Are you equating the Federal Reserve with money?
As I wrote, I have not yet begun formal studying, which means I am not equating anything with anything. Have not yet defined in my own mind who's money, where it is, how it is made, how it is spent, and all other matters related to the business of money. I am just getting started.
But as you have asked me a question, let me now ask you a question: Are you satisfied that you, as a citizen, have sufficient control over the business of money in the United Sates?
Are you satisfied that you, as a citizen, have sufficient control over the business of money in the United Sates?
I'd have to know your definition of "the business of money" to try and answer your question.As I wrote, I have not yet begun formal studying, which means I am not equating anything with anything. Have not yet defined in my own mind who's money, where it is, how it is made, how it is spent, and all other matters related to the business of money. I am just getting started.
But as you have asked me a question, let me now ask you a question: Are you satisfied that you, as a citizen, have sufficient control over the business of money in the United Sates?
I don't even think I have control over the money our neighborhood condo association has been given control of. I never wanted those shrubs at our entrance, but got it anyway. Tyranyyyyy!Do any of you believe you have control over how the federal government spends the money it has been given control of?
And I think that can be classified as a 'Yes' / 'No' question.
Do any of you believe you have the right to have control over how the federal government spends the money it has been given control of?
I don't even think I have control over the money our neighborhood condo association has been given control of.
Yes. My answer is no- beyond voting once in a while.Does that mean your answer is 'No.' to both questions in that quote box you used?
Instead of calling it the 'business of money', you should just use the phrase 'capitalist system'.
Do any of you believe you have control over how the federal government spends the money it has been given control of?
And I think that can be classified as a 'Yes' / 'No' question.
Do any of you believe you have the right to have control over how the federal government spends the money it has been given control of?
I am not sure what's being asked here.
So the "what's being asked" is not yet defined. That is going to be the big question. Right now, with this post, it is still the stage of the little questions that might lead to the big question. And "might" is the key.
Independence + Accountability
The tricky issue is that accountability means being subject to some political oversight, which weakens the perception that the central bank is independent. So, there is an inherent tension between having independence to conduct policy and being accountable to the electorate. Furthermore, if central bankers are not elected, then they must be chosen in another way. The question was, by whom?
What are these checks and balances? First, rather than have a single central bank, the founders created a system of central banks. This system includes the Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., and 12 regional Reserve banks. This arrangement avoided the problem of having strong federal government control of the central bank. The idea behind the regional banks is that the further these policymakers are from the day-to-day political process, the more likely that monetary policy decisions would be made on economic grounds rather than political considerations. Furthermore, the policymakers would be less susceptible to pressures to create seigniorage. The opposite concern is that the regional banks would focus too much on their own districts. Therefore, the Board of Governors (seven members) was created to ensure that the entire nation's welfare was considered. Thus, policy was to be set by the 12 presidents of the regional banks (those who served as direct contacts with the states) and the seven members of the Board of Governors (those who were intended to have more of a national view).
Second, who would choose these 19 policymakers? One concern of the founders was that if all of the central bankers are political appointees of the president or Congress, then the Fed would not have the independence it needed to conduct policy in an appropriate manner. It therefore was decided that the presidents of the regional banks would not be political appointees but would be chosen by the citizenry of the district in a nonelectoral manner. This ensured that the presidents would be independent of the political process and less likely to engage in seigniorage creation. One method of choosing regional presidents in a nonelectoral manner was to create a local board of directors for each of the 12 regional banks. Each board, in turn, would select its regional bank president. To achieve a broad perspective on the economic well-being of each district, the board was to be composed of individuals from a wide range of sectors. This ensured that the regional bank presidents would be chosen based on their professional qualifications as opposed to their political connections or sectoral ties.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?