<p>Your understanding is wrong. FinCEN <a href="https://www.fincen.gov/what-we-do" rel="nofollow noreferrer">is a bureau</a> of the United States Department of the Treasury. The director reports to the Secretary of the Treasury, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. </p>

<p>Further, the Federal Reserve system is also a government entity. It was established under the Federal Reserve Act. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which supervises the Federal Reserve Banks, is an independent agency of the federal government. Its members are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The system's structure was deliberately designed by Congress to grant it independence in its conduct of monetary policy, with the intent of minimizing political interference in monetary policy. However, this independence was granted and is maintained via democratic consensus.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-07T15:55:30.310Z
Do you know of any quotes that refer to that political interference? I think Woodrow Wilson said something to that effect, but I can't locate it. https://economics.stackexchange.com/q/19621/5396
makerofthings7
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-09T14:18:18.400Z
2017-10-10T18:35:44.857Z
2017-10-10T18:35:44.857Z
dismalscience
<p>From my understanding, FinCEN is controlled or heavily influenced by the UN.  In addition, The Federal Reserve is not a governmental body, yet it has appointees from the current administration.</p>

<p>I'm concerned that a democratic influence in economics (currency, M1, etc) could remove the "purity of intent" of an election, or the policy resulting from an election. </p>

<ul>
<li>What have we learned from FinCEN, the IMF, and The Federal Reserve in relation to maintaining the integrity of the democratic voice? </li>
</ul>

<p>I suspect that if the two are combined, the democratic "wants" will re-prioritize its actions based financial matters, not the democratic consensus.  If taken to an extreme, this lack of "democratic consent" consensus could result in chaos, anarchy, or other frightening outcomes. </p>

<ul>
<li>What review boards, governance controls, or other systems prevent the academic research of financial systems from contaminating democratic outcomes? </li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-08T20:58:59.650Z
I am not sure if this is on-topic at [Politics.SE] but I think here it is off-topic, because the "integrity of the democratic voice" is not at all measured by economics. To be honest it sounds very vague, I don't think it is measured by any science.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-08T21:01:20.667Z
I am also not sure how academic research contaminates democratic outcomes. (IMO that contamination might actually be nice.) Even if this is true, it is unclear to me how you would measure it, and again, why it is a question for economics.
Giskard
<macroeconomics><monetary-policy><federal-reserve><political-economy><fiscal-policy>
Does the separation of FinCEN, and The Federal Reserve protect the integrity of a representative democracy?
makerofthings7
# Does the separation of FinCEN, and The Federal Reserve protect the integrity of a representative democracy?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-10-08)

From my understanding, FinCEN is controlled or heavily influenced by the UN. In addition, The Federal Reserve is not a governmental body, yet it has appointees from the current administration.

I'm concerned that a democratic influence in economics (currency, M1, etc) could remove the "purity of intent" of an election, or the policy resulting from an election.

* What have we learned from FinCEN, the IMF, and The Federal Reserve in relation to maintaining the integrity of the democratic voice?

I suspect that if the two are combined, the democratic "wants" will re-prioritize its actions based financial matters, not the democratic consensus. If taken to an extreme, this lack of "democratic consent" consensus could result in chaos, anarchy, or other frightening outcomes.

* What review boards, governance controls, or other systems prevent the academic research of financial systems from contaminating democratic outcomes?

**Tags:** macroeconomics, monetary-policy, federal-reserve, political-economy, fiscal-policy

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I am not sure if this is on-topic at [Politics.SE] but I think here it is off-topic, because the "integrity of the democratic voice" is not at all measured by economics. To be honest it sounds very vague, I don't think it is measured by any science.  
> **username_1**: I am also not sure how academic research contaminates democratic outcomes. (IMO that contamination might actually be nice.) Even if this is true, it is unclear to me how you would measure it, and again, why it is a question for economics.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-10-09. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Your understanding is wrong. FinCEN [is a bureau](https://www.fincen.gov/what-we-do) of the United States Department of the Treasury. The director reports to the Secretary of the Treasury, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Further, the Federal Reserve system is also a government entity. It was established under the Federal Reserve Act. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which supervises the Federal Reserve Banks, is an independent agency of the federal government. Its members are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The system's structure was deliberately designed by Congress to grant it independence in its conduct of monetary policy, with the intent of minimizing political interference in monetary policy. However, this independence was granted and is maintained via democratic consensus.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Do you know of any quotes that refer to that political interference? I think Woodrow Wilson said something to that effect, but I can't locate it. https://economics.stackexchange.com/q/19621/5396  

---

