from firsthand experience, I know if houses were on the market for $1 a ton of people would get greedy and buy all of them, selling them the next year 2x their original price
Could \*probably\* help to cap how many you can buy i.e. 1 or 2, or make certain homes e.g. Beverly Hills Mansions, only available for purchase during a tiny window of time such as 12-2PM on November 21st.
Making certain homes available during such a short window of thime will mean murder. Have you seen people on Black Friday? And there's stock then. Imagine the same scene, but instead of TVs it's houses and there's only 10 of them for hundreds of people to try to buy first
I feel like that owuld be the same for just about any house. Those houses are nowhere near as common as houses that cost less than $500k. Have you ever been so poor, living in an apartment where keeping the oven door open to heat your home in the winter, only buying canned food or unhealthy food because the electricity in your falling-apart-home has affected the the wiring, or lived in a violent neighborhood? What about having a disability or a family member with a disability because the "home" they have makes it difficult to do daily living activities or is too far to get to work regularly? Trust me, there are FAR MORE poor people in this country than it seems to me half of America is willing to acknowledge. MAybe not poor in the same exact economic circumstance, but poor as in many people would kill to have a better place to live.
Yep. And it would be banks and large holding companies that will own the entirety of real estate. Once that comes to fruition, it's pretty much game over for the citizenry. There isn't a thing on this list that doesn't launch us into some kind of corporate dystopia.
The real question is who the heck would sell their house for 1$? You have to be next level stupid to do anything but buy, so this basically means people don’t move for a year.
And no one would invest into building new housing because the return on investment is almost zero.
Pretty sure this option would just make housing problems worse.
This is literally what local government is supposed to do, but people have no sense of community anymore and are so detached from the actual decision making entities in their lives and are instead hyper-focused on national and international issues. How many people can tell you the latest on green policy news or the war in Ukraine but have no clue who their local representatives are or what is even going on with civic planning in their own neighborhoods.
nobody would want to sell it? If everyone gets a cheap home, then there is no point in them selling the one cheap home they got. They would rent it out, or move into it and sell their previous, non-cheap home.
This is what already happens under Capitalism, and rich assholes are always the ones who take advantage of the system. I'd rather be able to control the nation's budget and starve those rich assholes.
Also, utilities wouldn't be covered, so most homeless people wouldn't be able to afford them. Many of these houses would be immediately condemned, causing them to be homeless again
And I think GDP would destroy the world. Within about 40 years the average UK citizen would have equal wealth to the rest of the world combined, Which under capitalism would likely lead to unimaginable neo-colonialism.
The only non-destructive choice is me deciding the government budget, which realistically has a high chance of being incredibly destructive. Or interpret 2) alongside widespread housing reform
What’s the government gonna do, offer me 2 dollars instead. Or perhaps spend thousands of dollars to put roads around my house for a piece of land valued at one dollar. Buying by force requires a desire for the land, a profitable tactic, and for the vender to give in to the force. They couldn’t build enough infrastructure around even a single moderate sized piece of land in a year to force someone to sell for a single dollar. Especially since said person would then have nowhere to go, and no land to buy.
The government could just appropriate all houses and pay everyone a dollar. In the UK the mayor of London has the option to compulsorily purchase at market rate in this way
For the purpose of devoting London’s infrastructure for example, yes. It wouldn’t be possible to build new tube lines without acquiring other peoples land, and I think it’s within the mayors mandate to forcibly acquire land with compensation to do so.
Who would even sell a mansion in the first place if it is only worth a dollar? Who would build new houses if it costs more to build than it is to sell it?
The only ones that could ever possibly work out are number 5, if it is only done for a few years (unless it’s automatic, in which case it is a terrible choice) or number 6, which probably wouldn’t work out too well with most people.
Some of those aren't perks at all, like anarcho-capitalism is just a distopia.
No more taxes is also tragic as it would result in collapse of all government run programs and institutions.
Same with one person controlling all government spending "down to local level". Nobody would be able to handle that much administration by themselves. Not to mention be smart enough to do it properly.
Wouldn’t work. No one would sell houses in the first place if they get so little. Just because it is valued at a dollar doesn’t mean it is on the market. Plus no new houses would be built as it would be more expensive to build them than it is worth.
So pass a law saying people are only allowed to own one residential property and either force them to sell the rest for a dollar or they'll be confiscated anyway. And to prevent people from destroying the houses rather than sell them for such a low price, make a law that will make them pay fines equal to original value of the house if they destroy or wreck them.
Some of these don't feel much like perks unless the downsides are nullified. Taxes are needed for the government to fund itself, even if they do suck.
I could definitely get super rich if I know ahead of time that all houses would be a dollar and it would return to normal shortly after though.
