I was curious what could happen to the economy if we did the following:
* Passed a law that bans foreclosure, bank levy, wage garnishment, and putting liens on property
* Sets the statute of limitations on debts and judgments (both) to 90 days and makes them non-renewable after that
* Raise the property and equity exemptions from judgment / bankruptcy to $1,000,000,000 per person and that is combined home equity, money, cars, boats, furniture, jewelery, and all other property of value.
* create a usury law which limits the maximum rate banks can charge to lend to 0.01% APR
* Make payment records, bankruptcy, etc private and give the people the option of not reporting negative credit information to the bureaus.
I am curious what the economic, societal, and other implications would be of such as policy passing all of these things simultaneously. I was curious if there would be more poverty, less poverty due to a cost of living change (i.e. more disposable income due to less sucked by creditors before the people can use it because of payments), or what. I was also curious if the tax revenue would go up or down, or what would happen to the currency, etc.
Also, how could an economy function in which the banking system was not the gatekeeper to what certain people can do?
I am asking because I see what we face ahead with peaking and declining of natural resources and it appears from many of the studies done on this, that a lot of debts aren't going to be paid, and I was wondering if instead of bailouts, the impact if giving the lower class a safety net to keep their belongings, homes, cars, quality of life, etc during times of economic decline would be a better policy for society overall than letting the bankers keep getting richer and more powerful while everyone else suffers.