Actually, it was Congress that passed the legislation. But, it is convenient to pass the buck to the executive, who only has to face the voters after fiur years and then not at all. Richard nixon made it possible for the corrency to flow much more easily by decoupling it from gold. But, that created the problem of how the quantity was to be controlled so Congress could continue to benefit by applying carrots and sticks selectively. The first option Nixon came up with, price controls, were not effective. Carter opted for voluntary austerity to keep prices from rising. That was unpopular. So, Reagan opted for letting the banksters manipulate the currency with exorbitant interest rates. That managed to throw the economy into recession. So, Reagan attacked the greed of the workingman (by attacking unions) and joined Congress in currying the favor of money hoarders. If the currency is to be a control lever, then the quantity of what is essentially an infinite supply has to be artificially restricted. Financial diversion and Congressional sequestration accomplish that. Supply side economics has served the financiers and politicians well. Our mistake was in not understanding that it isn’t the supply or output of production that is to be used to control economic activity, but the supply of currency that is to be restricted to some and made abundant to others. It is sort of like restricting access to literacy. Illiterate and impoverished people are easier to control and control is the ultimate objective. If a particular population cannot be totally controlled, then the whole population has to be suject to controls. That is what the culture of obedience, which has evolved out of the slave culture, requires. And the reason it requires it is because the basic assumption that it is right and proper for some humans to rule others still cannot be admitted. Moreover, some humans actually like to be ruled. Being submissive relieves them of the obligation of exercising free will. Free will is a risky business.