Changes to The Constitution.

[jonatha]

Give me one example of a government job that you think achieves nothing at all.

Speaker of the House, at least at the moment?

 

[Swammerdami]

With respect, this post suggests you also are not strongly aware of how the Fed is staffed or run; it is hardly a college of "experts" nor is superb merit necessarily what leads to getting jobs there. No, I wouldn't call on a majority vote to elect a heart surgeon, but neither would I trust the governor-appointed hospital administrator to do that job, nor the med school friends she managed to find desk jobs for when she came on board. A heart surgeon would be preferable, best of all a heart surgeon who doesn't have a powerful personal financial incentive to let a certain proportion of heart surgeries per month fail.

To put it another way, if Jerome Powell had any relevant academic qualifications whatsoever, Donald Trump would never have considered appointing him to the chairman's seat. Yet there he is.

This post startled me. I assume by "jobs [at the Fed]" you're referring to Governors specifically rather than janitors. And let's ignore appointments by the sociopathic criminal. His conduct and appointments are the subjects of other threads.

President Clinton appointed six Fed Governors. All six had PhD's in economics. President G.W. Bush appointed eight Fed Governors. Only six had PhD's in economics (although one of those won the 2022 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences); the other two are from the banking industry: Mark W. Olson ("the youngest person ever elected as President of the American Bankers Association") and Elizabeth Ashburn Duke (Bank CEO and Chairman of the American Bankers Association). Unqualified?

Biden has appointed four Fed Governors. Three were professors of economics; the fourth

Michael S. Barr ... was assistant secretary of the treasury for financial institutions under President Barack Obama. ... was the Dean of Public Policy and Professor of Public Policy at the University of Michigan's Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School and faculty director of the University of Michigan's Center on Finance, Law, and Policy.[2][3] Barr is a Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration.... , was ... a Rhodes Scholar, ... was a co-recipient of the AILA Human Rights Award and recipient of the Charles G. Albom Prize ...

Governors I've dismissed with "Professor of economics" also had stronger resume bullets than just a professorship.

Jerome Powell, BTW, was appointed to the Board by Obama, not by Trump! (Trump promoted him from Governor of the Philadelphia Bank to Chairman.) Obama wasn't happy to appoint a Republican; instead it was to get Jeremy Stein appointed to the other vacancy, in a manoeuvre that recalls a West Wing episode where President Bartlett arranges for there to be TWO Scotus vacancies.

Anyway, I'm not sure Powell is as horrid as some imply:

He was a visiting scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center from 2010 to 2012, before returning to public service.... Powell built his reputation in Washington during the Obama administration as a consensus-builder and problem-solver.... Powell received bipartisan praise for the actions taken by the Federal Reserve in early 2020 to combat the financial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

[Tigers!]

If someone offered you a job where you're going to be paid tomorrow, and I offered you a job doing the same work, but say I will pay you in 2063, which job would you prefer to take, knowing that inflation will be zero?

Is the pay the same for the work offered by you or that other chap? That is an important consideration for many people.

 

[bilby]

If someone offered you a job where you're going to be paid tomorrow, and I offered you a job doing the same work, but say I will pay you in 2063, which job would you prefer to take, knowing that inflation will be zero?

Is the pay the same for the work offered by you or that other chap?

Yes, obviously.

The only difference is the timing of when the pay packet arrives.

Which job would you take? And why?

 

[RVonse]

During a serious downturn, federal employees would be laid off in proportion to the private economy.

Why? This would be about the stupidest possible response to an economic downturn, and would lead to conditions not seen since the Great Depression.

"Let's scrap the fire department. If my house catches fire, everyone else's houses should be set afire, in proportion to the damage caused at my house". A true stroke of genius, that.

Since when was (is) the federal government in the business of putting out fires? That is usually done at the city or even the county level. If the federal government has been engaged to put out house fires, it is even bigger and more bloated than I thought.

