Let’s say, for arguments sake, that the Congress took control of the Fed and thus became the sole decider of monetary policy.
Would this be better or worse than what we have now? Why or why not?
Let’s also assume that they still didn’t allow private banks to issue competing currencies or anything complex like that. Just would it be better or worse to have Congress in charge of monetary policy?
No, that’s why I think that the aim to end the Fed is a bit misguided. If the Federal Reserve System is abolished, control of the money supply will simply go back to the Treasury, which is not much better (although, it is better in the sense that banks no longer have that lender of last resort, so have to assume some responsibility). In truth, the control of money needs to be truly privatized. All government involvement must be abolished.
Congress is already in control of the Fed. The Fed is a government entity.
It is silly to think that congress actually manages anything in the true sense of the word. It simply delegates legal authority and power to various agencies that it creates.
I don’t know what really people expect when they think of Congress or government in charge of the money. That Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi actually carry out moenetory orders? Or perhaps they want to see people with government uniforms and hats like in the post office.
Congress is always worse.
What does this even mean? That Bernake is better then Barney Frank? Do you literally expect members of Congress to run monetary policy in order for you to acknowledge that Congress is in control? Does this mean that Congress in not in control of Post Office either because it is not the actual elected officieals delivering the mail?
The fact that they are debating about auditing and limiting its power means, by definition, that Congress is in control.
Only very indirect control.They have to pass new laws, what is rarely done.
Yes.
Since when are elected officials in direct control of anything? They set up bureaucratic “specialists” to do the work.
The fact that Bernake can theoretically destroy the world with a single keystroke is no different then the some Air Force commander who decides to drop his payload of nuclear bomb on civilians (theoretically). Both are powers granted by the State.
So, just to be clear DD5, you don’t think the argument that the Fed is in fact private and that its 12 member banks are private holds any water?
The Fed should be abolished and replaced by a gold system (free market, no government involvement). But, I see that is not your question. You’re asking, if Congress took over monetary policy, would it be better or worse than the Fed. That is like saying what would be better or worse, a hurricane or an earthquake. What would cause less damage? Who cares. Whether it’s Congress or the Fed, the economy gets destroyed.
Well, they’re not “private.” The state has leviathan tentacles all up in it, and vice versa - depending on how you look at it. The only reason for the quasi-private status is so that they can have an extra layer of protection, can’t be sued as the government, and of course so that the rich bankers get to be really close to the state, and now so that it can skirt things like FOIA requests.
Words like public and private, and strictly speaking even “state” obscure the fact that any group or individual sufficiently intertwined with the state apparatus becomes a de facto part of it - at least for most of the purposes of our analysis here. That’s why I and a few others prefer to use the term “monopoly on force” or similar (even though it has nothing to do with the Austrian definition of monopoly, it’s just a convenient word and easy to understand). So we can see that there is, by now at least, not all that much useful distinction we can make between the banking branch of the monopoly and the so-called state branch (and the corporate branch for that matter).
So to answer your question, it may be a little better due to a few technicalities and inertia, but in the end I don’t think it would be hugely significant. It would certainly be a nice trigger, perhaps - but on the other hand it could make people complacent and the wind out of the sails that the libertarian movement seems to be enjoying ever since Ron Paul’s rise.