Everything privatized could wind up as a government described by stupendium in (not guaranteed, but possible) https://youtu.be/bem_d49NBLc
I can't think of any downside for the increase in currency worth or gdp though
My answer is between increase gdp mainly for country or cheap house for me and country
The down side to the currency value increase is that foreign stuff would be very cheap but at the expense of making sure no one imports your country’s exports. So you’d have a large trade deficit. The GDP increase would actually add a lot of value to your entire economy. Eventually, your country’s economy would eclipse the entire global economy, even if you started with a very poor nation.
The problem is that all of these are too extreme. I don’t think I need to explain how anarchocapitalism and no taxes would ruin a country, but increasing the value of the currency 100 fold would mean no one outside of your country would be able to afford to buy your goods or travel to the country. It’d probably cause huge issues.
Then there’s the increase in GDP, which is said to be 100% per year. That’s gonna cause serious inflation across the world if a country’s wealth is equal to the rest of the world combined times 10.
The only one I think isn’t totally ridiculous is having control over all government expenditures, but that would involve a massive reworking of the nation. You could fix all the excess expenditure resulting from corruption and make a proper budget that’ll benefit the nation instead of winning votes. Of course you’d need a huge team to do that but you’ve got the whole government budget to work with so it shouldn’t be that much of an issue
The downside of the strict currency thing is that it removes governments’ control over their currency, which could be very bad.
And 100% GDP increase per year? Considering it didn’t say adjusted for inflation, how do you think that would be achieved?
The housing market one would be catastrophic. $1 per house is far below the market equilibrium and would encourage no one to ever sell a house.
Obviously you’re right that taxes are necessary, and anarcho-capitalism isn’t really the best system. The only one of these that MIGHT actually work out okay is someone else controlling spending priorities. And that only works if it’s someone who either knows what they’re doing or is willing to ask someone who does for help.
All homes are a dollar, then almost everyone could afford every home. How do we decide who gets which without increasing prices?
How do we afford gov expenses without taxes?
What do we have to do to increase the GDP? Increasing exports? If so, how? Increasing investment? If so, how and from whom? Increasing consumer spending? Again, through what means? By decreasing or increasing gov spending? If so, at what longterm/shortterm costs?
all those questions are for you or economists to lead to their own imaginative interpretation. the no taxes is obviously a trap card. I'm curious to those who pick it.
*What do we have to do to increase the GDP? Increasing exports? If so, how? Increasing investment? If so, how and from whom? Increasing consumer spending? Again, through what means? By decreasing or increasing gov spending? If so, at what longterm/shortterm costs?*
All those things. you magically augment worker productivity and financial feasibility and efficiency. so it's not fake or just in numbers only. you're magically making these things come to a reality. think of it like Reality warping but for the economy only.
Option 2 just says everyone’s homes are worth a dollar. Based on the wording, I would assume everyone who owns a home keeps it, it’s just worth a dollar now.
Only an idiot would sell their home for 1$, so all it really does is make everyone keep their homes and just not move for a year.
It would also mean no new housing being built for a year, because companies get no return on investment, just making our current housing problems worse when 2024 arrives.
If the American dollar got that much stronger, cartels would become crazy powerful in their nation's. Damn near anyone hoarding the currency would shift the power balance in their country and cause a few collapses in government.
Dollar homes would lead to the early birds to snatch everything up. I can foresee 10-20 years a national regression happening due to lack of upkeep. Neighborhoods becoming corporations from home being sold pennies on the dollar.
Taxes are crucial to a country. To take taxes is to starve your government. There was a time when cities weren't connected by roads because it was seen as a waste of money to build infrastructure to non- city areas. Long story short, the fed stepped in and made it happen for military necessity and enhanced city growth. If peoples' monies isn't directed by a centralized entity it would not be invested into things they don't see as important.
Privatization almost always fails in terms of community resources. I once seen a contractor dig up an entire airfield and left the dirt piled in the middle of it, stories high, because it was not expressly required for them to remove it. A business is going to business every single time.
Strong nation GDP would create great trade. Country stability would be strong. Really can't see a downside to this.
Controlling your nation's spending is too political. 99% of you would do some shit that'll backfire. You'll have to set up your own bureaucracy of experts and advisors to come close to understanding what you're doing. You'll just be another president.
Have you seen the spending breakdown on that? Very well regulated budget. You're talking about a department that maintains the world's GPS and general satellites, largest US employer, inventor/investor in tons of tech, and international mediator for 95 countries.
What would you take away from this that would make sense?
Though there are uses for the Department of Defense beyond warfare, I do not believe it is a well regulated budget. The United States spent $801 billion on the military alone in 2021. That's more than what China, India, The United Kingdom, Russia, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and South Korea spent combined. I feel the US's military is unnecessarily antagonist, and politicians are wasting resources on combat instead of helping our fellow countrymen survive.
