid AKA "I'm going to criticize this thing I know nothing about! That's sure to go over well!"


You are continuing to simply repeat things I have already mentioned. Perhaps you have run out of things to say, but this conversation has you upset to the point where you need to continue to respond with more non-answers.

Really, the premise of this discussion is simple: I called ZH a bunch of hypocrites, cited examples and addressed responses. You've simply mirrored what I've said, tickhound.

Mirroring is a common troll response, used to get a rise out of someone - because instead of responding, you're simply repeating. The goal is to be annoying enough to derail a conversation. I get it, tickhound; however - and unfortunately for you - that does not A) make my point less valid B) makes you look like you have nothing further to say because you have not addressed my points. My claims are addressable in a reasonable fashion, by the way. You may want to read more deeply into this thread.

Considering your response, I would say your comprehension skills are pretty low. ZH probably deserves better defenders with better reading and discussion skills.

I Am The Unknown Comic's picture

@Maniac Researcher: buster I literally set the curve in my Logic and Reasoning class in undergrad. 

I responded directly to your challenge.  I did not set up a strawman argument.  What part of my response did you not understand?  Are you incapable of comprehending that the breakdown of Rule of Law and daily breaches of our Constitution are destroying our society and therefore you, me, and all of us are indeed victims?  Do I have to draw you up a Venn Diagram? 

If you disagree with my premises, then you are either an anarchist, a fascist, or just a plain antisocial psychopath.  To be clear, my premises are:

1) Adherence to The Constitution of the United States of America is a necessary condition of the continued existence of the United States of America

2) Rule of Law must apply equally to all citizens (and participants, which includes corporations - now defined as "persons") of the United States of America, as a necessary condition for the continued existence of the United States of America

3) When conditions 1) and 2) above are not BOTH met, the United States of America will not continue to exist.  Now, read that very carefully:  the UNITED.....STATES....of America.  Got it?  

Therefore, by violating 1) and/or 2) above, banksters (and one may even extrapolate to include bankster apologists such as yourself) are indeed causing great harm to our country and threatening its very existence.  Again, we all suffer from this. 

I simply do not know how to make that any more clear for you.  If you can not comprehend straightforward logic and reasoning, then I can not help you. 

As for your illogical, fallacious guilt by association reasoning: to be clear, I did NOT contribute to the "system" you mention (BTW what the hell are you talking about - please define this "system" --- my Grandfather had a "system" for playing that the kind of "system" you're talking about?).  To be clear, I did NOT violate 1) or 2) above and am NOT complicit. 

Now, you still have not replied to my questions, and I am waiting.  How are you better off?  How is this country better off since the 9/2008 financial terrorist assault?  Where are we heading?  Why do you defend criminals?   

I'm glad you're not a paid poster, and I wish I could return the comment that you are mildly entertaining, which you are not.  But you are indeed pretty damned arrogant.   

Maniac Researcher's picture

um..all you've done is change the subject of the conversation. This whole bit about the constitution is all you, dude. You're having a discussion with yourself.

Secondly, you're still doing the "I'll turn it around and ask you the same question" bit as far as your Reaganesque "are you more better off" line of questioning goes..

I was the one who asked you how you were doing financially. Why? Because the original conversation - you know, the one that is actually being avoided here - was my claim that it is quite ironic that affluent armchair investors are complaining about financial fraud as they gleefully participate in the system that exploits them. Oh yeah - and if they lost money, why should anyone care about a bunch of bigoted assholes [and the ones who silently condone them] AKA the ZeroHedge community anyway?

Again, calling someone arrogant because you don't like what they are saying is not a rebuttal. It's called backpedaling.

Finally, I find it endlessly humorous that you call me a "bankster apologist." As I have mentioned on numerous occasions, I research and expose corporate fraud for a living. If you want me to stop responding, then stop telling jokes - I find these strawmen particularly funny.


Now as far as your question about where we are heading...that is an interesting conversation - especially when it is stripped away from this impending apocalypse bullshit..

