Chapter 17 (ECO)
Student Post #1 (CH)
I think that the better of the two ways would be to have the congress appoint the new members of the fed from people in congress. The first reason is because the members of congress would know more about the workings of a government and they would have already been picked by the American people at one point. if the president were the one to pick then he could potentially pick people who he simply liked and not someone who was really qualified for the job.
The only drawback that I see to this is that at the moment congress seems to be havening a hard time getting much done due to parties working against one another. So as long as the feds did not need to be appointed quickly then this might would work just fine.
I definitely favor the system that allows the president to appoint members of the fed. Upon being appointed, the appointees are evaluated and either confirmed or denied by the senate. This system has a built in checks and balance system. In theory, the required confirmation by the senate ensures the POTUS does not appoint a person who has a conflict, such as a banking CEO. The appointee being limited to the same term as the POTUS acts to ensure these individuals are meeting their expectations. As four years pass, there is an opportunity to relieve these individuals of their duty if they have been effective at their job.
It does not seem like a good idea to allow members of congress to serve as members of the fed. One reason I feel this way is there are no required credentials to become a congressman. In other words, anyone can be elected to Congress. As a consequence, these members often make decisions about complex issues with a menial understanding of the issue. The regulation of the US financial system should be entrusted to experts. Further, members of Congress are obligated to follow the desires of their constituents (in theory). This could pose a conflict when it comes time to make a decision
STUDENT POST #3
I believe the current method of Fed Appointments is the better choice when examining the two listed above. I worry that President appointments will be long and drawn out while waiting for the senate approvals and the appointments will be politically slanted thus not able to impartially sit on the Fed board without being compromised for political gain. Scenario (a) also lists a four-year term to be served parallel to the President and that too worries me because there is a bit of transitional carelessness and political games that are played when the President changes and I think the Federal Reserve board needs to be stable and separate of the White House issues when changing of the guard so to speak.
I also worry that in scenario (b) that the individuals being elected would not necessarily have the qualifications to evaluate and anticipate fluctuations in the market to control the monetary system to benefit the people of this country and the world. I watch the current work load of the senate and congress and do not believe (as a whole) they have a sense of urgency I would like to have in the Federal Reserve Board.
I think the system we currently have is overall the best system for our country and whereas there are short run worries and issues that arise, in the long run our country has established and maintained a stable economy