Exactly right. The Fed is best viewed as (though entirely “legal”) an “intruder” in the market, which is, in the main, made up of participants each seeking to buy (what they want or need) and to sell (what they’ve produced or bought previously). Like the market participant intent on fraudulently parting some from their money by various methods such as “pump and dump,” the Fed seeks to change the “shape of the market” from whatever it happens to be at a particular moment to another that it thinks it would prefer–from whatever viewpoint it happens to hold at the time.

“The market” is, at any given time, the composite “picture” of economic activity; every instance of economic activity influences the market to some extent but, though changing constantly, the “picture” at any given time suggests to each participant what his action(s) should be. The activity of the Fed (and other central banks around the world) rearranges the picture, suggesting other actions than would have been considered maximizing in the absence of such intrusion). It might well be said that the very existence of these entities and their ability to interfere (blurring the picture) with the
market “picture” is, in itself, one of the chiefest imperfections of the market itself.

The existence of “the market” is what enables people–everywhere–to make the best-informed decisions as to their immediate (and future-oriented) actions and rewards those who interpret the data (no matter how limited in scope) correctly and penalizes (makes poorer) those who do not. The
Fed (and the others mentioned) has as its principal object the thwarting of the market’s proper function.

The market grows (both larger and more-closely-integrated) the greater the degree of economic cooperation (specialization of tasks and activities by those men and pieces of land best suited) attained. But the very fact of such high degree of coordination neccesarily implies even greater vulnerability to disruption than heretofore. The very greatest economic (and, therefore, human)
catastrophes are yet in the future. Like those of the past century or so, they will be caused by inappropriate, market-thwarting activities, especially of central bank (especially the Fed) policy.

The only solution–preventative–to such future catastrophe (with death toll dwarfing those of wars!)
is: SOUND MONEY, the absence (and prevention) of which is the reason for the existence of the Fed.

I suppose that will only happen when the political and economic folks (in that order) experience personally the consequences of said planning.

We probably shouldn’t hold our aggregate breath.

When will the economic and the political folks, outside the more humble Austrian types, learn that the central planning of any economic system or part of any economic system simply does not work and will always end with the people involved in that system being worse off?

If any of these models really worked so well as to be used in the formation of policy then they would work so well that the writers could 1. Use them to make millions predicting industry trends, and then copyright them and make tens millions on the lecture circuit by teaching people how to invest. Instead they actually stick it to us by using the results of these models to make real policy decisions. These decisions end in busts that hurt the lowest people on the economic latter the worst and end making us poorer. Then these same folks proceed to make tens of millions on the lecture circuit talking about how great it is to live the political high life starting as an associate professor.