It’s more for marketability. The original version of the game was a “hard capitalism simulator” and was even less fun. They introduced all sorts of rules to make the game more fun but keep the basic premise where one person ends up with everything.
While I support the idea of universal basic income of some sort, I think the monopoly example is actually an argument as to why UBI isn’t “the solution” to wealth inequity and unhappiness.
Think about it- most people I know anyway don’t like monopoly. It isn’t fun. It is fun for maybe like 10 minutes until someone starts to be at unfair advantage.
The universal basic income in monopoly only makes the game more tolerable and helps create an illusion that anyone can win so you keep playing. The richest player and the game company benefit from that and everyone else is feeding them. In other words, in the current system UBI just ends up back with the bank, the company, or the rich player anyway.
While I support the idea of universal basic income of some sort, I think the monopoly example is actually an argument as to why UBI isn’t “the solution” to wealth inequity and unhappiness.
Think about it- most people I know anyway don’t like monopoly. It isn’t fun. It is fun for maybe like 10 minutes until someone starts to be at unfair advantage.
The universal basic income in monopoly only makes the game more tolerable and helps create an illusion that anyone can win so you keep playing. The richest player and the game company benefit from that and everyone else is feeding them. In other words, in the current system UBI just ends up back with the bank, the company, or the rich player anyway.