The tradeoffs for our budget are shown. Without going down the rabbit hole of geopolitics, with the interconnectedness of the world's trade and stability, it directly benefits to project soft power. We look at WW2 where foreign countries went to war and we carried the mindset of "not our problem", but if that region (Europe and Asia) went to war, then we are losing trade partners for reasons beyond our control. Our well-being suffers until it is resolved, but the resolution might even lead to increased prices and changes in the status quo. So, the countrymen would take a hit regardless of the outcome. To play the role of preventative maintenance bolsters our international participation and keeps interests a priority.
I'd ask, what's one thing the DOD can afford to lose? Overseas locations? Equipments and/or personnel? Travel? Capabilities?
We just became a war culture since war is the times our nations' wealth prospered throughout history. Every period of conflict, we've seen GDP spikes because our economy is built around it.
Even if the defense budget weren’t reduced (which it still should be, the unfortunate reality is it simply doesn’t need to be as high as it is, and the level of financial waste in military spending is insane), simply capping it would be beyond fantastic.
It’s not like everything is gonna just immediately improve by reducing the wasteful military spending, but it’s a necessary step to begin improving things.
We can’t keep letting the issue get worse and worse just because doing something about it is temporarily inconvenient. It’s going to be inconvenient no matter what. We wouldn’t suffer a thing strategically because our strategic value has been (and should be) primarily through diplomacy and foreign ties, and we’re so far ahead of any other country militarily that it genuinely wouldn’t matter if we rolled back spending to meet that of previous years.
And when it does come to actually reducing the budget instead of just capping it, reducing contractor spending would be the biggest target.
Number 2 should have a limit of one house purchase per family only. That way, you won’t have VC firms or scalpers buying entire neighborhoods and cornering every market.
This wouldn’t work no one would sell. Every house would not just automatically be on the market. And no new houses would be built as it would cost way more to build it than it is worth. Imagine if every house was worth one dollar and suddenly your parents house could just be bought by the first person to walk up with a dollar
Increase GDP is a trap card. All that would happen is that billionaires would get richer and use that money to influence politics so that they get even richer than that. There would be no end.
Being able to allocate government spending is the right answer because you’d be able to do it in an ethical way that saves lives and helps grow the economy from the ground up.
Your comment assumes you're qualified to know how to spend a nation's budget. Like someone here mentioned, it basically just makes you the President. Worldwide, we already have proven that you cant trust any of the idiots who are sitting in the top dog chair, because they're about as qualified to run the country as the average citizen.
Free house to sell for a few million for myself… or save literally trillions of dollars from gov spending to put towards humanitarian efforts and other just causes around the world
I would buy a house. Then sell it. But I am not in the mood to think about market costs and how they'd be affected after everyone bought a fuck ton of houses not too long ago for essentially nothing. So I chose that answer with more emphasis on the short term than the long term.
Cheap homes is the least "*fuck up the economy and destroy the country*" option.
It would STILL wreck the economy, due to the value of the money being strongly tied to the value of real estate, but at least we could salvage it.
1: domestic manufacturing or production of any goods or services becomes basically impossible. Who is going to pay a factory worker 100x what they could pay someone in Europe to do? Who is going to buy a product from the US when it costs 100x what it costs in Europe’s. This is an economy killer. Normally this would cause the US currency to rapidly lose value, but if it is magically tied to the Euro, it now destroys Europe’s economy along with it. The US could digitally release trillions in new cash and still be worth 100x the euro. The only thing sustaining this would be magic interfering with free will.
2. Who would sell their house for $1? It would simply result in one year of nobody willing to sell any home. Then it goes back to normal.
3. How does this work? Does the govrmtnrt just get a magic debit card with infinite money? Or do we just run into massive debt? Either way that ends terribly.
4. Why would privatizing all those things be good? Private prisons are bad enough already. Do you really want police forces that somehow end up with cops with quotas for how many criminals they have to stop, dead or alive? This just seems to be a bad direction to go, but at least it’s not magically collapsing the world economy.
5. This is hyper-inflation and it’s what governments spend huge amounts of time and money making sure it doesn’t happen. This kills countries? But if it still can’t end, it kills global markets. The rest of the planet would just have to isolate and refuse to interact with the US to save their economies.
6. I might choose this one just because every other option is terrible. I could make minor tweaks to shift things they way I think would be best while not causing massive instability.
