Gongol.com Archives: August 2024

August 14, 2024

The most important nearly-thankless job

Duty is performed in many and varied ways, from the adult child caring for an aging parent to the reliable precinct poll worker to the soldier defending a forward operating base far from home. We Americans live in a political system that celebrates liberties, but which depends far more upon the tug of duty than it's comfortable to admit. ■ One of the highest duties in the entire country is carried out almost thanklessly in plain sight. The members of the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee, particularly the Chair, execute quite nearly the most important work short of commanding the armed forces. ■ Excitement over the fresh good news about inflation (it's at long last below 3%) will undoubtedly echo much louder than any thanks for the dutiful members of the Fed. That may be a mistake. An independent central bank is essential to the welfare of our enormous economy. But it only remains independent in part because it earns legitimacy through performance. ■ The temptation politicians feel to challenge Fed independence is a strong as it is predictable. Most of the benefits of capturing control over the money supply are felt up-front, while the pain takes longer to sink in. ■ That's why selfish and shortsighted politicians so commonly threaten to take over the Federal Reserve's central job of managing the money supply. One of the key duties of the Federal Reserve is to be responsible when politicians are not, even if it brings them scorn. ■ It's not as though Fed leaders have nothing better to do. It's hard to imagine a group of people who who could fill their time with highly-paid work (if they wanted it) than those economic gurus. ■ But, mainly, they serve dutifully, and our political and economic systems rely heavily on that sense of duty. We should far more often and far more vocally be grateful for their service, but we probably won't. We would all be quite literally poorer without their efforts.

QR codes to help those in need

The plan adopted by the City of Des Moines to post signs prohibiting panhandling at intersections is probably prudent. Notwithstanding the protests of groups like the ACLU, it is plainly a first-order hazard to the panhandler to stand in close proximity to speedy traffic. ■ But even if we could do more to make street-adjacent areas safer for pedestrians of all kinds (and there's ample reason to do just that), panhandling also creates a second-order problem for motorists by creating an intimidation hazard. Try to spot the difference between a panhandler and a potential carjacker: Can you really be quite sure? ■ Above all, panhandling is simply not a good way to deliver welfare. Not everything needs to be institutionalized or turned into a program, to be sure, but just as it can often be more effective to donate cash to a food bank (which can then take advantage of bulk pricing) than to donate food directly, so too can well-managed organizations actually deliver direct assistance to those in need through accountable programs, and do so more efficiently than the individual may be able to help themselves. ■ Cities should put up signs in known panhandling hot spots, offering a QR code to permit motorists to easily donate to an assistance fund for those in need, rather than handing cash through the window. That would allow people of goodwill to take instant action when conscience moves them, while simultaneously discouraging people from putting themselves in physical danger by standing near the street.