Prices of things are becoming absolutely insane. $800+ rent, $30,000 cars, $10 sub sandwiches, etc. It would be nice to do a 3/1 split and cut everything by 2/3. Then we would have $266 rent, $10,000 cars, and $3.33 sub sandwiches. Wages, debts, everything would drop to 1/3 what they are now. It would also make coins useful again since a vending machine soda would be 2 quarters again.

      • Is this a problem, though? There’s currencies like the Yen which have high numbers, the users just adjust their mindset of how much is “a lot”. Reducing the numbers wouldn’t change the problems of things getting more expensive. This feels like treating a very cosmetic symptom of a much larger problem.

        The wealthy would still possess an obscene and unfathomable amount of wealth and the impoverished would still be struggling to get by, just the numbers would be smaller. Does that help anything?

              • But the national debt is irrelevant to me. It has zero impact on my day to day life. It’s just some imaginary number pundits can shout about to push their utterly disconnected agendas.

                Even if I could wrap my head around it, that wouldn’t improve the credit rating of the nation, even if I could manage to care one iota about that.

                I’m sorry, I’m just struggling to understand why it’s useful to have a national debt that’s a small enough number for me to visualize some quantification of it.

      •  Ashy   ( @cali_ash@lemmy.wtf ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        That is an unimaginable sum. What even is 33 trillion dollars?

        How is 11 trillion any better?

        If you want to actually bring that to a number people can grasp than small amounts would become impractically small. Like you would need to deal with 0.000001 and 0.0000001 dollars and stuff.

  • No. Costs rise all the time. Ideally, so does your income, giving you mostly the same purchasing power as before - just because 10 is a larger number than the 8 you paid a year or two ago, doesn’t mean you realistically expended more value (e.g. time spent working, or foregoing other things).

    Rejiggering this would involve a lot of work. It would not give you any more or less value, it would be cosmetic. It would also be based on a very subjective “this shouldn’t cost as much as $X” where both X and the rough value of the $ are… just something you happen to be used to. A trivial example is how this looks to anyone with a different currency, or to an American in a different time.

    Now, of course, a large amount of people in the entire Western world have gotten shafted for 50 years plus, and the purchasing power has gotten even worse in the past 5, but that’s basically a separate issue.

    (Also, coins are pretty expensive compared to paper money, IIRC)

    • Yeah, incomes have risen a hell of a lot slower than inflation causing the average person to be poorer overall. Redominating the currency would not fix that problem. That is a systemic issue where inflation is higher than wage increases, so people demand higher wages, which then causes inflation to increase, and it’s a spiral.