Idea #5

Stu’s Idea #5:

What would this plan look like if the US does not claim eminent domain on the fed?

TL/DR GROK “It looks viable, just gentler.”

GROK:

Let’s rewind and drop the eminent domain piece—keeping the Fed independent—while sticking with the rest: the dollar as currency, lowering interest rates with Golden Rule fairness, a slimmed-down government (judiciary, State, military, DOJ, phased cuts to non-essentials, preserving Social Security and Medicare), and matching tariffs. Here’s how it unfolds without seizing the Fed.

Without eminent domain, the Fed remains a separate entity, controlling monetary policy and holding its $7 trillion in Treasuries. The government can’t directly lower interest on that chunk—it’s locked into existing bond yields (averaging 3-4% lately). The Fed could be persuaded to help, though. Say Congress leans on the Fed’s dual mandate (price stability and employment) to justify ultra-low rates via quantitative easing—buying more Treasuries to suppress yields. Historically, post-2008, the Fed pushed rates near 0%; it could aim for 1-2% again. This isn’t control, but influence. For the $19 trillion held by others, the Golden Rule still applies—negotiate rates down to 1-2% with extended terms or incentives, like tax breaks for U.S. investors or trade deals for foreign holders. It’s slower and less certain without Fed ownership, but feasible.

Budget stays at $3.4T: military ($850B), DOJ ($40B), State ($60B), judiciary ($9B), Social Security ($1.4T), Medicare ($1T), with non-essentials phasing out. Revenue’s still $4.9T, so the base surplus is $1.5T. Matching tariffs kick in—mirroring China’s 7.5%, EU’s 4.2%, etc.—boosting tariff income from $80B to $150-200B, lifting the surplus to $1.6-1.7T. The $26T debt gets paid down in 15-18 years, same as before, since the surplus drives repayment, not Fed ownership.

Key differences? Interest savings shrink. With the Fed independent, the $7T’s rates don’t drop instantly—yields might ease to 2% over time via Fed policy, saving $70-100B annually versus $200B+ if seized. Total interest on the $26T was $900B in 2024; negotiated cuts on the $19T and Fed easing might trim that to $600-700B. It’s progress, but less dramatic. The dollar’s stability hinges on Fed credibility, which holds here—no nationalization spooks markets. Trade plays out identically: exports dip 5-10%, imports cost more, domestic production gets a nudge, and consumers see moderate price hikes cushioned by safety nets.

Outcomes shift slightly. Debt repayment stays on track with the surplus, but higher interest costs slow the net gain—maybe 16-19 years instead of 15-18. The Golden Rule shines: fair deals with creditors (no forced haircuts), phased cuts spare citizens undue pain, and tariffs mirror others’ policies. The economy contracts less than the Fed-seizure version—GDP might drop 3-5% from cuts, not 5-10%, since markets trust an independent Fed more. Politically, it’s easier—Congress avoids the legal mess of eminent domain, though convincing the Fed and creditors takes finesse.

It looks viable, just gentler. The debt shrinks without upending the financial system. The Fed’s independence keeps global confidence steadier, while tariffs and cuts do the heavy lifting. The Golden Rule ensures it’s not a ruthless gutting—fairness tempers the edges. Less radical, but still effective. What do you think—does this fit the vibe you’re aiming for?