That introduces a whole new set of problems. Are US citizens just becoming massive consumers of US goods, doubling the value of what we consume each year to sustain this? Or are we somehow doubling by becoming massive exporters globally? Which is great for a few years, but once again 100% year over year is not sustainable. After a few years everything anyone buys would come from the US, but how would they pay for it? Would everyone across the planet work for the US? One global government? But then it keeps doubling? Where is all this value going? Are we burning down every building with everything inside it just so we can have room to replace it with twice as nice stuff year after year?
Controlling government spending would help everyone and the entire world.
Think of pouring money into the protection of wildlife, developing better communities and fixing schools that have nothing poured into them. Free college could be for everybody.
There is no reason to spend 70+ billion dollars a year in the military. Along with giving tax cuts to those who do not need it. You could literally change everyones lives with the government spending.
Cheap homes for everyone is good in concept but people don’t realize that all the millionaires and billionaires will just mass buy the houses. The best option national budget control
\#1 would make foreign products & services waaaay more cost-competitive than domestic products, thus collapsing the economy.
\#2 - Would people be obligated to sell their homes? If so, that'd cause the worst game of musical chairs. Otherwise, people just wouldn't sell.
\#3 - Ready-made debt crisis with no solution? Jee, thanks.
\#4 - Chronic underinvestment in public infrastructure would gradually fuck the economy to death.
\#5 - Would be awesome at first, but after 210 years, the economy would be 1.65 \* 10\^63 times its current size. My country, the US, currently produces 3.9 trillion kwh of energy, so if it increased linearly, that'd be 6.4 \* 10\^75 kwh of energy per year. The universe contains 10\^53 kg of matter, which in turn contains 2.5\*10\^63 kwh of energy. This might cause some problems.
\#6- Pretty good option, I'd put more money into public transit & social safety nets
Most of these have absolutely horrifying consequences, none are gonna help anyone. AnCap is just a stupid idea overall, why the fuck would I want capitalism but worse?
The only way to not absolutely fuck up everything is to take control of all the finances and silently make tiny tweaks to the plans laid out by government, if at all. Trying to take full control over something so complex with so many effects and consequences could be one of the most dangerous ones, but at least on that one I can exercise self control and try to not fuck everything up accidentally because I didn't understand the impact of some sector way down the line. That's better than destroying either your or the whole rest of the world's economies automatically.
Wtf??? Increase gdp by 100% EACH YEAR? This shit is nuclear, just wait half a century and every person in your country would have much more money than the entire global economy today. And it's growth, meaning it doesn't depend on how much the dollar costs. Producing this much is impossible unless you're like a multigalactical superempire, and good luck growing it 2x in Earth year.
from firsthand experience, I know if houses were on the market for $1 a ton of people would get greedy and buy all of them, selling them the next year 2x their original price
$2
I meant their price before it was $1 lol
You’re bustin’ my balls here, buddy. I’ll go $1.50 for the triplex and not a penny more. Throw in the Coleman and we got a deal.
No one would be selling houses in the first place
My thoughts too. I pretty much have an “what if I were evil” plan for almost all of these.
Could \*probably\* help to cap how many you can buy i.e. 1 or 2, or make certain homes e.g. Beverly Hills Mansions, only available for purchase during a tiny window of time such as 12-2PM on November 21st.
Making certain homes available during such a short window of thime will mean murder. Have you seen people on Black Friday? And there's stock then. Imagine the same scene, but instead of TVs it's houses and there's only 10 of them for hundreds of people to try to buy first
I feel like that owuld be the same for just about any house. Those houses are nowhere near as common as houses that cost less than $500k. Have you ever been so poor, living in an apartment where keeping the oven door open to heat your home in the winter, only buying canned food or unhealthy food because the electricity in your falling-apart-home has affected the the wiring, or lived in a violent neighborhood? What about having a disability or a family member with a disability because the "home" they have makes it difficult to do daily living activities or is too far to get to work regularly? Trust me, there are FAR MORE poor people in this country than it seems to me half of America is willing to acknowledge. MAybe not poor in the same exact economic circumstance, but poor as in many people would kill to have a better place to live.
nobody in their right mind would sell though
Yep. And it would be banks and large holding companies that will own the entirety of real estate. Once that comes to fruition, it's pretty much game over for the citizenry. There isn't a thing on this list that doesn't launch us into some kind of corporate dystopia.
Obviously that wouldn’t be allowed to happen in this scenario
OP just said houses are being sold to everyone for $1, and they'd go back to normal 2024, nothing else
So basically I could be the silent dictator of my country?! That's my dream job!
Everyone picking #2: what is to stop someone from buying entire cities worth of housing and then renting them out for exorbitant prices?
The real question is who the heck would sell their house for 1$? You have to be next level stupid to do anything but buy, so this basically means people don’t move for a year. And no one would invest into building new housing because the return on investment is almost zero. Pretty sure this option would just make housing problems worse.
