Every time the Federal Reserve raises interest rates, somewhere in Ohio a factory closes, and in Detroit a young family loses their home — and this isn't a bug in the system, it's its key feature, one that nobody will ever vote for in an election.
Think about the absurdity of the situation: we live in the 21st century, pride ourselves on democratic institutions, freedom of choice, and human rights, yet we allow a handful of unelected technocrats to make decisions that directly determine how many millions of our fellow citizens end up on the streets. And no, this isn't some conspiracy theory from basement forums — this is literally how modern monetary policy works. When Fed Chair Jerome Powell utters the phrase "soft landing," he's actually saying: "We'll try not to fire too many people." Thanks, that's reassuring.
Central bank independence is presented to us as the sacred cow of modern economics, a guarantee of stability and protection from populist governments. But let's call things by their proper names: this is an elitist system that systematically protects the interests of one class at the expense of another. And it's high time we stripped it of its halo of infallibility.
Who Are These People in Suits?
Let's start with a simple question: who exactly are these characters determining interest rates and, consequently, the cost of your mortgage? A typical member of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors is a Harvard or MIT graduate who has spent decades in academia or on Wall Street, never stood in an unemployment line, and genuinely believes they know better than you how the economy should work. Your classic technocrat in a vacuum.
They're appointed by presidents we elect — you might object. Technically, yes. But let's be honest: when you voted for Biden or Trump, were you really thinking about the Fed Chair candidate? Of course not. These appointments happen behind closed doors, the result of bargaining between political elites and the financial lobby. And then these people receive fourteen-year irremovable mandates — longer than most dictators stay in power.
And here's the most interesting part: these technocrats are genuinely convinced of their own infallibility. They circulate in a narrow circle of like-minded individuals, read the same economics journals, attend the same conferences in Jackson Hole. This is called groupthink, and it leads to disasters more regularly than you'd think. Remember 2008: where were these geniuses looking when the mortgage bubble was inflating? That's right — at their models, which assured them everything was under control.
Recession on Demand
Now for the juiciest part. When inflation gets out of control, central banks apply a time-tested recipe: raise rates, make credit more expensive, slow down the economy. What does this mean in practice? Companies cut production, lay off workers, cancel investments. Economists call this the pretty euphemism "cooling the labor market." Normal people call it losing your job, your home, and your future.
And here's a philosophical paradox for you: if fighting inflation requires deliberately creating unemployment, shouldn't this be a democratic decision? When a government wants to send a country to war, it at least formally consults parliament. But when the Fed decides to plunge the economy into recession, a press conference and an elegant dot plot are sufficient.
We're told this is a necessary sacrifice for long-term stability. Wonderful, but who exactly is being sacrificed? Certainly not those sitting in the boardroom on Constitution Avenue. Recession victims are auto plant workers, waiters, construction workers, small business owners. Meanwhile, the architects of these recessions continue to receive six-figure salaries and Davos invitations. As they say, some get economic models, others get food bank lines.
Independence or Impunity?
Defenders of the system insist: central bank independence is protection from irresponsible politicians who, for the sake of re-election, would print money left and right. The argument isn't without merit — history knows examples of hyperinflation caused by political populism. But let's not create a false dichotomy: either independent technocrats or chaos.
Reality is more complex. That same "independence" in practice means complete impunity for mistakes. Alan Greenspan inflated bubbles for two decades, and then what? Retirement, memoirs, lectures at a hundred thousand dollars per appearance. Ben Bernanke slept through the biggest financial crisis in eighty years, and then received a Nobel Prize. Seriously? If a surgeon "independently" operated like that, they'd be in prison for malpractice.
Moreover, this vaunted independence is a myth. Central banks coordinate perfectly with governments when it suits the elites: remember the trillions in quantitative easing that miraculously aligned with the interests of big banks and corporations? But when it comes to helping ordinary people — oh no, that contradicts our mandate, we don't do fiscal policy, talk to Congress.
Creditors Versus Debtors
And now — the main secret that's not discussed in polite economic society. Monetary policy is not a neutral technical instrument. It's a mechanism for wealth redistribution between classes. And guess whose favor it works in?
Low inflation benefits those who own assets and lend money — that is, banks, pension funds, wealthy investors. Moderate inflation benefits those who borrow — ordinary people with mortgages, students with education loans, small businesses. When the Fed fights inflation at any cost, it de facto protects creditors' interests against debtors. This isn't conspiracy theory — it's elementary economic logic.
A telling example: during the pandemic, central banks instantly pumped trillions into the financial system to save markets. Indices recovered within months, the planet's wealthiest people multiplied their fortunes. But when inflation hit ordinary people's wallets, the same banks announced: tighten your belts, recession is inevitable, hang in there. Does anyone seriously think this is coincidence?
The Alternative Is Inevitable
The skeptic will ask: so, are there options? Hand the printing press to populists? Return to the gold standard? Yes and no. The real alternative is the decentralization of money itself. Blockchain technology for the first time in history enables the creation of monetary systems that depend neither on governments nor central banks.
Cryptocurrencies aren't just speculative assets, as status quo defenders love to repeat. They're a technological response to the democratic deficit of traditional finance. When emission rules are hardcoded and can't be changed by a behind-closed-doors board decision — that's real democratization of money. No oak-paneled offices, no press conferences with vague hints. Just mathematics and network consensus.
Of course, the crypto industry isn't perfect — it has its share of scammers, bubbles, and a toxic get-rich-quick culture. But the very idea of algorithmically managed money with transparent and immutable rules is a conceptual breakthrough whose significance we're only beginning to grasp.
Why DeflationCoin Isn't Just Another Token
In a sea of cryptocurrencies, most projects copy Bitcoin's model with its limited emission. That's a step forward compared to fiat currencies, but not a solution. DeflationCoin went further, implementing an algorithmic deflation mechanism — reducing the number of coins in circulation. While Bitcoin simply doesn't print new coins, DEF actively burns existing ones through its deflationary halving mechanism.
Add Smart Staking, which pays rewards from real ecosystem revenues rather than inflationary emission. Plus smooth unlocking, eliminating the possibility of panic selling. The result — an asset that's architecturally protected from manipulation and doesn't depend on the mood of unelected technocrats in suits. Yes, it's bold. Yes, it's a challenge to the system. But these are exactly the solutions that change the world — not petitions to Congress, but working code that makes old institutions irrelevant.
While central banks continue playing their backroom games, deciding for us what percentage of the population should lose their jobs for "price stability," an alternative is already being built — in code, in protocols, in communities of people tired of being hostages to financial aristocracy. And perhaps in ten years we'll look back at the era of omnipotent central banks as a strange historical anachronism — much like we now remember absolute monarchies.