Maniac Researcher's picture

...whenever you are ready to have a conversation free of fallacy arguments, I'll be waiting.

I Am The Unknown Comic's picture

I have presented my arguments.  You have failed to prove them wrong.  You continue to be unable to associate the destruction of the USA with negative financial repurcussions.  

How am I doing financially?  Well, frankly that is none of your business, but just to entertain your ego I will tell you that I'm getting by, thank you very little.  It is common knowledge that indeed as a country, as citizens of the USA, and as members of this crazy concept we call a civilized "society" ("dude" you really need to look that one up! - "dude") WE ALL ARE worse off than we were prior to the financial terrorist bankster attack in September 2008.      

I have proven my points and you have failed. 

I am STILL WAITING for your responses to my questions.  Since you are so good at logic, why don't you lay out your premises point by point for us all to examine (like I did)? Be sure they are free of fallacious arguments, and be sure not to change the subject. 

Oh and for goodness sakes don't try to tell any of us that you "expose corporate fraud for a living."  That is the funniest thing I have heard in the last 20 minutes.  It means that either you are bankrupt as a businessman, are unemployed, presently under investigation for some trivial issue (didn't fill out that 1099 correctly did you?), are sitting alone in your SEC office which is staffed by only you, or are writing to us from prison.  You funny, wiseguy! 

PS we don't give a shit about your misspellings


Maniac Researcher's picture

Your "argument" was changing the subject to the Constitution. The subject of this conversation began on comment #1138059. Please see my reiteration of this argument on comment #1139718. Your attempt to redirect the conversation is transparent.

I don't feel the need to explain the details or success [I am doing decently, thanks] of my career. As mentioned multiple times now, I brought it up simply to demonstrate the irony of your mischaracterizations via your flimsy and poorly-reasoned "you're with us or against us" argument.

By the way, since when is researching fraud and perpetrating fraud the same thing? That makes no sense. I suppose you are really grasping at straws to find some way to demonize me now.

Look, I know you're butthurt that I won't take your carefully constructed Constitution quiz...if you want to get me interested in a conversation with you about Constitutional law, at least let's talk about Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific. I'd be happy to take that subject on...Actually, now that I think about it - I don't think I've ever seen anyone on ZH bring it up - even though it is a crucial factor to the overall study of corporate fraud and exploitation. Anyway, be that as it may, that is not the subject of our discussion. Again, that subject is clearly stated on comment #1138059 and #1139718.

Thanks for your pass on the makes this researcher feel welcome.

I Am The Unknown Comic's picture

Once again, either clearly state your premeses or admit defeat.  I am STILL WAITING, AND I am STILL WAITING for you to answer my questions.  

Your post (#1138059) is nothing but a rant.  Clean it up and present it as an argument.  If you don't, or can't, then this is my last post to you and all I can say is piss off.  Last chance....make it good. 

Maniac Researcher's picture

My argument has been clear from the beginning. Additionally, you need to reread my last post regarding my "answering your questions." Again, this is a transparent attempt to change the subject.

Also, your feeble attempt to turn this into a game where one "wins" or "loses" is irrelevant.

Piss off? that's all you have? Pathetic...and not worthy of ZeroHedge. At least Chumbawumba would have the stones to use a racial epithet...Here, let me help: Go fuck yourself.

I Am The Unknown Comic's picture

No it hasn't

No it isn't

"Go fuck yourself" is not a racial epithet you fucktard



Now, go PISS OFF!

Maniac Researcher's picture

Good job misreading my last post. I was A) referring to the type of insult that would come from a ZHer, not from me and B) criticizing your own choice of insult. Like your peer tickhound, you don't deal well when the conversation has progressed to this stage. I get it, though - my last response pissed you off enough that you didn't read carefully.

