[LordOpie]

In another thread, it was pointed out that the Fed and Income taxes were established illegally.


Here, I ask, without the Fed or if the Fed was more closely tied to or controlled by the Executive or Congressional branches, would it have the necessary power and autonomy to do it's job?

For example, Bernanke (new Fed chief) warns of budget crisis and how it might criple our economy. He doesn't have the power to control the budget, but he can force the issue by manipulating the money supply, interest rates and inflation.

Would or could the Fed challenge either branches if it wasn't as autonomous?

Isn't there some advantage of this illegal organization controlled by a few men?

 

[RenegadeRick]

:crickets:

Care to share what YOU think the benefits are?

 

[reflux]

Isn't there some advantage of this illegal organization controlled by a few men?

A segregation of duties. I'd be very wary of a Congress that had a degree of control over both the fiscal and monetary policies.

The continuity within the Board is something unique to the government, where there could theoretically be a regime change every few years. Board members have terms of something like 14 years, and a phd in economics is a degree or two beyond your average Congressman.

The Fed has a vested interest in the economy in general, whereas your typical politician has a vested interest in making his supporters money. Or at least that's how I see it.

 

[skatetokil]

I'm sorry to be the one to say it, but the fed is the only branch of the government I actually trust these days. Banks as fairly permanent institutions take a longer view of the economy than politicians, and it is in their interests to keep the monetary system humming along predictably.