Who is the transparent group? How are they held accountable? Aren't they a de facto part of the government by virtue of being able to govern the flow of money, whether or not they're a de jure part of the government?
What is the incentive structure and how does it penalize gamesmanship? How is the group ruled and why can't 51% of it say that we want to create all of the money for ourselves?
Aren't people already paid for using their money as loans in the form of interest rates and being able to structure how and when the money can be withdrawn (money market vs. savings, etc.)? What advantages are there to this? How do you get banks to offer that and what does the average guy like me even know about trying to control the money supply?
And even in that case, don't you still run contrary to the goal in that those with larger amounts of money still manipulate the money supply by choosing investments?
> "Who is the transparent group? How are they held accountable? Aren't they a de facto part of the government by virtue of being able to govern the flow of money, whether or not they're a de jure part of the government?
What is the incentive structure and how does it penalize gamesmanship? How is the group ruled and why can't 51% of it say that we want to create all of the money for ourselves?"
The group may be appointed in a number of different ways, though I suspect it'd be mostly down to standard job hiring, with some key positions appointed by government. If it helps, I imagine it'd be similar process to how judges are appointed.
However, it's important that the money creation group not be part of government. Furthermore, they do not dictate the flow of money, but rather the amount of new money. Any attempt for a non-elected body to control how money is spent opens up a whole host of potential problems. Instead, it is the government that would decide how new money would flow into the economy, i.e. what that new money was spent on.
In terms of gaming the system, there's always a risk of gaming any system, but it's important to be clear that the decisions on how much new money is available and how that money is spent are being made by two different groups of people. Let's put it like this, if you wanted to game this particular system, how would you do it?
> The group may be appointed in a number of different ways, though I suspect it'd be mostly down to standard job hiring, with some key positions appointed by government. If it helps, I imagine it'd be similar process to how judges are appointed.
Also, it's not clear what "not being part of the government" means if some positions are politically appointed. I suppose you're saying new ones can be appointed but old ones cannot be removed, but then that either makes it a lifelong post (which sounds worrisome as they'd be a prime target of corruption) or someone else decides their removal (based on what?).
> Any attempt for a non-elected body to control how money is spent opens up a whole host of potential problems. Instead, it is the government that would decide how new money would flow into the economy, i.e. what that new money was spent on.
I'm having trouble understanding this because the sentences appear to contradict each other in part.
> Let's put it like this, if you wanted to game this particular system, how would you do it?
I'd have to understand it better, first. But in general, a corrupt person would divert the supply of money to flow to them or people who would give them kickbacks (buy their stuff, hire their friends, etc.). They'd divert money away from whatever groups they did not like (political, religious/atheist, minorities, you name it). They'd use control of supply to direct flow to favored media outlets and away from those critical of them. I'm sure there are plenty more evil things to do that I haven't thought of, as well.
Yes, they're part of the Judicial branch, established by Article III of the US Constitution [1]. Not all judges are Article III judges with the protections mentioned therein, but all judges are part of the government on some level. You can see some measures to establish independence from the other branches as well as accountability if you read the section. For the subset of judges that are Article III judges, their wages cannot be reduced and they have a lifetime appointment "in good behavior" (which means they can be impeached for misconduct). What you won't find in the text is anything about judicial review of laws. The court came up with that doctrine on its own in Marbury v. Madison. [2]
What is the incentive structure and how does it penalize gamesmanship? How is the group ruled and why can't 51% of it say that we want to create all of the money for ourselves?
Aren't people already paid for using their money as loans in the form of interest rates and being able to structure how and when the money can be withdrawn (money market vs. savings, etc.)? What advantages are there to this? How do you get banks to offer that and what does the average guy like me even know about trying to control the money supply?
And even in that case, don't you still run contrary to the goal in that those with larger amounts of money still manipulate the money supply by choosing investments?