> Ah, so you are referring to a central banking system as the point of
> central 'control'. This is an accurate assessment.
>
> However, it is not apparent that this is a 'bad' thing, at least not
> currently. As the 1920's demonstrated, failing to impose any form of
> negative feedback on a system will cause that system to quickly cycle out
> of control as any competent engineer can tell you (like oversteer on a
> truck steering system).
Upon closer examination, we find that in previous years (prior to the
formation of the Federal Reserve system), the economy did *not* cycle
quickly out of control; in fact there is some evidence that the
federal government *tried* to make it do so, but was thwarted by J.
P. Morgan's impromptu assembly of a consortium of major banks which
collectively provided deposit insurance to bank customers (including
the customers of banks which weren't part of the consortium, with
only a very few exceptions specifically stated).
And that in the 1920s, there WAS a central bank functioning as a
point of central control in the United States -- and that it served
quite well as a source of POSITIVE FEEDBACK. Whatever the economy
appeared to be doing, it would push for even more of. This of course
soon put the economy in an unstable situation, so beginning in
late 1928 or early 1929 the economy tried to contract and throw off
some non-viable debris (bad investments) -- and the Federal Reserve
continued to provide positive feedback, demanding even more and
faster contraction.
Eliminating the Federal Reserve is the economic equivalent of
disarming a large explosive device. A large explosive device can be
very useful, or very destructive, depending on exactly where and
when it blows up. This particular one happens to wander around on
its own and can't be trusted.
>
US$500 fee for receipt of unsolicited commercial email. USC 47.5.II.227