tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (02/17/86)
(Sorry if this is a reposting.) > Where economic matters are concerned, the relationships between crucial > economic institutions -- the federal executive, the Federal Reserve, major > corporations -- seem to me incredibly bureaucratic and insulated by > law and convention from any popular recall or revision. The supposed > need for a separation of economic management from politics has always > seemed to me an excuse to keep voters uninformed and infantile where > US national economic issues are concerned. You object to the separation of economy and state, and yet your objection is expressed with an example in which economy has most disastrously not been separated from state. What makes you think that anything other than the abolition of the Federal Reserve, etc., would help? Surely you don't claim that things would improve if people chose to keep the Federal Reserve but run it from the polls. David Hudson
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (02/22/86)
In article <666@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes: >> Where economic matters are concerned, the relationships between crucial >> economic institutions -- the federal executive, the Federal Reserve, major >> corporations -- seem to me incredibly bureaucratic and insulated by >> law and convention from any popular recall or revision. The supposed >> need for a separation of economic management from politics has always >> seemed to me an excuse to keep voters uninformed and infantile where >> US national economic issues are concerned. > >You object to the separation of economy and state, and yet >your objection is expressed with an example in which economy >has most disastrously not been separated from state. What >makes you think that anything other than the abolition of >the Federal Reserve, etc., would help? Surely you don't >claim that things would improve if people chose to keep the >Federal Reserve but run it from the polls. > > David Hudson I don't object to the separation of economy and state bureaucracy. I object to the separation of economy from democratic politics. There's no reason democratic politics should equal state bureaucracy at all. If you read what I wrote, I was criticizing the power of bureaucracy in these economic decisions, not praising it. There's not only the options of state control or private control. There's also democratic control, for instance by referendum. I'm not suggesting that people should have a line item veto of specific Federal Reserve rulings or anything like that. I'm just suggesting that the administration of the Federal Reserve should be recallable and accountable in general, not just when terms of board members expire. When people exercise their vote in meaningful ways, they don't go nuts; they're often much more conservative and pragmatic than the media thinks they are. And if they're not, then the state and nation have learned something important which will keep the state responsive to people. Tony Wuersch {amdcad!cae780, amd}!ubvax!tonyw
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (03/06/86)
In article <666@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes: >(Sorry if this is a reposting.) > >> Where economic matters are concerned, the relationships between crucial >> economic institutions -- the federal executive, the Federal Reserve, major >> corporations -- seem to me incredibly bureaucratic and insulated by >> law and convention from any popular recall or revision. > >You object to the separation of economy and state, and yet >your objection is expressed with an example in which economy >has most disastrously not been separated from state. What >makes you think that anything other than the abolition of >the Federal Reserve, etc., would help? On what basis do you lable the operations of the Federal Reserve, etc, as disastrous? Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
rab@well.UUCP (Bob Bickford) (03/13/86)
In article <1182@mmintl.UUCP>, franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: > In article <666@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes: > > > >> Where economic matters are concerned, the relationships between crucial > >> economic institutions -- the federal executive, the Federal Reserve, major > >> corporations -- seem to me incredibly bureaucratic and insulated by > >> law and convention from any popular recall or revision. > > > >You object to the separation of economy and state, and yet > >your objection is expressed with an example in which economy > >has most disastrously not been separated from state. What > >makes you think that anything other than the abolition of > >the Federal Reserve, etc., would help? > > On what basis do you lable the operations of the Federal Reserve, etc, > as disastrous? > > Frank Adams Wake up Frank. Ever hear of inflation? Have you noticed that we're using paper money in this country? And that the gov't just prints more when it feels like it, and then has the Federal Reserve loan it to them (presumably to make the whole thing look respectable)? Does it occur to you that because we have a centralized monetary system we are vulnerable to the machinations of those who control said system? -- Robert Bickford (rab@well.uucp) ================================================ | I doubt if these are even my own opinions. | ================================================