Furthermore, if you wish to argue Keynesian economics to stimulate the economy in a downturn, there are many other ways to stimulate the local and or national economy with spending "such as infrastructure spending", "hyperloop tunnels", "alternative energy", other than more federal administration and bloated do nothing government jobs that cost a lot of money and never go away.

Which government jobs entail doing nothing?

Be specific; Give me one example of a government job that you think achieves nothing at all.

All the myriad of layers of administrators in the Pentagon who run around the hallways doing nothing productive. Some of them look at the paintings and pretend to be busy.

All successful organizations eventually lead to too many administrators and bureaucracy, not just the government. Because you have to use your budget or you lose your budget. But unlike the federal government, a private corporation has the advantage of being able to reduce bloated fat and excess management/administration during a downturn. The federal government only gets bigger and bigger. No one ever gets fired from the federal government, especially those individuals who are designated liars in front of congress like Clapper.

Which department of our federal government have you ever seen been eliminated or reduced in size? In my lifetime, I have seen a lot of new departments started up (TSA, Homeland Security, etc) but not one department has ever gone away or reduced in size. Yet private stores that sell nothing go out of business all the time in private industry. If the federal government does not do something right (like during 911 for example) the offending organizations that failed (such as the FBI and CIA not communicating with each other) should have either been terminated or fixed. But instead no one was held accountable and we just added more layers of government over each other.

 

[RVonse]

Do you really think that public opinion is the best way to select experts, and is better than merit and experience based appointments?

For starters, I think the public is entitled to an audit.

How far do you think I would get with IRS if I told them I was educated but they weren't so no audit could ever be required of my taxes?

That is your argument here.

 

[RVonse]

If there was no Fed, what would replace it? Surely you would not trust monetary policy to a group who cannot even pass a budget?

What were we using before the fed came into existence? Why is it so wrong to just allow the free market decide where interest rates should be? Why does there need to be dictator banksters to decide what the free market should be doing? What the free market does is make price decisions at the lowest possible level where the rubber meets the pavement. Which is much more efficient than any committee can hope to be.

You have said there were big swings before the fed but that was nearly 100 years in the past. Before much faster communication, computers, chat gp, etc which would probably clear cycles much faster and smoother.

 

[RVonse]

Changes to The Constitution. (in order of importance)​

1) No more lobbies, bribery, or money given to any politician with SEVERE penalties approaching those for treason acts. The federal government would equally distribute marketing time for the candidate advertisements. All based on popularity and NOT private and/or secret dark money.

2) Total size of the federal government linked to the productivity and size of the private economy. In no circumstance allow the federal government bigger than 50% of the total economy. During a serious downturn, federal employees would be laid off in proportion to the private economy. All federal employees would have a retirement systems identical to the average private wage earner. If the average private earner has no defined pension than neither will the average federal employees.

3) No more insider stock trading for the speaker of the house and/or other members of congress. Anyone caught corrupting themselves with private enrichment would be barred from federal office....forever.

4) Salaries of members of congress would be carefully linked to average compensation for the average private wage earner of the United States. Congress will NOT have the ability (as they do now) to increase their own salary. Other compensation such as social security and medical benefits would be exactly the same systems every other US citizen is compelled to use.

5) Language to specifically undue "citizens united ruling". Large corporations to never have the same rights as private citizens

6) Get rid of the fed and make whatever serves its place accountable to the public.

You know what America needs? More politicians who dumb down incredibly complex and nuanced systems into one sentence sound bites. That'll fix everything.

Not sure what you mean here. The OP asked what changes to the Constitution I would make. And the changes that I would make are based on what corruption we have seen over the years of our founding. The same kind of corruption that helped to bring the Roman empire down. And although the corruption devised by imperfect humans has evolved to be extremely complex and nuanced I would not say it should be ignored if we had the opportunity to fix what was originally written in the Constitution.

