41 of 147 people found the following review helpful
1 question for the author or anybody knowledgeable,
This review is from: Currency Wars: The Making of the Next Global Crisis (Hardcover)
I have a question I hope any of you can answer.
Currency Wars is actually one of the best books I have read this year. I would have given it at least 4 stars here , but...
But I am going to give it 1 star because I want to attract the busy Mr Rickards' attention to my question below and , fingers crossed, a thorough reply from him to benefit me and other readers of his excellent book and also to highlight one of the few allegations Mr Rickards has made in the book without identifying his sources.
Anyway , this book has so many 5 stars review that my petty 1 star is not going to distract the book from its greatness.
Top on my list is the following statement he made in the book without identifying his sources.
If anybody knows the news articles or writings that reported the following deal between the FED and Treasury back in 2010 please post your answer here , I will really appreciate it . Because I have tried googling for confirming sources without success.
From the book:
"This bond scam was shot down on Capitol Hill, and once it failed, the Fed needed another solution quickly. It was running out of time before QE would need to be reversed. The solution was a deal arrived at between the Treasury and the Fed that did not require approval from Congress.
The Fed earns huge profits every year on the interest received on Treasury bonds the Fed owns. The Fed customarily pays these profits back to the Treasury. In 2010, the Fed and Treasury agreed that the Fed could suspend the repayments indefinitely. The Fed keeps the cash and the amount the Fed would normally pay to the Treasury is set up as a liability account--basically an IOU. This is unprecedented and is a sign of just how desperate the situation has become......."
Was there really such a deal struck between the FED and the Treasury back in 2010 ?
Or is this a figment of Mr Rickards' imagination?
Please point to ANY writing or multi media that can confirm that this deal did take place back in 2010.
Thanks a million.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 32 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 11, 2011 7:50:24 PM PST
Rob Kroese says:
As an author, I can tell you what my response would be to someone who gave me a 1-star review on my book to "get my attention." It starts with "f" and ends with "u".
Posted on Dec 14, 2011 1:26:33 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 26, 2012 11:35:03 AM PST]
Posted on Dec 15, 2011 9:26:13 AM PST
Sophia Luna says:
This kind of ploy is unfair and in fact does bring down the book's overall average rating. I think L.L. Tan should edit his/her review to a five star and find a better way to contact the author (like through his website). I'm sure he will be happy to get back to you as soon as he can, but to downgrade the book for attention is unfair to hard-working authors everywhere.
Posted on Dec 16, 2011 8:55:22 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 27, 2012 2:43:36 PM PDT]
Posted on Dec 17, 2011 10:50:16 PM PST
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 7:42:57 PM PST
Chris Cudnoski says:
I also would not give many stars to a book that doesn't cite sources for factual claims that are not common knowledge. This and the other 1-star review are enough to convince me that this book is probably just trash designed to pander to a public that loves to talk and read about money - something they don't understand even though they think they do. Sort of like a small boy showing off his wee-wee to your friends at a cocktail party.
Posted on Dec 23, 2011 7:46:01 PM PST
This was the best book I've ever read. Have you considered Mr. Rickards IS the source??
Posted on Dec 30, 2011 2:33:55 PM PST
Rickards doesn't provide a source for his assertion that the Fed no longer pays its earnings to the U.S. Treasury because his assertion isn't true. The Fed has not stopped payments to the U.S. Treasury. What it has done is change how it accrues the amounts paid to the Treasury during the year. In reality, what the Fed used to do was to accrue the payments to the U.S. Treasury in the surplus account and the payments to the U.S. Treasury were made every week. The actual amount paid was listed in a memo at the end of the Statement of Income and Comprehensive Income (Income Statement). Starting Jan. 1, 2011, the Federal Reserve began listing payments to the surplus account and the accrual of money paid to the U.S. Treasury in separate accounts. See http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypol
Posted on Jan 1, 2012 1:24:02 PM PST
L. L. Tan says:
NGC6205 , now we are talking .
Thanks for the links.
I will check them out.
If what you said is half right, then Mr Rickards deserve to get 1 star for this book.
Because then he sounds like another economic commentator who twist the facts to fit his theory about how the world works.
I don't get you.
Are you telling me to buy what Mr Rickards is saying , simply because he has all these qualifications?
Well, I need a 2nd party and 3rd party opinion.
I don't believe everything I read .
So far , here is my impression of Mr Rickards' book.
Mr Rickards comes across as a practical man. He seems neither a gold fanatic , nor a fanatical adherent to any particular school of economics.
He describes the current global economic situation through the eyes of a seemingly impartial and practical trained lawyer and economist.
This is the great part about him. I wish all economic commentators are as lucid as him. And not commenting like a man with only a hammer seeing every problem as a nail.
The following chapters are worth reading.
Chapter 3, 4, 5 , 6 , 7
Chapter 11 is his thesis about the way forward.
Frankly, Chapter 11 is the most muddled chapter.
May be my economics is not good enough to understand what he is trying to say in Chapter 11.
But more likely he hasn't thought through his arguments well and as a result Chapter 11 comes across very much a work in progress.
His chapter 11 thesis may be the closest thing to the best way forward, but still very much a work in progress.
The 1 star stays because I expected more from Mr Rickards.
I await more enlightening from enlightened ones with eagerness.
Posted on Jan 2, 2012 2:13:04 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jan 2, 2012 2:28:18 AM PST]