It never fails to amaze me how many Americans still believe in the American Dream, in the notion that an honest work ethnic and a bit of luck is all one needs to be successful in the USA. I’ve tried numerous ways to show them why they are wrong, but I have not had much success, as is evident by the number of American laborers still voting Republican or worse yet, supporting Democrats who are not pro-labor.
So I have an idea but I am waiting to hear back from the attorneys at Parker Brothers to see if they will allow me to introduce a new version of Monopoly that I call the American 21st Century Version.
I believe that most Americans view our economy and the rules that govern it to be similar to Monopoly. We all take our turn, we manage our money, we play by the rules and along the way, some win and some lose. The American 21st Century Version has a few modifications that may help to illustrate what’s wrong with the USA.
For starters, in standard Monopoly, all players start out with $1,500. In American 21st Century Version, this is not the case. Here are the new rules. If there are 10 players, the amount of money that is divided among the players is $15,000, but unlike the old came, the new version distributes the wealth along modern lines. Players draw straws to see who gets each amount. One player gets $9,750, or 65% of the pot. The remainder is divided on a sliding scale between the remaining nine players. The player at the bottom receives $1 and as an added condition, instead of starting at GO, that player starts in JAIL.
Secondly, in the standard game, each time one works ones way around the board, one earns $200 as one passes GO. In the American 21st Century Version, players gets the option to buy GO for $1,500. Of course there is only one player with that much to spare and it would be foolish not to buy GO for the following reason: When a player passes GO, that player only gets to keep 35% of that $200, or $70, the owner of GO gets the balance of $130.
Of course the owner of GO thinks this is fair and says to anyone who balks, “All you have to do is roll bigger numbers, lots of doubles, and try harder and eventually you can win”…not unlike the advice from Republican Presidential hopeful Jeb Bush who wants all of us to “Work Harder” and the American Dream will become a reality.
Finally, each time the player with the most money passes GO, that player gets to rewrite some of the rules of the game, but they must be careful not to make it look as if they are doing so for their own benefit. It must appear to make the game fairer and give all the players the illusion of possible success. For example, the player with the most money might change the rule to read that all “Two Property Monopolies” will now have their rents doubled. This will be presented as an effort to boost the income of the one poor player that owns Baltic Avenue &Mediterranean Avenue, but of course the player making this rule owns Boardwalk and Park Place.
I’m not sure if people would enjoy playing this new version but then again, they seem satisfied with it in real life.
…about the part where you asked Parker Brothers’ permission to develop this game I wouldn’t hold your breath. Earlier this year I read a book called The Monopolists which tells the story of the legal battles they have engaged in to keep their game and the lengths they have gone to to keep its true origins from the public.
Why do so many people want to come here?
We’re #1 on Immigration and Russia is #2.
One would think that proximity to poor nations plays a key role, given this data. Mexican wages are in the tank, despite the promises of NAFTA to build a Mexican Middle Class. Maybe we ought to re-think what our foreign policy and trade deals do or our neighbors.
But tell me this: Why do you think so many people come to the USA and Russia?
Maybe they watch broadcasts of Shark Tank. I find it an inspiring show, though I’m sure most of the people on here believe it defines the very problem you’re talking about. Glass half empty/half full type of perspective.
Go into a mini-mart / package store (I try to use small ones that are run by the owners) near you and talk to the guys behind the counter and you can’t help but come away with a boost of patriotism.
So the one in a million….the lottery….same reason people go to casinos.
not just America.
They immigrate to England, to France, to Holland, to Scandinavia, to Israel, to Australia, even to some countries in Africa. Sure, they do so for opportunity. They also go to these other countries for opportunity.
Many come to places where there are already vibrant ethnic communities to join. There are many such communities across the country. We still have opportunity here. It just isn’t as great as it was or is in other countries.
What’s wrong with Shark Tank? I don’t watch it regularly, but there’s a place for entrepreneurship and venture capital in our society. It’s not an answer to anything, but it plays a role.
Or Lottery Scratch Tickets for that matter…..unless one takes them a serious way for the majority of us to make a living.
You see, as the wealth divide grows, American Corporations become more and more dominant and in reality entrepreneurship has been in decline since the mid 1970’s.
There is one place where the barriers to immigration are nearly impenetrable, and growing more so — the gated communities of the truly wealthy.
TV shows have no more connection to reality today than they ever have. “Perry Mason” inspired a generation to become lawyers. “The FBI” inspired a generation to become agents. “Dragnet” painted a glowing picture of cops. “Bonanza” and “Little House on the Prairie” glorified farm life in the west and midwest. Does anyone think that “Shark Tank” (or any other TV show) is any different?
Meanwhile, the handful of people at the very top go to great lengths to encourage us to spend our time passionately “protecting” our interests from “immigrants”, stoking our paranoia about the “illegals”. They’d much rather we chase whatever minority is the scapegoat-du-jour and enjoy chit-chat with package store owners than spend too much time learning about where the real wealth is going today. I can promise you that that real wealth is NOT going into the bank accounts of mini-mart and package store owners.
I spent much of a career doing the kind of startups the above cite discusses as “most interesting to economists”:
What’s missing from statistics like this is the ugly truth that produces them. We tell ourselves inspiring fairy tales about “Facebook”, and make heroes of Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs. I don’t know Mr. Zuckerberg, but I did know the late Mr. Jobs personally (he tried to recruit me three different times, and I turned him down each time — to my great benefit) and competed directly enough with Mr. Gates to know his business practices. Neither Mr. Jobs nor Mr. Gates deserve the moniker “hero”. Both were very good at self-promotion. Both were, primarily, very good at plundering the men and women around them with zero regard for loyalty, affection, or fairness.
