Grafton, NH

Quote: missedhervee

While I always vote Libertarian in all elections, I am not really a Libertarian, I just like to be contrarian, to stir the pot.

Having voted i feel I have the right to bitch and moan about how messed up things are.

Quote: Mission146

I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't completely eliminate it. I'd take a very liberal scalpel to it and narrow their areas of focus significantly. For one thing, you'd still want them working with the FDIC, in many ways. It's not as if, were a bank to completely go under (without paying out deposits made into it) that you can just say, "Oh, the free market will handle it," no, the money's gone.

Basically, it would handle interstate banking type stuff and consumer protections. If you somehow had a bank that operated entirely within an individual state, and did not take customers who were not residents of same, then the Federal Reserve would have no reason to have anything to do with it...unless the bank itself actually asked for such regulation, which I think many would. Banks not FDIC-insured would be seen as unsafe.

It would also ensure fairness in lending to such extent as no discrimination on the basis of race or religion. It would create baseline regulations as far as the conduct of default secured loans is concerned. Some protections against predatory lending.

I think they could also modify interest rates and check the money supply, but not nearly to the extent that they do now. They could put the kibosh on hyperinflation, as needed. Everything that they have done since 2020-2021 has been trying to make up for the fact that, in its infinite wisdom, the Federal Government gave anyone with a pulse thousands and thousands of free dollars due to Covid. It made absolutely no sense. People were spending less anyway; there was nowhere to spend any money for the states that were locked down.

Of course, the lockdowns themselves never should have happened, but that was state level. I'd have been fine, assuming the lockdowns happened, doing expanded unemployment to keep people whole in the interim, but +$600/week resulted in many getting more from unemployment than they were making when they were working in the first place.

Basically, the Federal Reserve, over the last couple of years, is mostly trying to mitigate a disaster that they weren't responsible for creating.

Quote: Mission146

I've honestly never put any thought into it because I'd not eliminate the Federal Reserve.

Quote: DoubleGold

I think we're being charged a little less than one trillion dollars per year right now.

That one trillion (and increasing as we speak) over 50 years would go a long way.

Quote: Mission146

I obviously don't have knowledge anywhere near the depth that a POTUS candidate...um...should.

As the responsibilities and role of the Fed would be reduced, so would their budget. According to this:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2022-ar-federal-reserve-system-budgets.htm

You're being a little aggressive to call it a trillion as it is basically six billion. I'd just have to see what they're doing and go from there, but again, that would be someone else's job; I'd just be issuing the general directive. I have no doubt that there are operating redundancies taking place that could be eliminated, but that's anywhere. Honestly, that report doesn't even give me enough information to hazard a guess at what, specifically, needs trimmed.

Quote: GenoDRPh

You argue best when you argue my point. The main obstacle to a MW increase are Republicans.

Quote: DoubleGold

Quote: Mission146

I obviously don't have knowledge anywhere near the depth that a POTUS candidate...um...should.

As the responsibilities and role of the Fed would be reduced, so would their budget. According to this:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2022-ar-federal-reserve-system-budgets.htm

You're being a little aggressive to call it a trillion as it is basically six billion. I'd just have to see what they're doing and go from there, but again, that would be someone else's job; I'd just be issuing the general directive. I have no doubt that there are operating redundancies taking place that could be eliminated, but that's anywhere. Honestly, that report doesn't even give me enough information to hazard a guess at what, specifically, needs trimmed.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A091RC1Q027SBEA

Quote: Mission146

Quote: DoubleGold

Quote: Mission146

I obviously don't have knowledge anywhere near the depth that a POTUS candidate...um...should.

As the responsibilities and role of the Fed would be reduced, so would their budget. According to this:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2022-ar-federal-reserve-system-budgets.htm

You're being a little aggressive to call it a trillion as it is basically six billion. I'd just have to see what they're doing and go from there, but again, that would be someone else's job; I'd just be issuing the general directive. I have no doubt that there are operating redundancies taking place that could be eliminated, but that's anywhere. Honestly, that report doesn't even give me enough information to hazard a guess at what, specifically, needs trimmed.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A091RC1Q027SBEA

Interest payments? I thought you were referring to operating cost, sorry. By, 'Charged,' I thought you meant that the Fed is technically independent.