Again, to restate my original points - The ZH community appears to be a bunch of armchair investment enthusiasts who whine about the corruption in the financial system. While this itself isn't a problem [or anything new] and this corruption surely exists on a massive and probably unprecedented scale, the irony of the ZH community in particular is that a bunch of self-interested, strongly libertarian individuals are crying foul at the harm this corruption will cause the world. Corruption is just another form of extreme self interest. This *matches* the ethos of ZHers, not opposes it.

What was the word I used to describe that? Oh yeah - assholes.

Perhaps you need to look up Libertarianism. Essentially it turns self interest into an ethos. See the correlation with the motivations of the banksters? [you don't have to admit it, I know you won't, Comic]

Second point: Any kind of "sounding the alarm to inform the masses of the horrible corrupt system" sound pretty shrill among all the nasty bile filled racism, misogyny, and bigoted comments that occur on ZH on a daily basis.

What was the word I used to describe that? Oh yeah - hypocrisy.

Extrapolate the rest on your own. And again, feel free to go fuck yourself :D

I Am The Unknown Comic's picture

"Perhaps you need to look up Libertarianism. Essentially it turns self interest into an ethos"

Wow, you are one messed up little fucker. 

You still have not created a logical argument. 

You fail.

Go back to hell where you came from and where you belong.

Maniac Researcher's picture

Yes, I ripped on Libertarianism. And...? You've got nothing to respond with.

Fortunately for me, I care little about your assessment about the logic of my arguments. The only things you've managed to demonstrate in this "conversation" that A) you redirect things when you have nothing to add B) you become annoyed and emotional in the face of opposition C) You don't like having your opinions tested - which causes you to essentially repeat "go away" over and over again.

In response, I plan to continue to mercilessly berate you. Why? Because it A) helps me further articulate my original point B) It helps add the words "bigotry" and "assholes" to the Zerohedge google analytics/search terms C) it annoys the shit out of you

Please don't go. Let's continue this -- if my assessment of Libertarianism bothers you, why don't you provide your own definition of it then? You probably should do so since you criticized my definition without providing any reasoning of your own, which only makes you look [even more] ignorant. Please defend your ethos, if that is what you identify yourself with. It will make you a more substantive individual, I promise.

That, and it will be fun to gleefully deconstruct your failed ideology in front of your eyes, further causing you discomfort, anxiety, and existential angst. Yes, that will be quite amusing. Well, for me anyway.

Bad Lieutenant's picture

You offer fair points, but I think you're lumping everyone into one category.  What about those of us who are playing the devaluation of all global fiat?  We don't *wish* for a crash or crisis, but we know full well that what the US is doing is so unsustainable that we only have a short time left (6-18 months in my view).  I'd say we're defined by the fact that we hate like hell that the system is too far bent to be fixed, but we're not about to ignore what our intellect is saying and pretend like 1.5 trillion is going to fund itself without the printing of more Benny Bucks.

I've served as an officer on an attack submarine for this country.  I fucking kills me every time I read the lastest headlines of how corrupt and dysfunctional the system has become.  But goddam if I'm not going to make provisions for the shattered future the elite are in the process of handing America. 



dogismyth's picture

what do you attack with your submarine?  Or is that like one of those bullying things because your penis is too small?  lol...just joking.  There will be no fucking catastrophic economic collapse caused by the pigmen.  They seek to maintain (their) status quo and to keep you at your post performing corporate duties.  Why would the PTB seek to destroy civilization or increase the level of frustration?  If that were their choice, we would have never seen TARP and they would have let things crash.  The system has been corrupt for many centuries.  Nothing has really changed except for technology which allows us a closer seat to "the fight".  Change will occur when man changes his thinking and starts believing in things that he thought could not be changed. 

Why everyone worries about the economic tsunami is beyond me.  You should brush up on your science and pay attention to what is happening in the cosmos.  Your disaster waiting to happen is out there....and the PTB knows it!


SheepDog-One's picture

We dont plan on having a very long court session, just a minute or 2 while a rope is being thrown over a lamp post.