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.Quote from jsp326:
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.
Quote from Capital:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_central_banks#Countries_without_central_banks
2 of 3 still have some committee for monetary policy

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.Quote from pairsarbtooo:
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. [/B]
Quote from Pekelo:
... literally every country has a central bank on Earth.
Now I would like to hear an argument against them.... But if someone is so much against central banks, at least have an argument. or a drink....![]()
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.Quote from ammo:
Quote from ammo:
... piezoe, you sound like A BANKER mired in the shit they have sprawled out and just trying to live with yourself till the bad dream ends
you can get a life and find a means to support it ,or get a job and let it suck the life out of life
Quote from Hansel H:
Perhaps you understate the role the Fed played in bringing the county TO the brink of financial collapse.
The FED is a self-serving instrument with operatives in every advanced nation on Earth that attempts to stabilize the economy just enough that in the long run they and their UK based partners in crime can bleed the productive classes for a maximum net gain.
They have to take care not to kill the golden geese whose eggs are currently being stored in London, England.
Inspector General for the Fed being evasive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceqIEllQasA
Quote from jsp326:
+1. This is like a kid secretly starting a fire in the neighborhood park -- only to rush out with pails of water once people notice it. The Fed is supposed to take credit for preventing something it helped start? In what kind of backasswards world does that happen?