 

[bilby]

All the myriad of layers of administrators in the Pentagon who run around the hallways doing nothing productive. Some of them look at the paintings and pretend to be busy.

Citation needed

 

[bilby]

No one ever gets fired from the federal government

Citation needed

 

[bilby]

Do you really think that public opinion is the best way to select experts, and is better than merit and experience based appointments?

For starters, I think the public is entitled to an audit.

How far do you think I would get with IRS if I told them I was educated but they weren't so no audit could ever be required of my taxes?

That is your argument here.

No, it isn't.

 

[laughing dog]

According to the "proxies" in that graph, real interest rates are negative right now. Remember that "real interest rate" is defined as nominal rate minus inflation rate.

Right now is only a very long time if you measure time in picoseconds.

Calculating the real rate if interest is technically difficult. The nominal rate of interest for an asset of a specific duration is the real rate of interest plus the expected rate of inflation for that duration. Expectations are difficult to pin down accurately.

You are using a quick and dirty method of approximating the after the fact rate of interest. When inflationary expectations are accurate, the two measures are theoretically identical.

 

[laughing dog]

If there was no Fed, what would replace it? Surely you would not trust monetary policy to a group who cannot even pass a budget?

What were we using before the fed came into existence? Why is it so wrong to just allow the free market decide where interest rates should be? Why does there need to be dictator banksters to decide what the free market should be doing? What the free market does is make price decisions at the lowest possible level where the rubber meets the pavement. Which is much more efficient than any committee can hope to be.

. As I said, there were wide and persistently swings in economic activity.

You have said there were big swings before the fed but that was nearly 100 years in the past. Before much faster communication, computers, chat gp, etc which would probably clear cycles much faster and smoother.

Given the observed effects of those technological changes, there is just as much reason to expect the economic disruptions would be exacerbated and amplified.

 

[jonatha]

Why is it so wrong to just allow the free market decide where interest rates should be?

Panic of 1785
Copper Panic of 1789
Panic of 1792
Panic of 1796-1797
Depression of 1807
1815-1821 Depression
Panic of 1857
Panic of 1873 and the Long Depression
Depression of 1882-1885
Panic of 1893
Panic of 1896
Panic of 1907

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Patooka]

During a serious downturn, federal employees would be laid off in proportion to the private economy.

Why? This would be about the stupidest possible response to an economic downturn, and would lead to conditions not seen since the Great Depression.

"Let's scrap the fire department. If my house catches fire, everyone else's houses should be set afire, in proportion to the damage caused at my house". A true stroke of genius, that.

Since when was (is) the federal government in the business of putting out fires? That is usually done at the city or even the county level. If the federal government has been engaged to put out house fires, it is even bigger and more bloated than I thought.

Furthermore, if you wish to argue Keynesian economics to stimulate the economy in a downturn, there are many other ways to stimulate the local and or national economy with spending "such as infrastructure spending", "hyperloop tunnels", "alternative energy", other than more federal administration and bloated do nothing government jobs that cost a lot of money and never go away.

Which government jobs entail doing nothing?

Be specific; Give me one example of a government job that you think achieves nothing at all.

All the myriad of layers of administrators in the Pentagon who run around the hallways doing nothing productive. Some of them look at the paintings and pretend to be busy.

All successful organizations eventually lead to too many administrators and bureaucracy, not just the government. Because you have to use your budget or you lose your budget. But unlike the federal government, a private corporation has the advantage of being able to reduce bloated fat and excess management/administration during a downturn. The federal government only gets bigger and bigger. No one ever gets fired from the federal government, especially those individuals who are designated liars in front of congress like Clapper.

Which department of our federal government have you ever seen been eliminated or reduced in size? In my lifetime, I have seen a lot of new departments started up (TSA, Homeland Security, etc) but not one department has ever gone away or reduced in size. Yet private stores that sell nothing go out of business all the time in private industry. If the federal government does not do something right (like during 911 for example) the offending organizations that failed (such as the FBI and CIA not communicating with each other) should have either been terminated or fixed. But instead no one was held accountable and we just added more layers of government over each other.