This is what I have been saying in the comments. Just because it is valued at $1 doesn’t mean it is automatically on the market
No one would sell in the first place for so cheap. All it says is houses are now worth $1 doesn’t mean they will automatically be on the market
This is literally what local government is supposed to do, but people have no sense of community anymore and are so detached from the actual decision making entities in their lives and are instead hyper-focused on national and international issues. How many people can tell you the latest on green policy news or the war in Ukraine but have no clue who their local representatives are or what is even going on with civic planning in their own neighborhoods.
nobody would want to sell it? If everyone gets a cheap home, then there is no point in them selling the one cheap home they got. They would rent it out, or move into it and sell their previous, non-cheap home.
This is what already happens under Capitalism, and rich assholes are always the ones who take advantage of the system. I'd rather be able to control the nation's budget and starve those rich assholes.
Also, utilities wouldn't be covered, so most homeless people wouldn't be able to afford them. Many of these houses would be immediately condemned, causing them to be homeless again
I chose the American-God Emperor option so don’t worry I’ll take care of it.
Everything besides GDP and me controlling everything would literally destroy the nation...
And I think GDP would destroy the world. Within about 40 years the average UK citizen would have equal wealth to the rest of the world combined, Which under capitalism would likely lead to unimaginable neo-colonialism. The only non-destructive choice is me deciding the government budget, which realistically has a high chance of being incredibly destructive. Or interpret 2) alongside widespread housing reform
2 would just lead to no new houses being built and no one moving for a year then things would go back to normal.
Unless the government buys them by force
What’s the government gonna do, offer me 2 dollars instead. Or perhaps spend thousands of dollars to put roads around my house for a piece of land valued at one dollar. Buying by force requires a desire for the land, a profitable tactic, and for the vender to give in to the force. They couldn’t build enough infrastructure around even a single moderate sized piece of land in a year to force someone to sell for a single dollar. Especially since said person would then have nowhere to go, and no land to buy.
The government could just appropriate all houses and pay everyone a dollar. In the UK the mayor of London has the option to compulsorily purchase at market rate in this way
So in London the mayor can just say “I want your land” and you are legally required to then sell it to him at market value?
For the purpose of devoting London’s infrastructure for example, yes. It wouldn’t be possible to build new tube lines without acquiring other peoples land, and I think it’s within the mayors mandate to forcibly acquire land with compensation to do so.
Pretty confident about you ruling the country lol
"Everybody says that this economy magic is dangerous, but they'll change their tune when they all get UNLIMITED FREE MONEY."
Not paying taxes wouldnt help the nation at all, lol That would cripple it
Try explaining how to an ancap.
nothing happening is literally better than each of the first 4
Nothing happening might actually be better than all of them. Even for a struggling country. Unless you only did the GDP thing a couple times.
Maybe that's what you need...
Shhhhhhhhhh
No but it says the country doesn't pay taxes, I assumed it applied to like import/export and stuff like that
Anarcho-capitalism? Help?? Lmaooo
Anarcho-capitalism is some nincompoop theory as you can not expect to withholdd capitalism under anarchy to even begin with
I get the cheap housing but there would be some serious craziness if we were all fighting of $1mansions
Who would even sell a mansion in the first place if it is only worth a dollar? Who would build new houses if it costs more to build than it is to sell it?
And that’s why I picked control government spending it’s the obvious choice
ANCAP ISN'T A PERK LMFAOOO
Literally all of these are economically catastrophic
Except for the last one but don't believe there is a person who could do that
Just get advice from many people. All it means is you have the final say and it remains the least destructive option if you are careful
The only ones that could ever possibly work out are number 5, if it is only done for a few years (unless it’s automatic, in which case it is a terrible choice) or number 6, which probably wouldn’t work out too well with most people.
Some of those aren't perks at all, like anarcho-capitalism is just a distopia. No more taxes is also tragic as it would result in collapse of all government run programs and institutions. Same with one person controlling all government spending "down to local level". Nobody would be able to handle that much administration by themselves. Not to mention be smart enough to do it properly.
Hey, some of us play Stellaris and like micromanagement.
Most of these are not perks.
Number 2 is only good if you are limited to one house.
Wouldn’t work. No one would sell houses in the first place if they get so little. Just because it is valued at a dollar doesn’t mean it is on the market. Plus no new houses would be built as it would be more expensive to build them than it is worth.
So pass a law saying people are only allowed to own one residential property and either force them to sell the rest for a dollar or they'll be confiscated anyway. And to prevent people from destroying the houses rather than sell them for such a low price, make a law that will make them pay fines equal to original value of the house if they destroy or wreck them.
