<quoted text>2. having no central monetary policy body.(see history of US markets prior to and after formation of the FED.)(Also see, The current EU problems)
Let's take this one first, since it's the most retarded.
Prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, the US had a period of rapid growth and great price stability. Even the experiment with bimetallism didn't do much to interfere with this. What troubles there were, were caused by laws that allowed individual banks, to a greater extent than now, to perform the destructive act of inflating the supply of money and credit that the Fed has excelled at and that prohibited banks from diversifying geographically.
Th boom-bust cycle of bank-injected funny money is well understood and well documented. Just as the (central) Second Bank of the United States was a major cause of the Panic of 1819 (for which, see http://mises.org/daily/3395
), and the Federal Reserve was the primary cause of the Great Depression (exogenous causes being ruled out) and a sine qua non, at least of the tech-stock and housing bubbles (which cannot exist without the inflation of the supply of money and credit), so, too, can individual banks cause recessions.
Individual banks, however, are limited in their ability to destroy the economy; they ultimately have to pay off the money they've borrowed, and if they've lent too much money they don't have, they risk going out of business; they have a need for either a solvent bank, or, as in 1819, 1932, and recently, they need to be bailed out by a central bank or granted special privileges (e.g. laws/regulations protecting them from having to pay off their notes) to survive.
Blaming the lack of central banks for the relatively small panics that preceded the creation of the Federal Reserve is like Cain claiming that Abel's disappearance is none of his business. It is a white lie, pointing to an irrelevant fact in an attempt to absolve the real culprits.