373
A mildly interesting list of proposed amendments that didn't pass (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/justpost@lemmy.world
71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I saw this circulating around and thought it was an interesting read.

Some of these are horrendous, some are funny, and a few made me think "Hmm, maybe not a bad idea"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 5 points 2 years ago (8 children)

It would be common knowledge that deflation is good solely because it benefits those at $1mil

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 8 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    But people having just one million wouldn't wield incredible political power, so the government probably wouldn't listen to them as much as they do now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    If I someone hits the $1 mark, they would probably be able to spend/transfer the excess to their children and relatives, and all kinds of shenanigans. It isn't a terrible idea, but it would require some complex regulations to avoid it being yet another way for the wealthy to spend money to influence things.

    High tax rates had the same intended outcome by encouraging them to keep their money in growing businesses and employees reaped the benefits in the 50s and 60s.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    to spend/transfer the excess to their children and relatives, and all kinds of shenanigans

    Sharing wealth to people who might also do the same once they end up millionaire? Doesn't sound too bad, especially if any of those wealth transfers were taxed even slightly.

    Honestly, there's nothing wrong with the current system we have except for letting the rich people keep pretty much everything.

    Imbalanced game state, rich people OP. Nerf that and shit will be gucci

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    Depends on how much they could change before it was passed an enacted. If they could restrict the national money supply to like $1, then $1mil cap would be no different than if we passed a $240,000,000,000,000,000,000 cap today.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I think you know "restricting national money supply to like 1$" isn't realistic in any sense.

    Economics have to work in practice, it's not just pure math.

    There would need to be an economy, so the minimum amount of money for that economy to work would obviously be more than 1$.

    Even during the great depression the US GDP was hundreds of billions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You could always just make something below cents and make 1 cent = 1 billion of that thing. So $1 would be equivalent to like 10 billion dollars. Granted, somehow you'd have to invalidate existing currency and push that type of policy in a political environment that is able to pass a constitutional amendment to prevent wealth accumulation. So, it couldn't possibly be that extreme.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •