the interest rates have only been kept down because of the FED,if the normal interest rates of 8-10% were to be applies,the econoomy would collapse immediately.

there is absolutely no way USA can pay back its debt.

yeah if you want FED to just print alot of notes without any purchasing power then USA can pay back the debt but whats the point.

another thing,the only reason the economy is still up and running is because more debt is being taken,if you don't take any more debt the economy will collapse.let alone reducing it

Fuck the fed. The bankers swindled us into getting it and its sucked the country dry of its potential.

How about this system collapses and all the crooks are brought to justice, then start a new system that's better than we have now.

http://guardianlv.com/2013/12/icelanders-overthrow-government-and-rewrite-constitution-after-banking-fraud-no-word-from-us-media/

No.  Your wrong.  World wide wealth is higher everywhere.

You seem to not understand what wealth means.

If everyone has higher purchasing power... everyone has more wealth.

As everyone can afford and has more stuff.

Stuff = Wealth.

First off... normal 8-10% Interst rate?

The recent average US interset rate on a ten year bond is around like 5% before the financial crisis hit.

Lower in regular times without manipulation or financial distress.

Intrest rates would never hit 8-10 in the current world enviroment.

Funny thing is... in times of economic crisis even without fed intervention, US interest rates drop.  Even when the US is the cause of the problem.  Why?  The US is generally seen as the most stable country in the world when it comes to debts, and is the least likely to ever default.   At least to investors, despite what credit ratings agencies say.

Which is why for example.. when the US credit rating was dropped.  It was seen as a negative... markets were down.

Yet so were Federal bond interest rates, with no further monetary polcies by the fed or congress.

Even though by all accounts it should make rates higher.

and had there independant central bank imput heavy capital controls...

you mean a bank system run by a board of ppl who underwent an election by representatives unlike a bank system run by appointees and private banks.

The people who run the Central Bank of Iceland are appointed by the legislature of Iceland.

The people who run the Federal Reserve Board of Govonors are chosen by the preisdent, then elected in by being approved by the congress.

It's pretty much the exact same thing.  

Private banks don't pick or have a say about anyone who is a member of the Federal Reserve Board  of Govenors.

Seðlabanki Íslands (cb)  is administered by a governor and a seven-member supervisory board, elected by the country's parliament following each general election.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_Iceland

 The members of the Fed's Board of Governors, including its chairman and vice-chairman, are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate.   Nationally chartered commercial banks are entitled to elect some of the members of the board of the regional Federal Reserve Bank.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System  (i admit i misread regional).

So to your four points, no, no, no, and yes, well sort of, actually no.  Private banks do have a say in who is chosen by the president to be on the board of govenors.  Banks are the largest contributors to presidential elections (except Ron Paul of coarse) and get themselves appointmented.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00000286

So just plain no, nice try.