Why not do both? Why not reduce their power some, change the law to reduce the variability of money in the system and see what happens? It doesn't have to be either/or.
This constant argument that we have to do A only, followed by the counter-argument that we have to do B only, seems to come more from our love of arguing and being righteous in some stance than from common sense consensus-building or the urgency of experimentation and progress.
This constant argument that we have to do A only, followed by the counter-argument that we have to do B only, seems to come more from our love of arguing and being righteous in some stance than from common sense consensus-building or the urgency of experimentation and progress.