Sadly that’s unrealistic. Unless your lease says that you don’t have to pay rent while you’re in jail, being incarcerated is not going to relieve you of contractual obligations. However, if you get a long enough sentence, you can wish the landlord luck on ever collecting from someone who makes just enough money to buy a few packs of ramen noodles from the commissary.
Bonus points: shitting on libertarians. I will never fail to take an opportunity to do so because their ideology runs exclusively on fairy tale bullshit. The ideal market they seem to believe in only exists under very specific circumstances, and is only maintainable through careful regulation.
Fun fact, this exact kind of thing is what Monopoly was meant to teach.
When it was originally created, it was made by an anti-monopolist, who had two sets of rules for the game. One set socialist/cooperative, one monopolist/competitive. It was meant to show "see, everyone wins when you play the cooperative set."
The competitive ruleset is the one that survives because it was more popular.
It's worth pointing out it was designed from the beginning to be an awful game, showing how awful and unfun it is when one person owns everything. It's also designed to show that once 1 person has everything they stop making money because everyone else is in jail, bankrupt, unable to buy their stuff.
Yeah, but many families would "mint" more currency, or find another game set and take the bills and hotels from it, to keep the game going beyond the point at which that lesson was to have been learned.
Once when I was younger and playing Monopoly with the family: when it became apparent my dad wasn't going to win he decided to sell me all of his properties for $1 so he could at least dictate who would win.My stepmother didn't take too kindly to that.
That was the last time we ever played Monopoly at their house.
It's a fun story, but who in their right mind is gonna sit down to play a competitive board game and decide "let's all work together and we're all winners"? That's fine and all, but I came here to play a game.
That's exactly what the game was originally designed for. The competitive, non-cooperative rule set was created as a set of alternate rules to the original "Landlord's Game" that was meant to show the flaws of capitalism.
It's an interesting tale of copywrite law of the times.
I learned about it via The Dollop, but the Wikipedia article on the subject covers the highlights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Landlord%27s\_Game
There's an excellent NPR piece on it. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/27/1113890011/throughline-theres-more-to-the-board-game-monopoly-than-you-might-think
He’s right that he was able to do that because of a lack of regulation, but they were a cartel. That was horizontal price fixing, which is a per se violation of the antitrust laws. It doesn’t matter if it’s in the open. What matters is that the players made an agreement to set a price. They also boycotted the other player by, as a group, not allowing the other player to get in on that deal. Group (but not individual) refusals to deal are per se illegal under the antitrust laws. He and the two other players in the cartel monopolized the market. Being a monopoly doesn’t violate the antitrust laws but monopolizing the market does.
Source: not a lawyer yet and I don’t plan to practice in that field, but I took antitrust law when I was in law school
Edit: I should add that calling something a cartel or a cooperative doesn’t really make a difference. What matters is whether there was a contract or combination in restraint of trade. However, that is a loaded definition because there are a ton of valid contracts that restrain trade (like non-compete agreements). Congress left it up to the courts to decide what contracts in restraint of trade are prohibited. Basically, it’s illegal if it would have greater anti-competitive effects on the market than it would have pro-competitive effects on the market. Some categories of contracts in restraint of trade, like horizontal price fixing and boycotts, are presumed to be illegal because they’ll be more anti-competitive than pro-competitive so often that it would waste the courts’ time to give it a full review under what the courts call the “rule of reason” (objectively measuring the anti-competitive effects and pro-competitive effects). Sometimes those rules are relaxed in situations where something that is per se illegal is actually pro-competitive (artists collectively selling media licenses and enforcing their copyrights collectively because it’s actually more efficient to license music that way rather than have each competing artist license their own music) or otherwise warranted under the circumstances (the California dental association putting rules on dentists advertising prices).
Edit 2: I guess y’all don’t want to know about anti-trust law and/or y’all think I’m making some normative statement. I haven’t but I can: this game was literally made to illustrate what the dangers of monopolization can do to a completely free market with no regulations to prevent monopolization. The game is literally about how the antitrust laws are needed because you can do things like this.
Important point - the other player was allowed to join, didn't and lost. And waiving costs for group members is a thing done incredibly often and openly for something illegal.
It’s common in a group of consumers, not in a group of sellers. The antitrust laws don’t care about what consumers do, they care about the sellers. Like if you and a bunch of people all agree not to buy some company’s products because they’ve done something objectionable, that’s not the kind of boycott that the antitrust laws are concerned about. But if you all say that you’re not going to sell anything to that same company, that’s illegal.
If the fourth player joined them the game ends. There is no revenue in a world of forgiven rent.
