Hm, interesting, I don't see it that way, it seems to me that "cynical" interpretation leads to the reverse: that ills of the system are structural, that the fed is fulfilling it's intended structural role in the system -- preserving the stability of an unjust system -- the problem isn't the morality of the people who happen to be in the fed, even the most well-intentioned people will find themselves fulfilling this role (without systemic/structural change), because it's structural.

But I see your point about how it (the simple 'most cynical' description) could be interpreted the other way too. I don't agree it is necessarily that way; perhaps that simple one-liner is not sufficient to distinguish the structural from the moral interpretation.

I'll have to think on it more.

Have you considered the possibility that Fed actually has overall positive role (limited by it working within the mandate)?

I'm not saying it does. But most people with very negative view barely know what Fed does and why it does what it does. Also they don't differentiate between what tools Fed has and what should be done using other means by Treasury and the rest of the government, but was left to Fed because politics is dysfunctional.