Wouldn't this may just as well prove the opposite of the point you're trying to make ? How such an institution that can turn over the outcome of an election, outside of any democratic representation or accountability, ain't an open door to special interest ?

I dont know about your education ? but i've seen a damn lot of prominent intellectual deeply critical about the fed around here...

I don't see how you could argue that the Fed turned over the election. I mean sure, I guess arguably the Fed could do it, but ultimately it only controls certain aspects of the economy - there are many more issues at stake in any given election. The point here is that the Fed controls interest rates, and Bush Sr was saying they should be lower - thus, he overstepped his bounds. "It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." In this particular case, Bush Sr was clearly on camera opening his mouth.

And the Fed isn't the rightful target of the "prominent intellectual" critics, but that is another issue in itself. And to answer your question, I'm in grad school for economics. hah go figure.

A Bush not taking responsibilty for his own shortcomings? What's next, a Cheney who shoots people in the face?

The Fed is only quasi-private. I've heard you make mention before, J-Rova, that the Fed should be completely private without government oversight. I'll go one step further and say we shouldn't have a central bank system period. The idea of a controlling group of men sitting in a room having absolute control over monetary inflation, interest and circulation is absurdly dangerous.

^ my main issue with the Fed, in its current incarnation?

lack of transparency.

beyond the dubious nature of the Fed's creation, membership, and oversight, etc.
that lack of transparency is the best reason i could have, for deciding to be the 10th vote, on this source material.
regardless of what a submitter chooses to title, or describe, it as.
still looking forward to that other discussion, as well, j-ro. honestly.