> this is not an entirely accurate description of the process

This is an entirely inaccurate description of the process. Only countries were allowed to purchase gold for $35 an ounce, with the assumption that they would also "buy" $35 with an ounce of gold. This would ordinarily be considered a bad deal because the dollar had already drastically inflated since 1934, but Europe and Japan were desperate for liquidity to rebuild from WWII, so they were happy to trade physical gold for what was essentially slips of paper. When the US noticed that they were increasingly trying to trade these slips of paper into gold, the US ended the ability to do so. Saying that the end of Bretton Woods was a bad decision is really just saying that you want the US to instantly become bankrupt.

There is no reason to peg your currency to an arbitrary metal. If the government wanted to stop itself from printing money, it would simply stop printing money. Bretton Woods was actually a weaker protection against "printing money" than say a debt ceiling because Nixon was able to reverse kill Bretton Woods single handedly, whereas raising the debt ceiling requires an act from Congress.

> I suspect when this current system we've created blows up, it's going to make 1929 look like a bull market.

I don't think it will completely blow up, but there will be enough economic pain inflicted such that the ordinary person will be happy to accept a central bank digital currency.

The cogs are already turning: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/g7-public-policy-...

> Huh? Previously, state representatives elected senators; after the 17th, the voters did. How does either of these things end "state representation" ?

Who’s their boss? At the moment senators answer to the people of a state, previously they answered to state government.

This changes the reasoning of why we have laws at the federal level. The senators representing a state would be fired for giving up sovereignty; not so for those elected via popular vote. Those elected by popular vote are incentivized to give out goodies to the masses.

State legislators could easily fire and switch senators. Public opinion on the senators didn’t matter nearly as much. If a person of a state wanted influence over the senators they had to focus on local elections.

There’s a whole lot of changes, not really sure what’s being missed?

State reps have a much more informed and salient interest in maintaining their state’s sovereignty, as their power directly derives from it. Much of what the fœderal government does now to usurp state power is to simply bribe the states to change their policies (e.g. the drinking age, but many such examples). Would state reps willingly select senators who would bribe them to change their own policies?

I fully agree with lettergram and disagree with naming capitalism as an 'enemy'.

How do you think you're going to reduce poverty and create wealth without capitalism?