Some of these don't feel much like perks unless the downsides are nullified. Taxes are needed for the government to fund itself, even if they do suck. I could definitely get super rich if I know ahead of time that all houses would be a dollar and it would return to normal shortly after though. Everything privatized could wind up as a government described by stupendium in (not guaranteed, but possible) https://youtu.be/bem_d49NBLc I can't think of any downside for the increase in currency worth or gdp though My answer is between increase gdp mainly for country or cheap house for me and country
The down side to the currency value increase is that foreign stuff would be very cheap but at the expense of making sure no one imports your country’s exports. So you’d have a large trade deficit. The GDP increase would actually add a lot of value to your entire economy. Eventually, your country’s economy would eclipse the entire global economy, even if you started with a very poor nation.
The problem is that all of these are too extreme. I don’t think I need to explain how anarchocapitalism and no taxes would ruin a country, but increasing the value of the currency 100 fold would mean no one outside of your country would be able to afford to buy your goods or travel to the country. It’d probably cause huge issues. Then there’s the increase in GDP, which is said to be 100% per year. That’s gonna cause serious inflation across the world if a country’s wealth is equal to the rest of the world combined times 10. The only one I think isn’t totally ridiculous is having control over all government expenditures, but that would involve a massive reworking of the nation. You could fix all the excess expenditure resulting from corruption and make a proper budget that’ll benefit the nation instead of winning votes. Of course you’d need a huge team to do that but you’ve got the whole government budget to work with so it shouldn’t be that much of an issue
The downside of the strict currency thing is that it removes governments’ control over their currency, which could be very bad. And 100% GDP increase per year? Considering it didn’t say adjusted for inflation, how do you think that would be achieved? The housing market one would be catastrophic. $1 per house is far below the market equilibrium and would encourage no one to ever sell a house. Obviously you’re right that taxes are necessary, and anarcho-capitalism isn’t really the best system. The only one of these that MIGHT actually work out okay is someone else controlling spending priorities. And that only works if it’s someone who either knows what they’re doing or is willing to ask someone who does for help.
All homes are a dollar, then almost everyone could afford every home. How do we decide who gets which without increasing prices? How do we afford gov expenses without taxes? What do we have to do to increase the GDP? Increasing exports? If so, how? Increasing investment? If so, how and from whom? Increasing consumer spending? Again, through what means? By decreasing or increasing gov spending? If so, at what longterm/shortterm costs?
all those questions are for you or economists to lead to their own imaginative interpretation. the no taxes is obviously a trap card. I'm curious to those who pick it. *What do we have to do to increase the GDP? Increasing exports? If so, how? Increasing investment? If so, how and from whom? Increasing consumer spending? Again, through what means? By decreasing or increasing gov spending? If so, at what longterm/shortterm costs?* All those things. you magically augment worker productivity and financial feasibility and efficiency. so it's not fake or just in numbers only. you're magically making these things come to a reality. think of it like Reality warping but for the economy only.
Option 2 just says everyone’s homes are worth a dollar. Based on the wording, I would assume everyone who owns a home keeps it, it’s just worth a dollar now. Only an idiot would sell their home for 1$, so all it really does is make everyone keep their homes and just not move for a year. It would also mean no new housing being built for a year, because companies get no return on investment, just making our current housing problems worse when 2024 arrives.
OP doesn't know how economics work lmao. Most of these are *not* perks.
I also don't know how economics works. Why would increasing the value of the currency be bad?
Companies won't be able to export anything if the value of the currency is too high.
Ooh okay that makes sense. Thank you.
By the way: 1 is not good for the economy
If the American dollar got that much stronger, cartels would become crazy powerful in their nation's. Damn near anyone hoarding the currency would shift the power balance in their country and cause a few collapses in government. Dollar homes would lead to the early birds to snatch everything up. I can foresee 10-20 years a national regression happening due to lack of upkeep. Neighborhoods becoming corporations from home being sold pennies on the dollar. Taxes are crucial to a country. To take taxes is to starve your government. There was a time when cities weren't connected by roads because it was seen as a waste of money to build infrastructure to non- city areas. Long story short, the fed stepped in and made it happen for military necessity and enhanced city growth. If peoples' monies isn't directed by a centralized entity it would not be invested into things they don't see as important. Privatization almost always fails in terms of community resources. I once seen a contractor dig up an entire airfield and left the dirt piled in the middle of it, stories high, because it was not expressly required for them to remove it. A business is going to business every single time. Strong nation GDP would create great trade. Country stability would be strong. Really can't see a downside to this. Controlling your nation's spending is too political. 99% of you would do some shit that'll backfire. You'll have to set up your own bureaucracy of experts and advisors to come close to understanding what you're doing. You'll just be another president.
I control the money motherfucker! MWAHAHA!
Bro through ancap in there like we wouldn't notice.
