Yeah, the “private” bank with a governor appointed by the executive, which enjoys a legal monopoly on currency issuance. Very private indeed.
[8-)]
No, the government is very much responsible for this. Sorry if that is something you do not like hearing. As for “interest-free” money, do you have a plan for eradicating time preference, perhaps? Re currencies, Rothbard would allow for anything that consenting individuals wanted to participate in, provided it was not fraudulent.
Define “privatized.” As I see it, there is no difference in kind between the Federal Reserve and any given bureaucracy. Just because the government calls it “private” does not make it so.
The US auto industry is a net negative. Theyre taking inputs from the economy (employees, materials, etc) and creating outputs (cars) that are of less value than the total value of inputs. Therefore, the ‘big’ 3 are a DRAIN upon the economy.
Is that so? I gather then that I am merely imagining the fact that the Senate must approve all members of the Board of Governors.
The President appoints the Board of Governors, it was created by an act of Congress, it survives due to federal legal tender laws and taxation, it is a legal monopoly, it primarily serves to carry out the President’s monetary policy, it engages in taxation (through inflation), etc.
Now I ask again, how exactly does the Fed qualify as “private”?