I call someone out on a blatant logical fallacy and he responds with a bunch of worthless platitudes...and the burden of proof is on me? Nope. I doesn't work that way.
If the guy's logic is as fallacious as you claim, you should savor the opportunity to prove him wrong with facts. That's psychology 101. If one has the opportunity to disprove something that someone has said by presenting a strong counterargument backed by facts, they'll jump all over the chance. But since you didn't do that, but instead called names, I'm lead to believe that you don't have the facts to answer the guy's question.
Just for the record, the list is for central banks. At the very end there are 3 city states mentioned without central banks, Vatican, Monaco and Andorra. So I guess you tried to underline my point, literally every country has a central bank on Earth. Now I would like to hear an argument against them...Now, not from dumbfucks like jsp, I put those on ignore. But if someone is so much against central banks, at least have an argument. or a drink....
The more time your spend bantering about this is the more opportunity time cost you waste, and won't get back. If you think the FEDs presence indicates a collapse...prepare in your own way. If you think the FEDs is wonderful and the world is fine...then do what you think is right. If I was another thinking man, I would forget all that's been done and ask myself what is the basic minimum fare I need for myself and my loved ones to live healthily and happily on, and secure that before anything. But that's what I do. I continue to make money but if it doesn't continue I won't be scared. Money is one of the true illusions in our world, but for now you can still use it to secure material goods. There have been times in the past and there may be times in the future where it won't really secure any real goods. It's very difficult to sanely dispute this. I have a feeling in your gut many of you are scared, and this banter serves as a proxy for actually doing something material about it. All these firms wanting to keep your capital now for a year, comex gold not really there, Germany demanding their physical Gold and the New York Fed says "Trust us , we have it, but we can only get it to you in 6 years." I read these posts and sometimes wonder I myself and a handful of other traders (or wanna be traders) even know this information. Gold is being fractionally lent out with paper certificates (does this sounds like Central banking and fractional reserve lending). And when an entity comes to collect just a fraction of it, it's not there. Want to play a game, look at the price of comex gold in the weeks after Germany's Bundesbank request to the New York Fed....gold musical chairs. While I do wanna pat the Fed supporters on this thread on the head and say "Good boy, you are trying your best, now here is a biscuit of free money go take a nap in the sun," it's pretty obvious what the current facts are.
Slightly off topic, but I keep telling these gold bugs that even if we were under a gold standard, that wouldn't control the issuance of money because we'd still have fractional reserve lending. I don't think a lot of people understand just how much of a role fractional reserve banking plays in our system...they think all money in circulation comes from the government.
The topic has been fully exhausted about the fed. Mixed bag of people on either side. The real topic is where are the world's real assets. I agree with you on the goldbug theory, but you are still doing yourself a disservice if you really live by your assumptions of how the Fed operates. Not to anyone else, my most likely to yourself and your family. Still, I don't know everything about you, so I could be wrong and of course, we cannot predict the future with certainly. But, we can prepare. Thanks for your input on this post. You have polarized the issue well.
Well, fractoinal reserve banking does seem to be a lucrative pursuit. Most bankers seem to make a good living. I'm not, myself, one. I think making a living that way would bore me. I do think, however, that the advantages of fractional reserve banking to an economy far outweigh the risks. But I'm not blind to the reality that the Fed does the bidding of both Congress and the Treasury. Bank regulation is fairly straight forward, so Greenspan's, and then later Bernanke's, neglect of mortgage abuse is inexcusable. But, on the other hand, economics, monetary and interest rate policy is not science and is anything but straight forward. The closest it gets to science is "social science" which is not science at all. So, should we be surprised if the Fed is, in hindsight, imperfect ? And why do we have this penchant for blaming the Fed for problems created by Congress? Much of the time the Fed is merely doing the best they can to react to economic conditions created by Congress. The recent financial crisis of 2008 would be one glaring exception. In that instance the Fed had all the tools and authority it needed to head off the crisis; it did nothing until the crisis was upon it. I don't know why the Fed was so obviously derelict, but I've said that i believe it was likely because Greenspan believed in Equilibrium Theory, which I think hard evidence tells us is wrong, and further he believed that Bankers would not act against what he thought were their own best interests -- and that much, Greenspan has admitted to.
"Perhaps you understate the role the Fed played in bringing the county TO the brink of financial collapse." this remark will prove to be one of the best remarks to be posted on ET this year. it is guaranteed to be ignored by the cognoscenti with which the ET board is amply endowed. "They have to take care not to kill the golden geese whose eggs are currently being stored in London, England." perhaps formerly london but moving towards storage facilities in china.