Independent central banks are much more competent, credible and technocratic than having elected politicians control the money supply. I’m not really aware of anyone who thinks this move was a bad idea.
Ron Paul and a large fraction of American internet libertarians believe in the badness of technocratic central banks quite strongly[1], though I agree that this is not a mainstream (or even minority) position among academics or other people I trust on economic issues.
He opposes the Fed, but does he want interest rates set by politicians? My understanding is he wanted a return to the gold standard, where there is less need to directly control the money supply—the only question is whether you insist on 100% backing or accept a lower ratio, but once that is set growth in the money supply is determined by the volume of physical gold.
Similarly bitcoin people oppose the Fed, but not because they want politicians in charge—they have another external rule (e.g. fixed max quantity) that reduces democratic discretion.
Ron Paul and a large fraction of American internet libertarians believe in the badness of technocratic central banks quite strongly[1], though I agree that this is not a mainstream (or even minority) position among academics or other people I trust on economic issues.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Economic
He opposes the Fed, but does he want interest rates set by politicians? My understanding is he wanted a return to the gold standard, where there is less need to directly control the money supply—the only question is whether you insist on 100% backing or accept a lower ratio, but once that is set growth in the money supply is determined by the volume of physical gold.
Similarly bitcoin people oppose the Fed, but not because they want politicians in charge—they have another external rule (e.g. fixed max quantity) that reduces democratic discretion.
Maybe this discussion is a bit tangential to The Center for Election Science’s fund-raising.