The CIA has more oversight than the FED, through the "gang of eight" and the Congress' OCA.
The problem with the CIA is deeper than the CIA and is related to Americans' widespread contempt of anything outside their borders - a disdain completely shared by their own cruel, uninformed, egoistical electorate.
In your model, do federal agencies all become like the Supreme Court? Lifetime appointments chosen by the President at the time someone retires?
So what role does the executive branch have? Should we amend the US constitution to state that federal agencies are now run by the legislative branch?
Are you completely unaware of the principle of separation of powers conceptualized 250 years ago which is a cornerstone of XXth century democracies across the world?
Independant agencies have been set up since the 1880s. Do you think you are the first person to "ask questions"? Did you do a modicum of research on the topic before "asking questions"? Do you know the existence of the internet, of google search and of books? Do you know about "Chesterton's Fence"?
> So Congress creates agencies and also selects who runs those agencies? Can Congress fire the heads of these agencies? The management team? Or all employees of the agency?
> So what role does the executive branch have? Should we amend the US constitution to state that federal agencies are now run by the legislative branch?
The second set of questions are irrelevant unless the first set of questions are answered affirmatively (hint: they’re not and you didn’t understand the point you were replying to). I agree that others are being rude in their interactions with you here but I also don’t really see your questions worth engaging more than I already have.
I'd like to see your evidence that it's badly governed, rather than just a one-line condemnation.
Its job is to control the value of the dollar. I think they've done a very good job of that in some very difficult circumstances. Not perfect, but very good. (Compare the crash of 2008 to, say, the Panic of 1893.)
Do you think that, if the Federal Reserve was setting the interest rate at the president's command, that we would be better off? If so, I think you are living in a fantasy land.
Thank you for the softball! Since the 1913, the dollar has lost 95% of its value [source https://disciplinefunds.com/2024/07/23/the-death-of-the-doll...
The prior 100 years, the value was roughly stable [source https://publications.cedarville.edu/books/haymond/no_free_lu... ]
So yes, using your preferred method of judgement I think we were better off before the creation of the "independent" federal reserve. Note, the constitution did not give the president the power to set the value of a dollar. It was a fixed amount of gold.
I can give you more in depth arguments why the Fed is bad (e.g. interest rates are future price of money, history has shown that government price fixing typically has bad outcomes) but you suggested we use a good, simple measure - value!
And the downsides to federal departments staffed by political hacks and flunkies are playing out in front of us.
Monarchy would probably result in a much more efficient gov, with competent staffed departments. But it's not ruled by the people. I still don't see any good arguments on why un-elected bureaucracies is better than status quo.
... Thank you for this joke, Curtis Yarvin. Now get off.
You need actual independent process. It takes real, sustained effort to create the culture where such processes thrive, where people are proud of their independence and their commitment to an ideal rather than an individual - and if a "populist" tries to assault them you need to actually defend them because they are the whole point of having a government by the people and not "Well these two rich guys decided..."
It sounds like you are saying they should be independent of the elected President. If so, who are the accountable to and how?
What is this "will of the people" you are talking about? What people are you talking about? How do you infer their "will"?
This current president has been elected by 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president. Due to the electoral college, a Wyoming voter has 3.6 times the power of a California voter. His approval rating is already negative, and is policies poll negatively too[0]. What mandate does he have? What exactly is the will of the people and why has it changed completely in 6 months? What policy is right when the will of the people changes completely every six months?
[0] https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
> If so, who are the accountable to and how?
To the courts? According to the laws and statutes voted by Congress?
I mean, have you ever educated yourself about your own political system before asking those questions? Shouldn't you have?
I'm not interested in discussing the current president, I am interested in your very different interpretation of the US government (which clearly lays out 3 branches of government).
> To the courts? According to the laws and statutes voted by Congress?
So in your view on how the government should run, after Congress creates a federal agencies, they don't have to worry about any election or democratic process. They only have to worry about the courts if they break the law? Who arrests or prosecutes the DOJ or the FBI? Who brings them to court?
> I mean, have you ever educated yourself about your own political system before asking those questions? Shouldn't you have?
I understand the US government, as designed by the US constitution very well. I am trying to understand this bizarre concept of "independent" federal agencies and why people should prefer that over our current system of an executive branch led by an democratically elected President. A government of agencies with permanent power, with no checks or balances or any reason to be concerned with what citizens care about sounds like a dystopian form of government. You haven't really convinced me that this "independent" style is preferable in anyway. All you really have done is just ranted on why you don't like the current President, but I bet you didn't care about these agencies "independence" from POTUS 44 or 46.
Congress creates an agency. The President nominates the agency's top leadership and the Senate votes on those nominations.
The terms of these top leaders are longer than the term of the President and are staggered so that each new President will have a chance to replace some of the agency's top leadership but not all of them.
--All The President's Men
Thank you for thinking about yourself first, and helping them tighten their grip on the FBI by making yourself powerless, all in order to protect your ego.
The FBI investigates, among other things, white collar crime and also domestic terrorism. Most domestic terrorism is carried about by right wing white supremacists. White collar crime is carried out by wealthy Republicans.
If they could, they would just get rid of the FBI. But putting fools in charge and making it ineffective is nearly as good for their purposes.
US political representation has never represented me. Explain how I am "getting what I voted for"? Should I have voted harder? Voted more often? Spent more than I make in a year every year on political messages?
WarOnPrivacy•6mo ago