1) It's not really much of a difference... and again.  You aren't even talking about the head of the Icelandic Fed.  That'd be the Govoners.

2) How about the fact that none of the members on the board are representatives and never have been?

Also.  The Govenor is not head of the Supervisory Board.

The Chairmain of the Supervisory Board is the head of the supervisory board

The Govoner and Vice Govoner are head of the Icelandic banks.  There are only 2 (previously 3) instead of 12, beacuse there are much much fewer banks in Iceland then in the USA.

The Supervisory board are primarily regulators.   Like say the FDIC... or the lower level Federal Reserve regulators... whose names i don't even know.

3)   I don't really see how.  Afterall, we're talking massive companies with hundreds if not thousands of employees.   The price discount far outweighs any logiistcs needed.

The size of lobbying companies pretty much gurantee this.

Kasz216 said:
Better standard of living = Greater wealth.

Wealth = Standard of living.

well if you go by that definition then yes

standard of living is different for everybody.you use the point of view that everybody want to live the western lifestyle which is looking at it in a communistic way that western universalism is the way to go

a middle class house,a swimighpool,a job after college,etc may be a good standard of living for an american

an african doesn't have a civilization and likes to live freely,according to him tribal soceity is better standard of living

This whole conversation is based largely on you not knowing what wealth is.

there is no cuch one deffintion of wealth.

its like battle of ideologies,capitalism vs socialism vs communism,everybody has their own way

that is where you are stuck and think your way is the right way,thinking in a universal collectivist way

normally through ages before the battle of ideologies,purcahsing power percentage used to be wealth.in those times the amount of gold you had which was money used to be wealth as you could purcahse as much gold you had.

todays banks just print money and people use credit cards to stack on debt

well its like saying the wealth gap remained the same or because bigger between rich and poor but cause nowadays the poor can have a bit more food he's richer while everything else like his clothes,house,children's future remain same or worse.

And yes. You sound like a marxist. Just a very confused, uneducated marxist.

right?

keep living in your fantasy world

The only people who have ever considered wealth disparity wealth in the entire history of modern economics, are marxists, based on Marx's theory that general wealth and goods aren't important, just relative wealth.

he didn't talk about wealth,he said people should be given equality and what they need not what they want

i am the exact opposite that we should have wealth inequality and people should get as much as they work for

You may not be there yet, but if you keep your same economic beliefs, marxism is the only result. As free markets only increase wealth disparity at the advantage of creasing higher levels of material goods. This is true with or without central banks.

yes but free markets don't last for long,the british had a free market under their empire,that collapsed in 1914 and then their empire collapsed and went bankrupt.

mongols had free markets and that collapsed

i am not atall for regulated free markets by the united nations of world trade organisation

i am for freedom that any nation should be allowed to invade other nations and take their wealth aka resources.

this false peace that we have had for the last 60-70 years since world war2 will not last much more

So is the creation of bubbles and booms and busts. The only difference is, bubbles are smaller and more frequent. Either way, at the end more often then not people end up wealthier then when they started. Just not as wealthy as they were at the height of the boom.

yes boom and bust is natural

but todays boom is way past the natural thing without gold anchoring

i am not agains central banks,i am against them being above the tresury and not above them

And one last time... far less people starving and dieing is important... because even if there is some shifting scale of wealth. There is no level of wealth that makes "not having as much stuff as some other dude" equal to dead

it does.it might not be to the ones benfiting from globalization aka us corporations and us workers and consumers because of their higher credit rating

but americans are soon finding it out with their debt levels and jobs being shipped off to china.the upper hand americans got because of dollar reserve currency is now dying out.

far less people not dying is like saying send all the children to schools and colleges and then when they come out there are no jobs for them.

betterment of all,the higher mission aka COMMUNISM

anyways i am gonna leave it at this,you are like a wall.Stuck in your own world and don't seem to understand anything in a conversation

