Obligatory reminder: Monopoly is deliberately intended to be un-fun because it was designed by Georgists to teach about the evils of rentiership and land-hoarding.
The square that is today labeled “collect $200 salary as you pass” was originally labeled “Labor applied to Land produces Wages.”
Nobody plays by the official rules, because the intention of the game is to bankrupt other players, knocking them out of the game. Not being allowed to play anymore is not fun. So, people tend to change the rules up to make it harder to get knocked out, which in turn leads to games becoming extremely long.
Basically, the game is crap.
I think it is closer to the current state of American welfare where you get very little money on the condition that you continue to try the game (go around the board and pass go) while all along, rich players and the ge.itself try to collect rent and taxes that just don’t have. Nevermind the ever present threat of being sent to jail.
What if I told you locking people up for rolling doubles three times does nothing to discourage the next player from doing it?
It never did. The point of the prison industrial complex is not to stop professional criminals but to deter the working class from making too much of a stink. This is also why prisons have to be squalid, inhumane places invested with bugs and where abuses by the guards are routine.
That’s also why the judicial system is rigged to favor convictions and sentencing is disproportionately egregious for most crimes (e.g. possession).
I don’t think this is a good analogy, because rolling doubles three times is a matter of chance, so you can’t be “discouraged” to do it. While you can commit a crime willingly, rolling doubles is not something you can choose to do or really interfere with, it just happens and you’re screwed. (Or maybe I missed your point entirely, in which case I apologize.)
I mean, the $200 does encourage me to create a monopoly and simultaneously extract maximum wealth from my opponents while also taking their homes. Not sure if the monopoly analogy is useful here.
UBI is capitalists’ best attempt at breathing life into capitalism. The benefits of UBI in the global north would still be at the expense of exploitation in the global south.
It depends on how it’s implemented - if it’s just enough to patch the system for a while, it’ll just become a way to squeeze more out of people
If it’s enough that work becomes optional, it’ll lessen the pressure enough that consumption will drop. More people will grow food, cook, and DIY everything from repairs to cottage handicrafts. They’ll have the time and energy to organize, politically and otherwise
Regardless, UBI is a stopgap measure - it can just extend the game of capitalism a little longer, or it can be the start of a transition
I think that definitionally a UBI is the latter, at least in my opinion. The point is that it elevates everyone to the same playing field, of having all essential needs covered (shelter, food, utilities, healthcare). Anything less is basically just the welfare systems that most countries (besides the US) already have. In Australia, unemployment is not enough to live on, it’s purposefully punitive to “encourage” people to find a job. Giving that same amount to everyone isn’t going to cover people’s basic needs.
Side note: Healthcare is a basic need that everybody has. So, if a UBI were implemented in the US, it would need to be enough to cover people’s health insurance. At that point, the government’s already paying for it, so why not just implement universal healthcare?
And even then UBI is just another form of maintaining this “unemployed reserve army”. Guaranteed jobs for every citizen capable and desiring to work, on exchange for a living wage, would automatically eliminate the people’s need to stay at shitty jobs or accepting shitty wages, since they can’t be easily replaced; it would increase production of goods and services much more than UBI, therefore tackling possible inflationary tendencies… It’s really a much better patch to capitalism than UBI
How does guaranteeing jobs make people any less replaceable?
Also we have a crises of bs jobs. UBI would help lower it a lot. Guaranteed jobs would make it ten times worse
How does guaranteeing jobs make people any less replaceable
Because there’s constantly a labor shortage instead of a pool of millions of unemployed people
Also we have a crises of bs jobs. UBI would help lower it a lot. Guaranteed jobs would make it ten times worse
Why would guaranteed jobs make it worse? Guaranteed jobs could be decided upon (at the very least partially) by local neighborhood councils. Care for children and for old people, cleaning the streets, building new housing… Even if 50% of jobs created were “redundant” (which is impossible), that’s still 50% of actual useful labor compared to 0% of UBI
Yep, Lemmy on web browser no longer allows me to post images in comments. Dunno what to do about it so I guess I’ll just be sad.
UBI is not going to be without its problems, but it might be a stopgap to delay the onset of too many homeless starving people (which will result in police action, outlaw groups and eventually a proper Rebel Alliance, also a Résistance since chronic police brutality historically results in a résistance.
In the Great Depression, FDR enacted the New Deal because the choice was that or tremble before the Communist Revolution < swelling Bolshevik chorus > since an awful lot of Americans were living in paint-can shelters and dying of malnutrition on flour paste while Hoover was laughing and smoking cigars and playing poker with all the industrialists. Good times!
Here in the US, we’ve been inoculated against alternatives to socialism, but the ownership class whinging about quiet quitting and in the meantime not paying us enough to survive is running thin, so we’re probably going to see something between a civil war and a genocide of non-whites, non-Christians, uppity women, people who are the wrong kind of Christianity, and eventually people who fail to snap their salute quite snappy enough.
Because we entirely failed to fix these problems during the last century, and will probably fail to fix them during the next too.
But man, I totally hope I’m wrong. Please make me eat crow.
Yep, Lemmy on web browser no longer allows me to post images in comments.
Huh. Did you try the old  thing to link to another site? Actually, let me try real quick:
I can see this on my end. There does, however, seem to be a problem with uploading images to Lemmy. Not sure what to do about that, sorry.
