3 ms·
Very different. This is capping, not just devaluating. If you're devaluating, let's say, by 10%, if you had $10 you will have $9 (it will be still $10 but it wi
by DrJokepu 17y ago
Very different. This is capping, not just devaluating. If you're devaluating, let's say, by 10%, if you had $10 you will have $9 (it will be still $10 but it will be only worth $9), if you had $100 you will have $90, if you had $1000 you will have $900, etc.
In this case, they're capping as well at $40. If you had $10 you will still have only $9, but if you had $100 (or $1000 or a million) you will only have $40. That's it. That's not just taxing wealth, it's taking all the wealth away.
- Retric 17y agoAt the same time there was no physical destruction of physical stuff, so it was wealth transfer not wealth destruction. In theory the country should be approximately as wealthy after this action as it was before it. PS: Ignoring the intangibles.
- CWuestefeld 17y agoSo it's like devaluation, but with a "progressive" twist?
- DrJokepu 17y agoWell, yeah, infinitely progressive. It's like if the tax rate above a range was 100%.
- gaius 17y agoit's taking all the wealth away It's taking the liquidity away. People can no longer trade amongst themselves; they can only "trade" with the government.