Although an instrument of the US Government, the Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.
I guess that depends on how you define managing. I mean, the Fed couldn't do exactly whatever they wanted, the government would step in if it got too crazy.
But on the other hand, separating the government from the central bank is a fundamental idea in the whole central banking argument.
If it indeed was completely managed by and subjected to the full political influence of the government the US would probably have higher denomination bills [0].
The Fed is governed by laws Facebook isn't and it's board is appointed by the government.
The Fed has clear interest and motivation to have priorities in line with the country.
Facebook absolutely does not.
What happens when Facebook goes under and private capital bleeds it dry? (cough Toys R Us). I don't think Bain Capital's monetary policy would be good for us.
> I guess that depends on how you define managing.
The Board of Governors are government employees appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate; the Fed is as much part of the government as any of the other “independent” executive board/commissions/agencies.
I might have extrapolated a bit too much from my much deeper knowledge of my countries central bank system. But I gess it's fair to ish compare Supreme Court justices to fed governors (not easy to fire and long terms)?
My point was more that colechristensen's "appeal to democracy" seemed somewhat misguided. Both the Fed and the Supreme Court seems like the least "democratic" government institutions, in some sense. Not that it's bad, nor that I think that FB would be a better guardian of our money supply, but still.
If the Fed does something I don't like, and I write to my representatives about it, what can they do? It's pretty independent. Even the board members can be removed only by the President and only "for cause". It's not funded by Congressional appropriations.
In addition, though the Congress sets the goals for monetary policy, decisions of the Board--and the Fed's monetary policy-setting body, the Federal Open Market Committee--about how to reach those goals do not require approval by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government.https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm
Are you arguing for more government control of monetary policy through regulating Facebook or less government control of monetary policy through Facebook's competing currency?
It seems like Facebook is worse in both directions. Both serving the interests of activist regulations and governed by a corporation with it's own interests first.
> I mean we don't normally let companies or individuals create their own currency right?
Actually that happens all the time; for example we have store credit, loyalty points, virtual "gold" in games, poker chips, and a long list of community currencies[1] like BerkShares.
Why wouldn't companies or individuals be able to create their own currencies? In the end it just means people are discussing and reaching consensus on the ownership and value of some common unit of account, which is a direct expression of the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and ownership of property. (And by "property" I'm referring only to what is being bought or sold, not the currency itself, which in the case of virtual currencies or cryptocurrencies might not even be property, just pure information about a completely theoretical system which people happen to agree on, which is 100% a matter of speech.)
So, if nobody votes the way I do, I should be happy that I got to vote even though I will never get the thing I want. I don't see why that's better than having that plus other options that help me today.
My democratic involvement doesn't begin and end at the vote. I'm a participant in the culture that collectively makes these decisions. I feel that I'm a part of "our" decision on most matters, even if I sometimes don't like our collective choice. I expect that my fellow citizen is reasonably competent and in good intention.
Seems like Americans have a very low opinion of their "collective" and are simultaneously fearful of its power over them. If that's more generally true in USA than elsewhere, then I wonder if it's just a product of the country's size, or if people can feel differently about this regarding their state vs. country.
The US government is, though, and the Fed is managed by and subject to the government.