There never really was. It was always a charade. The only real “benefit” of the current system is that seigniorage profits are accrued by primary dealers rather than Treasury.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/1...
I wish I had something more articulate to say; this truly boggles my mind how this would benefits the American people. It should benefit us as American's right?
I question that. Go read “The Panic of 1907” and I think you will question it as well.
The profits go back to the Federal government: https://www.npr.org/2016/04/29/476203984/how-managing-money-...
The "GlobalResearch.ca" website is for conspiracy theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky#Centre_for...
Also, the article says that there is almost no inflation (2016) but there should be inflation. They are using the wrong definition of inflation. The term is actually supposed to refer to inflation of the money supply not inflation of prices. Usually a consequence of inflation of money supply is inflation of prices, but there are other factors which can counter this and reduce prices. But even in 2016 there was inflation of the money supply by definition due to the newly created money by The Federal Reserve. More money means existing money has less purchasing power, so more of it is required to buy the same stuff (Or higher prices).
But why could we have inflated money supply with steady prices? Perhaps because of technology. Tech creates efficiencies which make it cheaper to produce and sell goods and services. I’m sure there are other drivers, but that is a pretty powerful one.
Also, inflation was lower before the Fed existed than after it.
So for all intents and purposes the government owns the Fed.
If the world evolves further into currency consolidation (which seems to be the direction aspired to by many technologists hoping for Internet money), this distinction will grow in relevance.
What us technologists might aspire to is pretty different from the ground truth.
I guess there is also, at least, the good ol' african "Franc CFA"
Portugal was under the troika but efficiently implemented things and quickly got out of it. Greek and Cypriot governments tried to game the system again and again, e.g. the troika imposed on Greece (or rather agreed with Greece, there's some nuance) an obligation to reduce it's overblown public sector by reducing the number of public servants. They did make a mistake though as they did not specify which public servants.
What does the Greek government do? They massively reduce the number of teachers, then turn around and ask the European social fund for money to cover annual replacement teacher contracts.
But the overblown administration has not shrunk much (and each time the government changes they do as before and rehire their allies...). Instead everyone curses the EU/troika/Germany/... for 'imposing' these cuts when the cuts per se are often not the issue, but rather the implementation.
You can also see why countries like Germany are scared of mutualised debt: Since the introduction of the euro, Italian debt has increased massively because it was so cheap. Easier to loan money and serve a few favors when the government will anyway change in 2 years and the current one doesn't have to bear responsibility for the long-term damage. It's of course a much more complex story, but there's no denying that irresponsible government spending is part of it. Italy is desperately hoping for inflation to shrink the debt:GDP ratio as it's become pretty impossible to pay it back anyway...
No, it isn't. In Africa, there is the West African CFA Franc issued by the West African Economic and Monetary Union, and the Central African CFA Franc issued by the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa – both are legacies of French colonialism, in which newly independent states decided to keep the common currency they had under the French colonial empire.
In the Caribbean, there is the East Caribbean Dollar, issued by the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. It is used by independent states that were former British colonies, and also by two British overseas territories. Like the CFA Francs, it is a case of newly independent states choosing to retain the common currency they had under British rule.
The idea of a common currency isn't that new. France, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland and Greece had a common currency between 1865 and 1927 (the Latin Monetary Union). Similarly, Sweden, Denmark and Norway had a common currency between 1873 and 1905 (the Scandinavian Monetary Union.)
At the enormous amount of money being created I would assume Simbabwe or German like inflation but I don't see it happening. Exchange rates are more or less the same as a year ago.
It's actually the exact opposite of this. Other nations, such as Germany, are hungry to run an export surplus. Since the USA is only willing to buy foreign goods with dollars, this means that Germany must accumulate dollars as a result of its export driven economy.
The whole notion that being a net exporter is virtuous and being a net importer is reproachable is obvious nonsense. Everyone can't be a net exporter after all, a counterparty is required. That said I find the notion that a nation could grow its GDP by "exporting" in the form of producing goods and then launching them into space comical, to say the least.