|
|
|
|
|
|
by AnimalMuppet
331 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
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!