A)  A world in which the value of growth in services, virtual goods an manufactured products FAR exceeds the amount of hard resources required to value them.

B)  The Federal Reserve isn't controlled by international bankers.  The President elects the people who run the Federal Reserve.  Bankers and people with finance degress are often chosen because well... people with banking and finance degrees tend to know the most about   It's like complaining that a doctor was made surgeon general.

C)  There have been more products and wealth created in like... the last 20-30 years or so then have been created in the rest of human history.

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.

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.

how

if a chinese person can only buy 50 times less of what an american can buy then how is this more.

if you are saying people have more food,energy and other basic stuff then partly yes.

but you are discounting human pschology,when industrial revolution started people basic needs got easily covered but their aspirations also increased.

its like giving a person 10 gallons of milk when he can drink only one.also life isn't about survival but progress and hapiness.

if you are stagnating an individual at basic needs then why to live.

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.

the interest rates have been manipulated since 1913 but they really started going into all out manipulation after 1971 nixon shock.

all the FED has been doing since 1971 is reduce interest to stimulate the economy which is stopping the natural flow of things.

5% before the crisis,the FED was there before the financial crisis too so even those rates were fake

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

what the hell do you mean by current?

if you mean till the time dollar stays the world reserve currency and FED is there,then yes as any increase in interest rates would collapse the global economy.

interest rates naturally around the world have always been around 8-10%,sometime they go to 5% of sometimes 20%

the economy either goes up or down,their is never stagnation or the system collapses.same in the case of interest rates,they go up or down.FED since 1971 has been lowering the interest rates,right now they are at 0% if they increase the economy collapses,that is why they are talking about  negative interest rates now

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.

lmao,usa the most stable country.

stability has nothing to do with it.

the way you talk,it seems like you have no sense of time and trends and you live in present and follow the norm.

after World War 2,USA had close to 50-60% of the world's gold reserves.that is the reason of USA's dollar standard.

all of the world's industrial production had been destroyed,so USA told the nations if they make Dollar the world's reserve currency then they would get loans.

In those days USA used to be a very reliable nation and a rich hard working nation unlike today.

what does USA produce today?..........lol - reality television,porn,video games,bombs and war,etc

also you don't seem to understand the defualt,which country has defaulted that you say the usa is more reliable,USA is only reliable because of world reserve currency.thats all.counrties just don't default like that,its a long process,any investor would know that.

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

if the rating agencies had any real merit,USA would have junk rating today.

markets today are so manipulated,they go up or down on anything.

in such a controlled economy,it is hard to identify where to invest or not as the FED and the other banks of the world keep of pumping money

Even though by all accounts it should make rates higher.

rates higher on what?

borrowing money has been the cheapest in history of the world.

why would the rates go higher

A) The value of gold is determined by demand and therefore switching to a race resources backed currency would increase demand and allow the value of to rise to meet the need for it as a currency.

B) Yes the federal reserve is basically controled by the government and they are responsible for every major economic problem caused by the federal reserve over the past 100 years.

C) GIven the massive size of the worlds population, the number of people that have been stuck in poverty getting out of it and the level of technology the federal reserve has nothing to do with it. 

You've made some mistakes by some poor reading comprhension here.

1)  You missed the most important point there.  By the country pariliment.

An election and an appointment are the same thing when done by previously elected people.  People don't get to vote for this.

The Icelandic Parliment decides.  Just like congress votes on if they want a candidate to be a Federal Reserve BOG member.

2)  Board of REGIONAL govonors.
 
You admit you misread it... then yet totally still pretend your right.  Quit baffling. 

3)Your solution to this is to make it so Federal Reserve guys are elected... therefore putting them closer to campaign money and making it more important when it comes to elections?

The whole point the Fed Chief is set up sort of like the Supreme court is specifcally too lower the impact of campagin money.  If Obama didn't want Janet Yellen he could elect whatever person he wants, because he won't run  in another election for the rest of his life.  Camapaign contributions are meaningless at this point.

Either way... yeah, i was right.