The reality is that for every Mark Zuckerberg, there are hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of would-be “entrepreneurs” who are sucked dry by the vacuum-cleaner of venture capitalists, loan sharks, lawyers, and of course competition.
Today, more so than any time in generations, one must be truly wealthy to launch a new startup. The days of “angel investors” and “rich uncles” who could advance enough capital to a would-be entrepreneur for, say, six months or a year are long gone (if they ever existed in the first place).
We celebrate “open source”, and insist that pretty much all software we use be “free” (which actually means “paid for by somebody else”), and in so doing we make it impossible for a new software startup to charge ANYTHING for their product. At the same time, even the smallest investor requires a positive cash flow, a reasonable balance sheet, and an “established user base”.
The big players like IBM, Oracle, and others have figured out that the best way to protect their business interests from upstart disruptors is to create “open source” organizations, fund them with tax-deductible “gifts”, and “temporarily” assign their technical staff to “contribute” their time to the open source venture. The result is that those big players totally control the resulting “Open Source” domain.
The Boston area is filled to overflowing with “entrepreneurs” who are convinced that if they work fast enough, hard enough, and long enough, they’ll “dominate” some “industry” — with some mobile app that is either free or that costs a dollar or two. They work for free (for themselves or their friends) for years “building experience”. Our smart phones get filled with more and more useless advertising for more and more useless free widgets. The Emperor doesn’t have any clothes, and the Emperor continues to make all the money.
All of this serves to raise the barrier of admittance to the gated community of the truly wealthy ever higher. While government tax and economic policy provides much of the brick and mortar of that barrier, make no mistake about it — the denizens of the community of the truly wealthy have gone to great lengths to insure that that community has no “immigrants”.
There are NO immigrants to the gated communities of the truly wealthy.
…have also been working behind closed doors to keep wages low.
A friend of mine experienced this when he was working at Kodak and applied for a position at IBM. He discovered he had the job after he met with his department head at Kodak who told him that they were contacted by IBM and since they had an agreement not to go after each others employees, he wanted to be sure that was the case.
…since I don’t think of IBM and Kodak as being in the same field or otherwise competitors. An employee should have every right to look for work elsewhere if s/he isn’t satisfied with current employment.
Here’s a good definition and overview:
In many instances a majority of the “gated communities of the truly wealthy” are comprised of immigrants, as is the case in the new-build luxury units in Downtown Boston. While the Boston-specific information is anecdotal (from broker acquaintances describing their buyers), the following reinforces this:
From the Harun Global Rich Report (A Chinese think tank that caters to that country’s super-rich):
Intrestingly enough:
I did not mean “immigrant” to refer to the country or culture of an individual. I used it metaphorically to refer to those who are not already wealthy.
It is virtually impossible for those who are not already wealthy to become wealthy.
I’ll admit that I had to skim through a bit or two of the book, but the Central theme in Picketty’s “Capital in the 21st Century” is that once a family reaches a particular level of wealth, it’s a wave that will carry them virtually indefinitely if allowed to by the people getting swept under by that wave (my metaphor, not his).
I will never be wealthy. I didn’t stay in school long enough, invent the pet rock or be born into Kennedy/Bush type of wealth. I’m OK with that. I’m comfortable enough (living outside 495 loop helps). I see optimists open businesses all the time, a new driving range, diner, etc. When possible we should all encourage them and buy from them, they also don’t expect to become “wealthy” they’re just looking to be part of the best system available.
And it’s on the decline. It’s time for a change and that’s what this is all about. It’s been on the decline (for labor) since the early 70’s and this was not by accident. It was by design. It’s high time to hold the designers responsible and make bold changes.
was always intended as “free as in speech” not “free as in beer.”
You probably know that.
Indeed, I am well aware of that. Sadly, it is the market that seems to have forgotten the distinction.
…and more thought than I have ever given to the concept. Whenever I see an offer to “download this free software” I think of, and I believe it does mean, that I won’t be asked to cough up money, but by this analogy that does sound more like free beer.
The original “free speech”/”free beer” distinction was made decades ago at the dawn of the open software movement.
It has been largely lost in practice. Your day-to-day impression is accurate, regardless of the original theory.
…but notably not most of Europe. I have to confess I don’t understand why Russia is #2.
Sure, better than the other “third world nations” without health care, labor rights, and so on…but compared to the developed nations of the world, the USA would not be high on my list if I was looking to move.
Are they going from former USSR countries?
Europe is people trying to use the Chunnel to immigrate from France to England. It’s very dangerous and many people are getting killed.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33757402
Something tells me these folks weren’t inspired by Shark Tank.
…that a France to UK transfer was still considered immigration since both are part of the EU.
They seem to be asylum seekers or people who entered Europe illegally. Then they wanted to go to England.
I’m not completely sure this isn’t mentioned somewhere in the long chain here, but this is interesting especially in what purports to be the secret history of the board game. As the story goes, it was invented by a progressive woman in the early 1900’s as “The Landlord’s Game,” and then co-opted by Parker Brothers. I learned of this in a monologue by the performance artist Mike Daisey, who of course is best-known for embellishing a story in his career. But it’s a great story!
-Joyce