|
Jul. 8th, 2015|09:10 pm |
I could look up the rest of the points, but the first point kinda defines the whole context:
"Central banks are independent of democratically elected government control"
Lots of things are out of -government- control, if you are talking about the executive arm of the state, lead by the PM. Those things are usually controlled to some extent by the other arms of the state, such as the Supreme Court or parliament.
I can't vouch for other central banks, but the Bank of Latvia is governed by its council (8 members), which is led by the president of the bank. All of them are in turn elected by the Parliament of Latvia for a term of six years.
You can argue that a central bank, which is under _direct_ government control is better. However, there are points against that as well, aren't there? At any rate, are the rest of the points in the same key (ie. taking rather a narrow view on definition of things, like "no direct government control"="no control whatsoever"?) |
|