I wish Trump would cut it out, but the Federal Reserve is not off-limits to political criticism

So, let me get this straight. Politicians can – in fact, they must – hold forth on Americans to war. But they can not talk about interest rates.

President, Trump went outside the bounds of the usual presidential protocol – what surprise – by calling out the Federal Reserve for more quickly than, in his not-at-all-humble opinion, they should. According to Trump, the central bank is "crazy," "out-of-control," "too independent" and "his biggest threat."

I strongly disagree with these criticisms, though with the last one, he's only saying loud things about it. I also am certain that Fed's independence from today's politics is more important than ever. But it is neither realistic nor desirable that the politicians of the United States remain silent about economic decisions that profoundly affect the living standards of their constituents. This is especially the case when the institution – one of the few I look forward to these days – is created and (indirectly) funded by the state, run by unelected officials and quite mysterious to non-experts.

The counterargument is that tolerating politicians' criticisms of the Fed will be compromised Fed independence and lead to worse economic outcomes. This is not a case of the possibility of having the possibility of reducing the size of the economy, as in Turkey, Argentina, India and South Africa. Often, as in contemporary Turkey, the damage is of the type courted by Trump, where banks use their policy instruments to increase their growth capacity, leading to high inflation, instability, currency runs, and ultimately, growth-constraining high interest rates to protect the currency.

Given these risks, how can I say Fed is fair game for political discourse? Because, like everything else in economics, there's a trade-off. Yes, Fed independence is paramount, but at various times in its history, its policy decisions – targeting price stability over full employment, assuming banks would have self-regulate – have disproportionately hurt economically disadvantaged Americans. Since many of these constituents do not have the time or interest to become monetary economists, they need their representatives to make their case for them.

What is that case? It has at least three parts. One: The benefits of persisting full employment are so important to those left behind in American economic expansions that the rate of growth should be viewed as high. This asymmetry – giving more weight to the risk of weakening demand – is particularly germane given the historically low correlation between inflation and unemployment. Two: The Fed 's financial oversight agenda must know that it' s time to get lastingly hurt when bubbles inflate and explode. Three: The board and staff of the Fed are the most representative of the American people (78% come from banking or business backgrounds, 77% are white and 67% are male ").

I admit that it is misguided. Our hyper-rational Fed is anything but crazy or out-of-control. To the contrary, its actions are elaborately telegraphed and therefore almost always predicted by markets. For example, a comparison with a quarter of a percentage point, the markets put a probability of close to 100 percent on that very outcome. That's intentional, by the way, as managing expectations is one of the most important tools in the Fed's toolbox.

Second, Trump's admonition that the Fed is "too independent" could not be more wrong. He only understands monetary policy through the lens of short-term politics. Recall that during his campaign, when the economy was running faster than today, he argued that the rates were too low and that the Fed was juicing growth to help the Democrats. Now, predictably, he's singing the opposite tune. Aim central banks must try to see around corners that are a few years away, and their time horizon must be emphatically driven by the political calendar.

Fed independence is even more important given its oversight role of the national banking system. In this space, Congress is more interested in the bidding of finance-sector lobbyists than maintaining and enforcing regulations to avoid repeating our "economic shampoo cycle": bubble, bust, repeat.

In his latest news conference, Jay Powell's Fed Chair was asked about Trump's criticisms. In so many words, he replied that the Fed's job was to use the tools at its disposal to meet its mandate, and it would be tuning out any political noise. This, too, is as it should be, and unlike in the case of strong-armed economies, where Fed is structurally insulated from such influence. There are no mechanisms for trump to reverse its policy decisions, nor can it easily replace Fed officials who fail to do his bidding. If he or anyone else tries to diminish this insulation, I will be freak out about it.

But until then, he can complain (and tweet), as can other politicians with a deeper understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of this essential institution. This may be messy and uncomfortable at times. But that's democracy.