[mbesto]

> They are managed by central banks which are designed to be independent of the government of the day.

Heh, I think you fundamentally misunderstand how central banks work.

1. The US Mint creates the supply of currency in the US, which is literally governed by the government.[0]

2. It's literally governed by presidentially appointed officials.

3. The Fed manages the banking system, which is a trusted system that utilizes fiat currency as a medium of exchange. Their focus is much more aligned to economic prosperity and policy formulation then it is about how the "currency is managed" (the two are obviously interrelated).

> And corporates basically own and run the internet and it seems to be doing pretty well.

There's a big difference between "it basically does" and "it is".

EDIT: [0] - My bad, the BEP creates currency which is overseen by the Treasury, which is in fact a government entity.

[dahfizz]

> 1. The US Mint creates the supply of currency in the US, which is literally governed by the government.

This is wrong in a couple of ways. The mint creates coins, not dollar bills. Those are federal reserve notes. But who literally mints the money doesn't matter - the Fed has always had control over the money supply. That's the power that matters.

> 2. It's literally governed by presidentially appointed officials.

This is also true of the supreme Court. This doesn't change the fact that the Fed can operate independently of the government. As an analog, how often do you worry about what your hiring manager things of you? Once you have the job, they don't have any power over you.

[threeseed]

US Supreme Court is appointed by Congress/President.

You wouldn't say that is it "literally governed". Just like the Supreme Court the Federal Reserve has appointed positions but has in the modern era been independent. It isn't like it is a department such as Homeland Security.

And the central bank model applies in most countries not just the US.

[deathanatos]

AIUI, all it would take is an act of Congress to effect change on how the Federal Reserve does business — whereas changing the function of the Supreme Court is somewhat more constrained by the constitution. I believe "governed" is still appropriate, even though the Federal Reserve can act independently, it is only able to do so because Congress permits it.

[mbesto]

> US Supreme Court is appointed by Congress/President.

And have life-long appointments.

> You wouldn't say that is it "literally governed".

Your conflating two ideas. I would actually say that the Supreme Court is a government entity. You said:

> independent of the government

It literally depends on the US government in order to function. Calling it independent by any stretch of the definition is disingenuous.

> And the central bank model applies in most countries not just the US.

You missed the point. Libra is offering a coin on a global scale. To compare this to one central bank is like comparing apples to oranges.

Honestly, I really don't understand your overall point. You genuinely think the Fed just sits on some island while it regulates US economic policy without any influence or dependence on anything but itself? Think about that for a second.

[nathanaldensr]

> 1. The US Mint creates the supply of currency in the US, which is literally governed by the government.

Congress long-since assigned that responsibility--with the exception of coinage--to the Federal Reserve. Note that our currency no longer says "United States Dollar" on it, only "Federal Reserve Note."