[trentmb]

> Yes, but why Jefferson

Because they thought Jeffersons thoughts on the matter were relevant.

> Why not Arglebargle?

Because I know what that word means.

> Or me?

Because "lisper central banks" doesn't produce any meaningful results in a search engine.

> I have musings on the topic of central banks, would you like to hear them?

Sure.

[lisper]

OK: there are two fundamental problems that have to be solved in any monetary system: how to keep the records, and how to control the money supply. With regards to the latter, there are only two options:

1. Let the money supply be controlled by the laws of physics, e.g. use a scarce material as money.

2. Let the money supply be controlled by some policy.

The second option subdivides into two further sub-options:

2a. Let the free market produce money competitively like any other product.

2b. Let the government (or a private entity acting on behalf of the government) do it as an artificial monopoly.

That last option is a central bank.

Those are all the possibilities. All of them have been tried at one time or another in human history. Flawed as it may be, the one that has produced objectively the best results in terms of economic stability and prosperity has been 2b. And there isn't really much more that can be said about it.

Oh, almost forgot:

> > Arglebargle?

> Because I know what that word means.

Arglebargle is the name of an obscure author who wrote on all manner of topics, but whose work has been largely forgotten.

[icebraining]

> Flawed as it may be, the one that has produced objectively the best results in terms of economic stability and prosperity has been 2b.

I'm certainly no expert, but I've read a bit into 2a (so called "free banking" eras) and they seemed overwhelmingly quite stable. On what do you base an objective dismissal of that approach?