The article clearly points out how the various bodies are put in place by different sources and this is what makes them automamous. The President has no control over any of these bodies therefore his views about monetary policy are irrelevant. I believe this is where this discussion began.
I never said the President has control over those bodies. In fact, after you said "The President has no direct control over them" I said "But he does appoint the Chair [and the Board of Governors]."
This is a source of power even if he can't directly control them. Again, it's like the Supreme Court in a way. Many Presidents have appointed Justices who then turn out completely different than the President wanted when he appointed them, but it's still generally considered a very powerful position and a huge source of power for the President to be able to appoint them.
You then said I am "absolutely wrong" which, no, I'm not. I would be wrong if I said the President directly controls the policy, but I didn't say that. He does appoint the majority of the decision makers, and even if they span multiple presidencies, the ability to pick those people is perhaps one of the most important things a President does.
Would you not agree that our monetary policy is nearly as important, if not more important, as a regime's political policy?