Happy 100th birthday Federal Reserve

[sc94597]

Kasz216 said:

Additionally.... no.  Neo-classical economics supports a central bank.

So did Hayek.

"

The experience of the last fifty years has taught most people the importance of a stable monetary system.  Compared with the preceding century, this period has been one of great monetary disturbances.  Governments have assumed a much more active part in controlling money, and this has been as much a cause as a consequence of instability.  It is only natural, therefore, that some people should feel it would be better if governments were deprived of their control over monetary policy.  Why, it is sometimes asked, should we not rely on the spontaneous forces of the market to supply whatever is needed for a satisfactory medium of exchange as we do in most other respects?

It is important to be clear at the outset that this is not only politically impracticable today but would probably be undesirable if it were possible.  Perhaps, if governments had never interfered, a kind of monetary arrangement might have evolved which would not have required deliberate control; in particular, if men had not come extensively to use credit instruments as money or close substitutes for money, we might have been able to rely on a self-regulating mechanism.   This choice, however, is now closed to us.  We know of no substantially different alternatives to the credit institutions on which the organization of modern business has come largely to rely; and historical developments have created conditions in which the existence of these institut9ions makes necessary some degree of deliberate control of the interacting money and credit systems (my emphasis).  Moreover, other circumstances which we certainly could not hope to change by merely altering our monetary arrangements make it, for the time being, inevitable that this control should be largely exercised by governments. "

Hayek changed his mind quite often on central banks. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

"Hayek argued that the business cycle resulted from the central bank's inflationary credit expansionand its transmission over time, leading to a capital misallocation caused by the artificially low interest rates. Hayek claimed that "the past instability of the market economy is the consequence of the exclusion of the most important regulator of the market mechanism, money, from itself being regulated by the market process"

At one time Hayek also considered himself a "Democratic Socialist." With his older age he preferred free-market fiscal systems. 

http://mises.org/document/3970/Denationalisation-of-Money-The-Argument-Refined

This is precisely what F.A. Hayek argues.

By special arrangement with the Institute for Economic Affairs, the Mises Institute is pleased to offer a new printing of F.A. Hayek's most radical case for the complete privatization of money: The Denationalisation of Money. He wrote this near the end of his career, after thinking through all the economic arguments for monetary reform and examining the political viability of various proposals. He shows the essential unviability of government money, and calls for a complete free market in the production and distribution and management of money.

This book is the very core of the Hayekian approach to monetary policy, and the book that drew the world's attention to this radical thinker following his Nobel Prize in economics. The argument is substantively similar to Mises's but rather than a gold standard, Hayek argues for completely abandoning government attempts to reform money. The result would be competitive private currencies that permits the market alone to choose the dominant currency the world over.

In the digital age, his argument takes on new significance, as experimentation in digital currencies continues apace.

As for the use of the terminology "Neo-classical", I was speaking pre- "neo-classical synthesis", before Keynesian policies took over macroeconomic thought, I should've been more specific. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_synthesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_classical_macroeconomics

"The so-called marginal revolution that occurred in Europe in the late 19th Century, led by Carl Menger, William Stanley Jevons, and Léon Walras, gave rise to what is known asneoclassical economics. This neoclassical formulation had also been formalized by Alfred Marshall. However, it was the general equilibrium of Walras that helped solidify the research in economic science as a mathematical and deductive enterprise, the essence of which is still neoclassical and makes up what is currently found in mainstream economics textbooks to this day."