[aredox]

>Instead, you choose to devolve into personal attacks (probably because you don't have any good arguments or explanations).

Independant agencies have been set up since the 1880s. Do you think you are the first person to "ask questions"? Did you do a modicum of research on the topic before "asking questions"? Do you know the existence of the internet, of google search and of books? Do you know about "Chesterton's Fence"?

[jpadkins]

I've done some research. I didn't find any arguments on why un-elected bureaucracies are better than the status quo. The Federal Reserve is the currently most independent "agency" we have (privately owned corporation with a board chosen by Presidents). It's hardly a poster child for good governance. Can you imagine if the DOJ was owned and operated by private corporations, where Congress or the President would pick a board? Sounds like tyranny to me. I asked genuine questions if anyone had arguments for why this is better. Clearly you don't have any.

[Ashkee]

It’s tough to trust unelected bodies when their accountability feels murky. You might want to check out Loyally AI—they help businesses keep transparency with customers, which could be a model for government agencies too. Making things clearer usually helps build some trust over time.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

You seem to have drawn conclusions based on your assumptions:

> So Congress creates agencies and also selects who runs those agencies? Can Congress fire the heads of these agencies? The management team? Or all employees of the agency?

> So what role does the executive branch have? Should we amend the US constitution to state that federal agencies are now run by the legislative branch?

The second set of questions are irrelevant unless the first set of questions are answered affirmatively (hint: they’re not and you didn’t understand the point you were replying to). I agree that others are being rude in their interactions with you here but I also don’t really see your questions worth engaging more than I already have.

[AnimalMuppet]

> It's hardly a poster child for good governance.

I'd like to see your evidence that it's badly governed, rather than just a one-line condemnation.

Its job is to control the value of the dollar. I think they've done a very good job of that in some very difficult circumstances. Not perfect, but very good. (Compare the crash of 2008 to, say, the Panic of 1893.)

Do you think that, if the Federal Reserve was setting the interest rate at the president's command, that we would be better off? If so, I think you are living in a fantasy land.

[jpadkins]

> Its job is to control the value of the dollar.

Thank you for the softball! Since the 1913, the dollar has lost 95% of its value [source https://disciplinefunds.com/2024/07/23/the-death-of-the-doll...

The prior 100 years, the value was roughly stable [source https://publications.cedarville.edu/books/haymond/no_free_lu... ]

So yes, using your preferred method of judgement I think we were better off before the creation of the "independent" federal reserve. Note, the constitution did not give the president the power to set the value of a dollar. It was a fixed amount of gold.

I can give you more in depth arguments why the Fed is bad (e.g. interest rates are future price of money, history has shown that government price fixing typically has bad outcomes) but you suggested we use a good, simple measure - value!