4 ms·
There are about 4 million births in the US ever year, so that program would inject $4 trillion per year into the economy (assuming everyone currently living is
by evunveot 10y ago
There are about 4 million births in the US ever year, so that program would inject $4 trillion per year into the economy (assuming everyone currently living is left out). It would be impossible to pull in that much through taxation (today) so it would have to be pure money creation. $4 trillion is about 25% of GDP, so if the economy isn't growing by at least that amount every year, the value of the dollar will inevitably fall to compensate, most likely to a level where the return on the $1 million investment isn't anywhere close to a livable income.
Come to think of it, I'm not even considering the money multiplier. When that $4 trillion is spent or invested, eventually it ends up in someone's bank account, and because we have fractional reserve banking, it adds to the banks' deposits, allowing them to loan more money out. The banks' reserve requirement is 10%, so in the worst case (if the banks loan out as much as they possibly can), that $4 trillion becomes $40 trillion. (Each bank loans out 90% of their deposits, the loans becomes deposits at other banks, who loan 90% of that [81% of the original], and so on and so on.) That's 250% of GDP, so you'd probably see inflation severe enough to threaten social order in general.
If we imagine that the program has been running for several generations already and the whole population already has their $1 million trust fund, you can at least destroy about $2.4 trillion per year as people die, but the bigger issue would be that "$1 million" means a very different thing in a world where there's $300 trillion in citizen trust funds compared to today when the total of all physical currency and liquid bank accounts is about $10 trillion.
There's also the problem of who gets to decide how to invest the money, which would be a magnet for corruption.