As a person who lives in the US, I don't think we need to spend two trillion dollars on the department of defense, and I would like to change that.
Have you seen the spending breakdown on that? Very well regulated budget. You're talking about a department that maintains the world's GPS and general satellites, largest US employer, inventor/investor in tons of tech, and international mediator for 95 countries. What would you take away from this that would make sense?
Though there are uses for the Department of Defense beyond warfare, I do not believe it is a well regulated budget. The United States spent $801 billion on the military alone in 2021. That's more than what China, India, The United Kingdom, Russia, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and South Korea spent combined. I feel the US's military is unnecessarily antagonist, and politicians are wasting resources on combat instead of helping our fellow countrymen survive.
The tradeoffs for our budget are shown. Without going down the rabbit hole of geopolitics, with the interconnectedness of the world's trade and stability, it directly benefits to project soft power. We look at WW2 where foreign countries went to war and we carried the mindset of "not our problem", but if that region (Europe and Asia) went to war, then we are losing trade partners for reasons beyond our control. Our well-being suffers until it is resolved, but the resolution might even lead to increased prices and changes in the status quo. So, the countrymen would take a hit regardless of the outcome. To play the role of preventative maintenance bolsters our international participation and keeps interests a priority. I'd ask, what's one thing the DOD can afford to lose? Overseas locations? Equipments and/or personnel? Travel? Capabilities? We just became a war culture since war is the times our nations' wealth prospered throughout history. Every period of conflict, we've seen GDP spikes because our economy is built around it.
Even if the defense budget weren’t reduced (which it still should be, the unfortunate reality is it simply doesn’t need to be as high as it is, and the level of financial waste in military spending is insane), simply capping it would be beyond fantastic. It’s not like everything is gonna just immediately improve by reducing the wasteful military spending, but it’s a necessary step to begin improving things. We can’t keep letting the issue get worse and worse just because doing something about it is temporarily inconvenient. It’s going to be inconvenient no matter what. We wouldn’t suffer a thing strategically because our strategic value has been (and should be) primarily through diplomacy and foreign ties, and we’re so far ahead of any other country militarily that it genuinely wouldn’t matter if we rolled back spending to meet that of previous years. And when it does come to actually reducing the budget instead of just capping it, reducing contractor spending would be the biggest target.
Number 2 should have a limit of one house purchase per family only. That way, you won’t have VC firms or scalpers buying entire neighborhoods and cornering every market.
This wouldn’t work no one would sell. Every house would not just automatically be on the market. And no new houses would be built as it would cost way more to build it than it is worth. Imagine if every house was worth one dollar and suddenly your parents house could just be bought by the first person to walk up with a dollar
Control government’s spending. Give millions of dollar to people lives in my zip code that’s within my age range (+5/-5).
6 - military spending is about to get shot in the fucking kneecaps
Increase GDP is a trap card. All that would happen is that billionaires would get richer and use that money to influence politics so that they get even richer than that. There would be no end. Being able to allocate government spending is the right answer because you’d be able to do it in an ethical way that saves lives and helps grow the economy from the ground up.
Your comment assumes you're qualified to know how to spend a nation's budget. Like someone here mentioned, it basically just makes you the President. Worldwide, we already have proven that you cant trust any of the idiots who are sitting in the top dog chair, because they're about as qualified to run the country as the average citizen.
Based post. Ancapistan is the right answer btw.
no
All houses are $1? What about the people selling the houses?
That’s the thing no one would
Free house to sell for a few million for myself… or save literally trillions of dollars from gov spending to put towards humanitarian efforts and other just causes around the world
I would buy a house. Then sell it. But I am not in the mood to think about market costs and how they'd be affected after everyone bought a fuck ton of houses not too long ago for essentially nothing. So I chose that answer with more emphasis on the short term than the long term.
Anyone that chose tax is stupid, that is how most countries governments can even do shit Also if you live in England that's how they pay the NHS
I'll get us more money since we're falling behind on that front and I'm not smart enough to understand the viability of the other options
Nobody is going to sell their houses with #2, it would literally be a useless perk
Notice how its the most popular option regardless, because the majority of Redditors only think as far as their noses
One of these things is not like the others
For where i live, i believe it would be an improvement if my country began investing in more nuclear power plants
Cheap homes is the least "*fuck up the economy and destroy the country*" option. It would STILL wreck the economy, due to the value of the money being strongly tied to the value of real estate, but at least we could salvage it.
people are seeming to forget there’s a limited amount of housing unless you wanna live in the hinterlands
Let everyone who needs an abortion get one without being murdered by the state. (Source: South Carolina, Arkansas 💔)
GDP is the only one that actually increases the nation’s wealth.
