"1. Allow the US Government to have massive amounts of credit (Good for short term emergency"
That's a bad thing. In a real emergency there should be an emergency tax created. That's the only way to keep the government from declaring things emergencies that aren't, and to avoid taxation without representation (which is what happens when one generation of voters allows money to be spent and charges the bill to people who aren't old enough to vote yet, or haven't even been born yet). At most, if there's going to be any government borrowing at all, it should not be backed by future voters, but only by existing voters who actually had a chance (in terms of age/timing) to vote for the people who are now putting them in debt. If that set of people is unable/unwilling to pay that debt back, then that debt should be defaulted on.
"2. Allow a fractionally reserved banking system needed liquidity in times of large cash withdrawals via federal funds rate."
That's a bad thing. Fractional reserve banking should not be artificially propped up (and should only be allowed to issue private bank notes that are distinct from the underlying currency).
"3. Control the price of government debt and money supply via open market operations."
That's a bad thing. It allows government to further control the use of real resources, reducing individual liberty.
Also, this game doesn't work forever. And it leads to an accumulation of debt that ensures that when the game does end, it won't end well.
"4. Create Standard and uniform and difficult to counterfeit currency."
That doesn't require a central bank.
It's also interesting to note that "perfect forgeries" of gold coins is basically impossible. Even if a given coin was "fraudulent" because it was not minted by the US Mint, the only way it can really stand up to significant scrutiny is to be made out of the same approximate mix of gold, silver and copper as the real thing. And in that case no one's going to care too much that it's a "knock off" because it will still have approximately the same value. When the labor and other costs of making the forgery are added to the cost of the raw materials (along with the risk of jail time or execution), it would be cheaper for the would-be forgers to just buy the genuine article from the US Mint. In the case of Federal Reserve Notes, though, accurate copies using identical materials are a real problem because the required raw materials are an insignificant cost.
"5. Creates mild inflation helping all debtors."
As I mentioned previously (though perhaps I was too subtle), this is incorrect.
For example, say I have a $50K/year job, and I have $10K of debt @ 10% annual interest and I'm stupid so I only pay interest and no principal.
A year later, inflation has affected the value of the dollar by 5%, driving up the costs of my non-debt expenses. I have not gotten a raise this year. I still have the same $10K of debt and am still paying 10% interest on it. In this scenario, inflation has done nothing but hurt me because my living expenses will be higher and everything else stayed the same.
If you want to argue that inflation helps all debtors, then you need to show that every debtor's income goes up at least proportionally with inflation, and with no lag relative to changes in non-debt expenses, and that their non-debt expenses go up at most proportionally with inflation (or at least show that net/net it works out that their new after-debt income grows at least as fast as their non-debt expenses).
"6. Encourages spending instead of saving which gives the whole economy a boost - technologically and numerically speaking."
You seem to be confused about how inflation and spending are related. The direct effect on spending is not really driven by inflation (or interest rates), it is instead driven by the first derivative. When there is no inflation, the system tries to adjust the amount of savings to some optimal amount, balancing short term and long term needs. When inflation rises, that balance is upset, and the amount of savings is reduced, temporarily resulting in increased spending. However, once inflation stops rising and settles at some fixed amount, a new equilibrium will be reached. (If it doesn't stop rising then there is inevitably a hyper-inflationary event.) Savings will then stabilize (at its new lower level) and spending will once again equal earnings. (*) All that has been accomplished is that demand has been pulled forward a bit. (This reminds me of GM's channel stuffing in an attempt to make their earnings look better. They are being sued for fraud for that.)
(*) This, of course, is ignoring changes in debt. If you want demand to remain elevated rather than just getting a temporary boost as per the previous paragraph, then the only way to do that is with constantly increasing debt. Inflation does tend to promote debt. However, this is just another form of temporal shift. As Ludwig von Mises wrote:
"Credit expansion cannot increase the supply of real goods. It merely brings about a rearrangement. It diverts capital investment away from the course prescribed by the state of economic wealth and market conditions. It causes production to pursue paths which it would not follow unless the economy were to acquire an increase in material goods. As a result, the upswing lacks a solid base. It is not real prosperity. It is illusory prosperity. It did not develop from an increase in economic wealth. Rather, it arose because the credit expansion created the illusion of such an increase. Sooner or later it must become apparent that this economic situation is built on sand."
Furthermore, constantly increasing (real) debt is not sustainable. Again from Mises:
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."
And inflation does not help technological development, all it does is hurry deployment of existing technology. I.e, except in areas that are experiencing rapid development (faster than inflation), it discourages consumers from being selective and picking the technology that will meet their needs best over the long run by encouraging consumers to purchase whatever is available right now (because if they wait for tomorrow's better technologies their money may not buy as much), and even in areas that are experiencing rapid development it results in a distortion. Furthermore, this encourages businesses to get inferior stuff to market now rather than superior stuff later. (Even without inflation some of that is already baked in, but inflation makes it worse.) Finally, by discouraging savings, inflation makes investment in new technologies less likely. Savings better allow for taking risks, and really pushing the envelope rather than making small, incremental, already-understood changes involves risk. (Try getting a loan from a bank to pay for some experiments that may or may not result in a marketable new technology and therefore the means to actually repay the loan.)