There is oversight. It was intended to have a measure of independence, so that monetary policy would not bend to political winds. But that is not how it has worked out. It bends quite easily to political winds. And of course, Congress can change it at any time, if we’re not happy with its performance. In order to believe that we’d be better off without the Fed, you have to start from the assumption that the money supply would magically grow at the right rate without the Fed. There is no explanation in economic theory for why that should happen. And history shows that it doesn’t.
First, there is very little if any oversight.
These bankers can essentially do what they want and no one can say anything about it.
Second, money is like any other market item and that is the miracle of the Market that it does work.
Just like millions of items have the right price on them daily and supply the needs of the consumer, so money would have the right purchasing power and stability.
If Americans don't trust a group of men to set prices on oil, why would they trust them to set the price on money and credit, which indirectly affects the price of oil.
A problem with that argument, though, is that money is an artificial construct. It’s easy to get carried away and think that money is like any other commodity. But it’s not. It’s the thing that greases the gears in the economic machinery. It’s not something God made. It’s something we invented to make our economic life easier. We could rely solely on barter, or private bank notes, like they used in the Colonial days, but an official currency is something that has very important advantages. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to go to the trouble of creating such an official currency, and then do nothing to define its value or manage the supply of it. That would be sort of like firing a gun randomly into the air in the hopes that you might hit some bird.