Why can't we let the market decide which currency is the best to use? The manipulation of the economy by the Federal Reserve (or the national banks which preceded it) isn't any better than the direct control of the means of production found in non-market socialist countries, it's just much more underlying, with economic growth being manipulated by arbitrary centralized power over interest rates. It's this, coupled with over-regulation, that is responsible for multiple bubbles we've experienced in the 70's and now. There exists very few countries without central banks today, and most of them have a de-facto central banking system (they're socialist countries that don't have a real monetary system), so the bolded makes very little sense to me. The failure of decentralized banks was a byproduct of heavy regulation on the fiscal policies these small banks were allowed to perform. In the "Free Banking Era" most banks were failing because of policies imposed by the states, not because they were naturally inelastic. There is no reason why fiscal policies shouldn't be subjected to the same market rules that the rest of the economy is exposed to. If it weren't for the heavy push for central planning in Europe (particularly Germany/England) other solutions to this inelasticity would've been implemented in the states, particularly those which freed the market further and enabled competitive currencies. If you look at the history of the federal reserve/central banks of the U.S they're rooted in the mercantilist views of Hamilton (derived from Britain's mercantilism) and then later marxist views of Europe, all of which influenced the progressives in their prime era as one of their many legsilative means to control the economy, coupled with the income tax, and the creation of the ICC and FTC. The 100 year history of the Federal Reserve (and Europe's central banks) tells us that there is more harmed done by the central banks than good. Even monetarists and (some) keynesians recognize that the Federal Reserve (and other central banks) have caused issues in economic development and growth. 

Question: Why is an audit of the Federal Reserve so opposed, if the Federal Reserve works for the good of the economy? 

Short answer?   Because govornments are notoriously untrustworthy.  The US Government is near the top of that for the OCED.

You'd never get a situation that goes on more then 10 years before Congress fucked it up.

The Feeral reserve exists, to avoid populist pandering that would only destroy the economy, advocated by polticians who can't even balance a checkbook let alone understand how the economy works.

The Govenor is not head of the Supervisory Board.

The Chairmain of the Supervisory Board is the head of the supervisory board

The Govoner and Vice Govoner are head of the Icelandic banks.  There are only 2 (previously 3) instead of 12, beacuse there are much much fewer banks in Iceland then in the USA.

The Supervisory board are primarily regulators.   Like say the FDIC... or the lower level Federal Reserve regulators... whose names i don't even know.

Another admittance on my part,  don't be baffled, i actually don't have that big a head.  I miss spoke and hand no concept of the functions of the gov/vice governors (formerly a board of 3) and that of the supervisory board.  If i'd understood their duties i wouldn't have mixed up their chairs. Or who appoints them, as I don't believe it's the pm afterall but the min. of finance.  AnyWay, According to this

SOURCE, 

the supervisory functions include internal audit, budget and internal working rules of the central bank system.  Calling that authority the same as fdic is downplaying it's importance again.  Does congress normally nominate ppl to each of the fed banks to do internal audits?  No.  The GOA is restricted for "political" reasons.  

I know politicians are crooks, that's why i vote for ppl with good records.  But if we have come to the point where we take duties away from a large body of reps because we can't trust them and give the duties to a single person because we can trust him.. then haven't we reached a point where we lost faith in self government?

I don't credit the icelandic cb with saving iceland from bankers.  I don't know who to credit because U.S. Media can't report on it.  But if I may guess, I believe ppl came before banks because icelandic ppl aren't sheep like here. The fact their parliament has teeth is evidence of this.

So you believe it's more of a practical issue of the existence of government being in conflict with the existance of a free-market fiscal system, inherently, and that is why we can't have competing currencies? I can agree with that, albeit I still think that if the opportunity arises in which it is possible to have a free-market in currencies, that it shouldn't be ignored. With the proper education on economics the government can stay out of the way.  

Can you elaborate on the bolded? Do you mean it was a form of compromise between those who wanted to maintain decentralization (why we have regional Federal Reserve banks) and total centralization (the populists you refer to wanting this.) If that is the case, I don't disagree with that assessment, but nevertheless feel that compromising isn't always the way to go, and the damage done to the economic landscape by the federal reserve should be mitigated further, especially in a time when socialism and marxism are much less popular than they were in the Progressive Era. 

The GAO audits the fed... and is an arm of the congress.  Appointed jointly by congress and senate.