Fir enough. Put it another way. People look at this institution which can't balance a budget, is typically controlled by lunatics between 30-60% of the time and which apparently nobody really trusts. And it is controlled by billionaire oligarchs and the worst of the entrenched business interests.
They then think "gee, this is the group I want to actively administer my municipal broadband. Nobody better!".
I'm fairly open that I don't like governments. But how do the people who don't trust the thing square that with then calling for it to be actively involved in all sorts of random stuff? What is the thought process here?
The issue with this is that most people, and even economists (well, mostly old economists rotting away from the research and debate the field is having right now) don't understand that you don't make a government budget like you make a home budget. Hell, you don't even make a government budget like you make a multinational company budget. People who don't even try to understand how bank works should not have any say in this.
Second, you're making this argument to advocate for more spending. You're not referring to the alternate rules. So let's see: what are the rules for central bank spending, and what do they say now?
The alternative set of rules: spending inversely proportional to the distance between inflation and the inflation target (ie. 2%). Inflation is over 2%, yes, sounds unbelievable but it is [1], hence ... the central bank should seriously CUT it's budget. It should NOT spend at this time (well ... spend less, for now).
So people make this argument only insofar it benefits more government spending. If one were to describe the current spending situation "due to lack of inflation in the past 10 years or so, the government has massively increased spending through the central bank, if the recent inflation doesn't back down in 2-3 months or so, the central bank budget will need to be cut by a LOT, and soon".
What the rules say, is that the government, in the last 10 or so years (a bit less), should have used tax money to lower the national debt and now should increase that debt (and raise taxes in 2-3 years) to spend.
The FED, btw, has already announced they will in fact be cutting spending by a lot next year, BTW. They are scared they have severely overdone it, so I would be expecting a large cut rather than a small one. So you're warned. The government (including, for that matter, EU governments) will be cutting spending next year, you won't get a raise, but inflation will rise. Except, perhaps, if you're living in one of the countries that benefit from this (last time especially Australia spectacularly benefitted: they bought their way out of the housing crisis, essentially for free).
[1] https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_inflation_rate#:~:text=US%....
That’s not to say their correct, but I am saying what’s actually happening is a power grab even if it’s spoken of as reducing power.
I believe Ron and Rand Paul do indeed want that.
Paul's 2016 plan would have set the Pentagon budget to $697 Billion, a significant spending increase. Honestly though +/- even 30% is largely irrelevant in terms of military budgets. Look up what it would take to drop us to even 2nd place in military spending.
Though even a 90% cut would still allow for a truly US frightening military so it’s hard to quantify.
Even in cases where total government power is theoretically reduced say outlawing municipal broadband it’s less about reducing overall power as it is leveraging control in one area and extending it to another. In effect it’s a power grab at the state level at the expense of local governments. The state can of course change their mind at any time.
On the other side of the isle when legalizing pot, it’s not considered enough to simply make it legal and move on. Suddenly they replace one law with hundreds by micro managing exactly what’s allowed and what hoops people are forced through. In effect it’s an extension of government power into a previously unregulated though illegal industry.