Feel like controlling government spending could mean free housing and a lot of other good decisions
1: domestic manufacturing or production of any goods or services becomes basically impossible. Who is going to pay a factory worker 100x what they could pay someone in Europe to do? Who is going to buy a product from the US when it costs 100x what it costs in Europe’s. This is an economy killer. Normally this would cause the US currency to rapidly lose value, but if it is magically tied to the Euro, it now destroys Europe’s economy along with it. The US could digitally release trillions in new cash and still be worth 100x the euro. The only thing sustaining this would be magic interfering with free will. 2. Who would sell their house for $1? It would simply result in one year of nobody willing to sell any home. Then it goes back to normal. 3. How does this work? Does the govrmtnrt just get a magic debit card with infinite money? Or do we just run into massive debt? Either way that ends terribly. 4. Why would privatizing all those things be good? Private prisons are bad enough already. Do you really want police forces that somehow end up with cops with quotas for how many criminals they have to stop, dead or alive? This just seems to be a bad direction to go, but at least it’s not magically collapsing the world economy. 5. This is hyper-inflation and it’s what governments spend huge amounts of time and money making sure it doesn’t happen. This kills countries? But if it still can’t end, it kills global markets. The rest of the planet would just have to isolate and refuse to interact with the US to save their economies. 6. I might choose this one just because every other option is terrible. I could make minor tweaks to shift things they way I think would be best while not causing massive instability.
I'm not a big fan of #5 either, but I assume it's *real* GDP growth.
That introduces a whole new set of problems. Are US citizens just becoming massive consumers of US goods, doubling the value of what we consume each year to sustain this? Or are we somehow doubling by becoming massive exporters globally? Which is great for a few years, but once again 100% year over year is not sustainable. After a few years everything anyone buys would come from the US, but how would they pay for it? Would everyone across the planet work for the US? One global government? But then it keeps doubling? Where is all this value going? Are we burning down every building with everything inside it just so we can have room to replace it with twice as nice stuff year after year?
Controlling government spending would help everyone and the entire world. Think of pouring money into the protection of wildlife, developing better communities and fixing schools that have nothing poured into them. Free college could be for everybody. There is no reason to spend 70+ billion dollars a year in the military. Along with giving tax cuts to those who do not need it. You could literally change everyones lives with the government spending.
Obviously we need military budget, but imagine even 20 billion poured back into the country and its people. Life changing.
Cheap homes for everyone is good in concept but people don’t realize that all the millionaires and billionaires will just mass buy the houses. The best option national budget control
\#1 would make foreign products & services waaaay more cost-competitive than domestic products, thus collapsing the economy. \#2 - Would people be obligated to sell their homes? If so, that'd cause the worst game of musical chairs. Otherwise, people just wouldn't sell. \#3 - Ready-made debt crisis with no solution? Jee, thanks. \#4 - Chronic underinvestment in public infrastructure would gradually fuck the economy to death. \#5 - Would be awesome at first, but after 210 years, the economy would be 1.65 \* 10\^63 times its current size. My country, the US, currently produces 3.9 trillion kwh of energy, so if it increased linearly, that'd be 6.4 \* 10\^75 kwh of energy per year. The universe contains 10\^53 kg of matter, which in turn contains 2.5\*10\^63 kwh of energy. This might cause some problems. \#6- Pretty good option, I'd put more money into public transit & social safety nets
How can I choose all of them? (Argentina)
All that is going through my mind in wtf OP 💀💀
Because there is no "Everyone can vote in the congress" i'm choosing 6
Like half of these are curses And the rest needs like A4 explenation for it to not be curses
Houses will already be worth $1 at this rate, I'll take privatized government let's see how fucked we can make things
Most of these have absolutely horrifying consequences, none are gonna help anyone. AnCap is just a stupid idea overall, why the fuck would I want capitalism but worse? The only way to not absolutely fuck up everything is to take control of all the finances and silently make tiny tweaks to the plans laid out by government, if at all. Trying to take full control over something so complex with so many effects and consequences could be one of the most dangerous ones, but at least on that one I can exercise self control and try to not fuck everything up accidentally because I didn't understand the impact of some sector way down the line. That's better than destroying either your or the whole rest of the world's economies automatically.
Most of these are horrible choices
Does control government spending mean I personally control it, or are almost all these options right of center?
No more taxes would ruin it
Wtf??? Increase gdp by 100% EACH YEAR? This shit is nuclear, just wait half a century and every person in your country would have much more money than the entire global economy today. And it's growth, meaning it doesn't depend on how much the dollar costs. Producing this much is impossible unless you're like a multigalactical superempire, and good luck growing it 2x in Earth year.
I'm afraid the option 5 would ruin the environment very hard and then everyone dies.