Look at my first statement in the above quote tree. And gimme an apology. Then Note that i took my last statements on CB of Iceland's ellection and Fed's apointments directly from wikipedia, they are not even my words. And gimme another apology. Do not accuse someone of poor reading comprehension in an argument, it's a cheap tactic. This is why we can't have nice discussions.

Not the same thing. In Iceland, Can a Representative not enter into an election by his peers to be on the Board of CB? How about The US? Can a Representative enter into an election by his peers to be on the Board of CB? A patriot knows the difference.

Again, I already pointed this out. I'm not pretending I'm right. I'm it pointing out. Very unbaffling.

My solution is to let power be dispersed into the body of Congress. That is the purpose of Congress; to take away the more dangerous powers from the executive branch. Fyi, it's much harder to successfully lobby hundreds of Congressional Candidates than it is two Presidential Cadidates. Lastly, Obama is not free to appoint whoever he wants, he is still bound to his donators. They didn't pay him for nothing.

Sure.

1) What you took from the websites was correct.  You just read it incorrectly... it doesn't say what you believe it says.

2)  Can a representative run to be a central banker in Iceland?  No.

They elect the supervisory board... from people they nominate. 

Who by the way actually isn't the head of the Icelandic Central Bank.

That would be the Governor and Vice Govoner.  (Who are appointed by the prime minister.)

Additionally, and you'll appreciate this.  The recent changes made by the pots and pans revolution?

A big  new requriement is that toto be head of the Icelandic central bank, requring you to have a masters degree in economics and have a lot of of expeirence as a banker or some other similar position.

You see David Oddson one of the former govonors, didn't actually have a degree in economics... and people saw that and thought "Man its be crazy to not have someone who is a banker to be head of the central bank."

3) Donaters for what?  He's already elected, that money is already spent, and he doesn't need anymore to get elected.

As for it being easier to bribe one president vs numerous congressmen.

Quite the opposite.  Presidential elections are WAY more expensive and generally always competitive.  So you have to play both sides... and not only both sides, but you have to pick the right primary candidate as well.  Or at least spread it out to a couple.

Congressional canidates however are mostly handpicked by the party without a primary challenge, or at least without a real one... and like half the districts aren't even competitive.

Making it really cheap, easy and low risk to bribe a bunch of senators.  (if you believe in that sort of thing as oposed to just... companies give money to people who believe the same things they do.  Which just makes more sense.)

1)  One says confirmed by representatives, the other elected by representatives.  There is a difference, the difference is where the power with congress or the president. You choose not to see it.  

2)  If the representatives can not run for election to be on the board then please provide a source.  I couldn't find one,  Could you please?  However,  even if they can only nominate and elect non-representatives that power to do so still resides in their parliament.  Not the prime minister.  The pm can pick the chair but not the entire board!  Too much power in the executive branch is one of the reasons our fathers fought a revolution.

3) I believe it is more difficult to buy hundreds of candidates vs. two because of the logistics.  Operationally, two is easier to manage.

Because he could buy 100 times more then he could before.

really,then why doesn't everyone own 100 houses and 100 cars and multiple private jets?

Human psychology has nothing to do with wealth, or the definition of wealth.

not with wealth but it does have a lot to do with how the economy works.

if you give individual an incentive to work for,then he will

if you tell him that all people are gonna be equal and everyone gets free medical,education,food.

then the individual loses the incentive to work

Silly marxist interpretations don't really play out when it comes to actual economics...

not perfectly but in all they are,the entire world is in debt with the socialist policy of the last 100 years around the world

USA,UK,Europe,Eastern Europe,India,China,South America,etc

and even marxist's wouldn't be so childish as to assume that it's always a 1-1 direct thing.

really that is why we had close 100million people die in the last century because of marxism.

and no.... people can afford WAY more then just basic needs.

what do you mean by basic means.

basic means are different for different people.

for a rich hard working person,a bmw,a 10 thousand sqft house,a country club membership,etc will be basics

for a less ambitious and poor person just a house and food to eat might be basics

and if you are saying that people could afford more than basics then you are wrong.close to 80% of the world's population lives on $2 a day,i don't think most of them can afford more than basic or even the basic.

Way more people survive now in the past... sure... and way more people can afford way more luxuray items too.  We're in quite the luxuary item boom.

why are you hell bent on survival?

