"central banks can do whatever we need them to as a society."
Not really, Central Banks are not part of the government and they can't do things outside the very narrow scope of authority we give them. Especially the Fed, which is a privately owned entity run by the banks themselves.
The Fed is the last place we want to manage social security programs. That job is for the government.
Now, it just so happens as you point out they have some magic levers such as the ability to take on stuff onto their balance sheet, but using that outside the scope of their policy is another thing altogether.
So yes, we can make 'money, financing and banking' do what we want, but if we do - it will absolutely not be 'The Central Bank' - it will be some other new kind of entity, designed differently, with different power structures and different objectives.
"This is where we can modify their mandate at any time through legislation."
We really can't. To would so be a fundamental reconstruction of governance, tantamount to constitutional changes.
The central bank running current accounts for citizens and doling out money in a manner similar to how it tries to manage inflation using purchases on the free market etc. is so far beyond the premise of a 'Central Bank' that it's not a 'Central Bank'.
It makes the entity inherently politicized, as it becomes nary impossible to set 'targets' that aren't political.
So yes, we could dump the Central Bank and create a new entity that does 'Central Banking And Other Things' but there isn't even an intellectual framework for that, let alone some kind of reference anywhere in the world that could be used as a guide.
Putting the power of the printing press that close to 'giving out money' in a populist way is pretty scary anyhow and I wouldn't see the point in doing it at all.
If there are progressive social measures to be made, it might be for example related to how we structure what goes on the Feds balance sheet, and why, etc..
If we want to hand out UBI or something like that, it happens under government & the Treasury, not the central bank.
Not really, Central Banks are not part of the government and they can't do things outside the very narrow scope of authority we give them. Especially the Fed, which is a privately owned entity run by the banks themselves.
The Fed is the last place we want to manage social security programs. That job is for the government.
Now, it just so happens as you point out they have some magic levers such as the ability to take on stuff onto their balance sheet, but using that outside the scope of their policy is another thing altogether.
So yes, we can make 'money, financing and banking' do what we want, but if we do - it will absolutely not be 'The Central Bank' - it will be some other new kind of entity, designed differently, with different power structures and different objectives.