You do know the meaning of the word specific, right?

Right?

 

[Patooka]

Not sure what you mean here.

I'll elaborate. You answer was basically a ChatGPT generated response that one typically sees as comments from a Jimmy Dore video on Rumble. It's very big on slogans, catchphrases and rhetorical hyperbole (seriously, the fucking Roman Empire?) but pretty much contains fuck all in terms of policy. It's the sort of buzzword debate bro bullshit that would get a cheer at a rally but has literally no place in government ever. Hope that clears things up.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you really think that public opinion is the best way to select experts, and is better than merit and experience based appointments?

For starters, I think the public is entitled to an audit.

The Fed is audited by a private independent firm every year. The audit is available to the public. The GAO audits any lending by the Fed.

Either you are misinformed or you have something different in mind when you refer to “ audit”.

 

[Swammerdami]

Why is it so wrong to just allow the free market decide where interest rates should be?

Panic of 1785
Copper Panic of 1789
Panic of 1792
Panic of 1796-1797
Depression of 1807
1815-1821 Depression
Panic of 1857
Panic of 1873 and the Long Depression
Depression of 1882-1885
Panic of 1893
Panic of 1896
Panic of 1907

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks! It is good to show the erratic financial swings of the 19th century to those who want to return to their imaginary halcyon days!

But I don't think interest rates, per se, were a direct cause of most of those panics. Instead the LACK of a Central Bank -- to serve as a lender of last resort, impose rules, and to guarantee some form of paper money -- was a major cause. NONE of the "Panics" jonatha lists occurred when the U.S. had one of its three central banks (1st B of US, 2nd B of US, FRB).

The failure of gold production to keep pace with the growing economy was also an issue: One of those Panics literally ended when a ship carrying bullion from Europe was spotted entering New York Harbor. Paper^* (or nowadays electrons!) are not in short supply. (* - Yes, I watched Inside Man and know that no trees are cut down to make U.S. currency.)

But let's reject RVonse's premise! The free market still does set long-term interest rates -- the important rates -- although those markets do take signals from short-term markets. (QE does affect long-term rates; it's fun to see the expressions on libertarians' faces when informed that their darling Milton Friedman was the key advocate of QE!)

The FRB's main function is to define the U.S. Dollar and to ensure its stability. What would "One Dollar" even mean if the FRB were to disappear? Before 1933 the "dollar" was defined as a certain amount of gold, and all U.S. money was, at least nominally, a promise to redeem in gold. Does RVonse want to return to a gold standard? Will Bitcoin be the new gold in his vision? Without answers to such questions, "abolishing the FRB" is just gibberish.

 

[laughing dog]

The concern over an unelected central bank goes back over 200 years. President Andrew Jackson went after the US National Bank.

A very well written book from RVonse’s perspective about the FRB is Secrets of the Temple by William Greider.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The US doesn't need a King of the dollar to rule the world economy. All that is needed is a dollar that buys the same goods and services today as it would have bought 50 years ago. Whether that means tying the dollar back to gold or bit coin I can not say. But letting an unelected committee of insider bankster bureaucrats control everyone's economic destiny is certainly not the answer.

Worst of all the fed has cheated humanity in general and is stealing everyones incentive to save. How does a young person ever manage to save enough to retire when he puts his(her) savings dollars in a bucket that has big holes in it?

A system with zero inflation would be ideal. However, we do not have perfect control of the inflation rate and deflation is far more harmful than inflation. Thus we aim to keep the inflation rate such that it almost never dips below zero.

As for the young person saving--there are no holes in the bucket. Inflation is factored into interest rates. If you had 0% inflation you would find the bank paid about 0% interest and probably would charge you for having an account at all. The problem is bank deposits aren't a viable investment option regardless of the inflation rate. If you want your savings to grow you need to look at the stock market.