;ife isn't about surviving but thriving and being happy.

luxury items?

luxury is a state of mind,it changes from time to time.

if 100 years ago,car was a luxury then now a big house,cars,private clubs,etc are luxuries.i don't think the percentage has changed much.

you seem to be comparing today with the past.as the world changes and classes also changes.

you can't say a car today is a luxury cause they are so cheap.so you are comparing today with the past

1) Because houses are way better now.  I mean shit.  I'd rather have one townhouse then 100 peasent huts.

thats what i said before,because of industrial revolution things have improved and because of efficiency and improved productivity we have more

but the gap between the rich and poor is still the same.

what you are talking about is better standard of living.

it is not like that a poor person has a better house nowadays,that he doesn't envy the rich like before.he still does.that is where the human pschology i was talking about comes in

but wealth is more to do with purchasing power.

and standards of living have always been improving,hell when we first became humans from monkey if you follow the evolution theory,we had an upgrade in standard of living.

then when humans formed tribes,we again had an upgrade in standard of living,then when humans started farming,we again had an upgrade in standard of living and there on

you are mixing time and eovlution of humans and how humans used the environment with wealth

2) Thank you for admitting human psychology has nothing to do with wealth, and that i was right.

wealth is standard always,human pschology has nothing to do with its expansion which never happens,only shift of wealth happens.

3&4)   Wait... so your AGAINST socialism?   You do realize your interpretation of wealth is an old old marxist theory right.

you don't seem to understand by point of view if you think i am marxist.

i am for competition all out.

As for the 80% of the worlds population living on less then $2 a day.

First that's wrong... by about 35%

http://twodollarchallenge.org/

thats bullshit

in India,China,Africa 80-90% live on less than $2 a day

that itself is 50% of the world population.

i live in india

And second, that's waaaaay less then there ever was before adjusting by PPP

PPP is bulshit,devloping or poor countries use this to hype up their economy.

i live in india,i know what the indiagovernment does.

also in a globalised world,slowing everything has become standardised in price terms on a global scale

and third... thanks to purchasing power.  Those people can afford a lot more then someone in a rich country.

LMAO

are you out of your fucking mind.Have you ever seen the living conditions of poor countries.

most of the people cannot even afford food properly

5) Because far more people couldn't surivive not that long ago, talk about other things is rather meaningless when basic survivial isn't a given.

so what?

also current population boom has been there only since World War 2 and that was because of Green Revoltion,with peak oil and high energy prices the survival is becoming very tough

Outside that.  Property ownership is up, luxuary spending is WAY up, developing countries are all developing quite well...

property ownership is up on a low lending rates and ponzi schemes that bank starts.

look at china property bubble.

there's one in india

and there are many across the world

property sales on false interest rates and easy money boom isn't sustainable.

Also property ownership has nothing to do with hgiher wealth either.

Land was always limited like wealth,it is just a tranfer of wealthconversion from farm land in housing.same with luxury spending.you seem to have bought the FED boom drug which seems to make you belive their fantasy.

all of these booms

property boom

electronics boom

credit boom

education boom

bond boom

stock boom

was only possible because of money pumping of the FED

Wealth really has grown everywhere.  Between this and the 80% comment it feels like you have a false sense of what foreign countries are like.  Still picturing africa as nothing but a bunch of villiages etc.

you again seem to have bought this global boom picture

i live in Mumbai,the main city of India.Before the boom,everybody was building houses in india and indians though their economy was gonna go through the roof.

after the crash 50-60% of the housing properties and empty.

read about the China property bubble which is gonna be the biggest in history.

just to give you a perspective,in 194 when the british left india.it had 2% of the world's gdp which can also translate into 2% of the worlds purcahsing power.

india had a population of 400million back then

today india has a population of 1.21billion,that is 3 times the size of population back in 1947

but today india's share of global gdp is 2.6%.that means more people in india are producing the same amount of wealth as india did back in 1947

the boom news stories which you might find on news channels only covers the very elite people of the developing countries and not the majority of the population.

all these big cities that you might see in developing countries are very few where the elites of the country live

People don't like the fed. I get that...

I don't see a better option however.

an asset based currency like the gold standard seems impossible in the modern world... and countries without central banks or that have had direct government control of them have been unmitigated disasters who end up selling out a countries long term future almost immediatly to get out of short term debt/be able to short term spend.

The Fed is really just like the Supreme court, and is independent for the same reasons. (Those who think it's not a government organization and is privately owned generally don't know what they're talking about... )