3 ms·

> The point of this silly question is to consider just how much of an outsized role the Fed now holds. Among the overarching points of the U.S. Constitution is

> The point of this silly question is to consider just how much of an outsized role the Fed now holds. Among the overarching points of the U.S. Constitution is that people who wield vast power stand for election. The Federal Reserve urinates all over this point. Reforming the Federal Reserve is sine qua non IMO if there is to be any improvement.

AnthonyMouse 4y ago
The issue is it's not just the Fed, it's the administrative state as a whole. The President appoints the Fed board and the FCC commissioners and the DoJ and the FDA, and then they make policy though nobody elected them. The rulemaking role of these agencies should be a subset of the legislature and the Congress should have to vote on their proposals before they become law.
- thebradbain 4y ago
  Congress can barely agree on a debt ceiling without playing football every year. Having them vote on the price tiers of postal service package weights or Amtrak route schedules seem like a surefire way to bring the management of every public agency to a standstill. In fact, the only example we really have of our congress being in charge of setting rules for a public agency is the tax code— and its a mess of carve-outs, loopholes, stopgaps (AMT minimums?) that most lay people need to use a certified professional to simply perform a required function ever year. And it’s consistently subject to political football, drastic policy changes based on whatever party is in power, and core issues that congress was originally supposed to solve by running it (like supposed to balance how much money it brings in against public expenses) are often ignored anyways. The point of a republic is not to put every decision to a vote, but to elect people we trust to be in charge— which includes who they appoint to run agencies, etc. In fact, that’s where most of the president’s power Tiber policy comes from— and it makes sense why, since he’s the only person in our government we all have a say nationwide in electing.
  - smitty1e 4y ago
    Great thoughts, but you invite the question: should techies like the readers of this site attempt to offer a more coherent system? People seem to scale poorly, and the US government needs reform. What to do?
    - thebradbain 4y ago
      Eliminate the amount of people. Unrealistic, but I think the US should get rid of state governments and only have a federal and county governments. Municipal governments can still exist, but really only in regards to city planning and infrastructure decisions. Issues like schools, police, social, the environment should really be consolidated at the county level anyways. Barring that, I think the current system is definitely better than adding congress to the list of decision makers. In fact, that increases the too many cooks in the kitchen problem even more.
      - smitty1e 4y ago
        > US should get rid of state governments and only have a federal and county governments. That would be one approach. However, back to my point on the unscalability of people, I'd argue going the other way, and pushing the (arguably scope-creep) functions that the federal government has assigned itself back to the states.

AnthonyMouse 4y ago

The issue is it's not just the Fed, it's the administrative state as a whole. The President appoints the Fed board and the FCC commissioners and the DoJ and the FDA, and then they make policy though nobody elected them. The rulemaking role of these agencies should be a subset of the legislature and the Congress should have to vote on their proposals before they become law.

thebradbain 4y ago
Congress can barely agree on a debt ceiling without playing football every year. Having them vote on the price tiers of postal service package weights or Amtrak route schedules seem like a surefire way to bring the management of every public agency to a standstill. In fact, the only example we really have of our congress being in charge of setting rules for a public agency is the tax code— and its a mess of carve-outs, loopholes, stopgaps (AMT minimums?) that most lay people need to use a certified professional to simply perform a required function ever year. And it’s consistently subject to political football, drastic policy changes based on whatever party is in power, and core issues that congress was originally supposed to solve by running it (like supposed to balance how much money it brings in against public expenses) are often ignored anyways. The point of a republic is not to put every decision to a vote, but to elect people we trust to be in charge— which includes who they appoint to run agencies, etc. In fact, that’s where most of the president’s power Tiber policy comes from— and it makes sense why, since he’s the only person in our government we all have a say nationwide in electing.
- smitty1e 4y ago
  Great thoughts, but you invite the question: should techies like the readers of this site attempt to offer a more coherent system? People seem to scale poorly, and the US government needs reform. What to do?
  - thebradbain 4y ago
    Eliminate the amount of people. Unrealistic, but I think the US should get rid of state governments and only have a federal and county governments. Municipal governments can still exist, but really only in regards to city planning and infrastructure decisions. Issues like schools, police, social, the environment should really be consolidated at the county level anyways. Barring that, I think the current system is definitely better than adding congress to the list of decision makers. In fact, that increases the too many cooks in the kitchen problem even more.
    - smitty1e 4y ago
      > US should get rid of state governments and only have a federal and county governments. That would be one approach. However, back to my point on the unscalability of people, I'd argue going the other way, and pushing the (arguably scope-creep) functions that the federal government has assigned itself back to the states.