The Logic Behind the Fed

Whenever I read any publications by Big Government bureaus I can't help but notice how plainly stupid most of the materials are. Recently I was going through some archives on the New York Federal Reserve website in order to find some data and while I was on there I also looked up what the NY Fed had to say about itself in the history section of the site. It was, of course, a bunch of propaganda and mumbo-jumbo (which sounded like something out of a sleazy middle-school text book). Here is a particularly ridiculous example:

"For the next quarter century, [after the veto of the Second Bank of the United States in 1836] America's central banking was carried on by a myriad of state-chartered banks with no federal regulation. The difficulties brought about by this lack of a central banking authority hurt the stability of the American economy. There were often violent fluctuations in the volume of bank notes issued by banks and in the amount of demand deposits that the banks held. Bank notes, issued by the individual banks, varied widely in reliability."

Almost anybody would agree this sounds very sleazy and pompous, but is it really ridiculous or stupid? Of course it is! In order to prove my point I can simply replace banking with any other examples of a normal market industry - the popcorn makers industry, for example:

"For the next quarter century, America's popcorn making was carried on by a myriad of state-chartered companies with no federal regulation. The difficulties brought about by this lack of a central popcorn authority hurt the stability of the American economy. There were often violent fluctuations in the volume of popcorn produced by makers and in the amount of corn deposits that the factories held. Popcorn, issued by the individual makers, varied widely in reliability."

I don't think people understand there there is absolutely no difference between individual industries in the economy. If anything, money is (slightly) more important than popcorn and should therefore be left to the efficient market! Any monopoly is bad - that's just how the world works. And the last sentence of the above paragraph is the most stupid statement I have heard anyone make in regard to economic goods "bank notes, issued by the individual banks, varied widely in reliability". Hey blockheads, didn't anybody tell you this is called competition?! It makes things better, not worse! I see Federal Reserve economists need to take a basic economics course - might I suggest reading Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson?

A man who understood economics like no other to this day, Ludwig von Mises, pointed out that "the sharper the competition, the better it serves its social function to improve economic production". Competition is the greatest natural process by which advancement of any kind is produced! Monopoly is nothing but stagnation! I thought we had all established that as true ever since Mr. Charles Darwin's theory was accepted as true?