[sooheon]

Expanding the money supply and controlling inflation are precisely the things the Fed does (with monetary policy, the fiscal multiplier is only part of it).

Re: corruption and concentration of wealth, I see no reason why government should have a monopoly on that. The 2007 crisis, and Enron before it, and countless other scandals, are evidence of the former being rampant in capitalism. The observation that without exogenous (non-capitalistic) forces, return on capital will always outpace economic growth (popularized by Piketty) is evidence of the latter.

[pas]

The fiscal multiplier is the US budget (public spending, funded by taxes) set by Congress, doesn't have much to do with the monetary thing.

Private corruption is many orders of magnitude a smaller problem, because there the agent-principal problem is less relevant. Enron had shareholders, they were lazy, but it was their money. The voters in public elections are playing with others' money too.

[sooheon]

My point is that fiscal policy is only part of the influence the government has on the economy, and likely the less important part. Monetary policy has far greater consequences for inflation and money supply.

How do you come the conclusion that gov't corruption is "orders of magnitude" worse? I see nothing quantitative in your reasoning. Voters in public elections are playing with others' money, as are lobbyists for corporate interests. Private corporations play with others' land sea and air regularly. It's a flawed system as a whole, agreed, but getting rid of government influence is not the answer, as that leaves the economically powerless truly and utterly powerless.

And it seems you don't have an answer to the accumulation of capital. Left to its own devices, any capitalistic system will concentrate and grow wealth at a faster rate than economic growth. This is why a countervailing force is necessary, whether in revolution or governance.

edit re the agent principal problem: you forget the vast majority of people who are too poor to be shareholders or board members anywhere. The only shares anyone is guaranteed in society (in theory) is the equal and inalienable share in governance amounting to 1 vote. I shudder at the thought of a future America where your votes are directly proportional to your wealth, and seats on the Board of Directors of the USA are bought.

[RobertoG]

" I shudder at the thought of a future America where your votes are directly proportional to your wealth, and seats on the Board of Directors of the USA are bought."

That would be just business as usual. In most countries and until very recently, only the owners of property were allowed to vote. We forget that 'natural state' of things to our own danger.

[AndrewKemendo]

The Fed however responds to the markets in the form of bank loan origination, defaults, returns and general market productivity. So it's a delicate balance that the Fed is trying to play with money supply and interest rates to accelerate or brake the economy.