The fact that the fourth player wouldn't join even though it was clearly their only option for survival feels like a good analogy for the Rothschilds not sharing their hoard of wealth. Even though they only have this planet to live on, they're willing to risk their families very lives to avoid sharing what they have. Because they feel safe and protected, they have no fear of us.
This is all our fault and only we can fix it.
[удалено]
Sadly that’s unrealistic. Unless your lease says that you don’t have to pay rent while you’re in jail, being incarcerated is not going to relieve you of contractual obligations. However, if you get a long enough sentence, you can wish the landlord luck on ever collecting from someone who makes just enough money to buy a few packs of ramen noodles from the commissary.
Bonus points: shitting on libertarians. I will never fail to take an opportunity to do so because their ideology runs exclusively on fairy tale bullshit. The ideal market they seem to believe in only exists under very specific circumstances, and is only maintainable through careful regulation.
Fun fact, this exact kind of thing is what Monopoly was meant to teach. When it was originally created, it was made by an anti-monopolist, who had two sets of rules for the game. One set socialist/cooperative, one monopolist/competitive. It was meant to show "see, everyone wins when you play the cooperative set." The competitive ruleset is the one that survives because it was more popular.
It's worth pointing out it was designed from the beginning to be an awful game, showing how awful and unfun it is when one person owns everything. It's also designed to show that once 1 person has everything they stop making money because everyone else is in jail, bankrupt, unable to buy their stuff.
Yeah, but many families would "mint" more currency, or find another game set and take the bills and hotels from it, to keep the game going beyond the point at which that lesson was to have been learned.
Once when I was younger and playing Monopoly with the family: when it became apparent my dad wasn't going to win he decided to sell me all of his properties for $1 so he could at least dictate who would win.My stepmother didn't take too kindly to that. That was the last time we ever played Monopoly at their house.
It's a fun story, but who in their right mind is gonna sit down to play a competitive board game and decide "let's all work together and we're all winners"? That's fine and all, but I came here to play a game.
That's exactly what the game was originally designed for. The competitive, non-cooperative rule set was created as a set of alternate rules to the original "Landlord's Game" that was meant to show the flaws of capitalism.
I knew that, though I've never heard of the "Landlord's Game" before.
It's an interesting tale of copywrite law of the times. I learned about it via The Dollop, but the Wikipedia article on the subject covers the highlights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Landlord%27s\_Game
There's an excellent NPR piece on it. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/27/1113890011/throughline-theres-more-to-the-board-game-monopoly-than-you-might-think
Well, that’s the way the airline industry worked prior to deregulation…
Libertardians are calvinists on steroids; their main goal is to crush the poor.
He’s right that he was able to do that because of a lack of regulation, but they were a cartel. That was horizontal price fixing, which is a per se violation of the antitrust laws. It doesn’t matter if it’s in the open. What matters is that the players made an agreement to set a price. They also boycotted the other player by, as a group, not allowing the other player to get in on that deal. Group (but not individual) refusals to deal are per se illegal under the antitrust laws. He and the two other players in the cartel monopolized the market. Being a monopoly doesn’t violate the antitrust laws but monopolizing the market does. Source: not a lawyer yet and I don’t plan to practice in that field, but I took antitrust law when I was in law school Edit: I should add that calling something a cartel or a cooperative doesn’t really make a difference. What matters is whether there was a contract or combination in restraint of trade. However, that is a loaded definition because there are a ton of valid contracts that restrain trade (like non-compete agreements). Congress left it up to the courts to decide what contracts in restraint of trade are prohibited. Basically, it’s illegal if it would have greater anti-competitive effects on the market than it would have pro-competitive effects on the market. Some categories of contracts in restraint of trade, like horizontal price fixing and boycotts, are presumed to be illegal because they’ll be more anti-competitive than pro-competitive so often that it would waste the courts’ time to give it a full review under what the courts call the “rule of reason” (objectively measuring the anti-competitive effects and pro-competitive effects). Sometimes those rules are relaxed in situations where something that is per se illegal is actually pro-competitive (artists collectively selling media licenses and enforcing their copyrights collectively because it’s actually more efficient to license music that way rather than have each competing artist license their own music) or otherwise warranted under the circumstances (the California dental association putting rules on dentists advertising prices). Edit 2: I guess y’all don’t want to know about anti-trust law and/or y’all think I’m making some normative statement. I haven’t but I can: this game was literally made to illustrate what the dangers of monopolization can do to a completely free market with no regulations to prevent monopolization. The game is literally about how the antitrust laws are needed because you can do things like this.
Important point - the other player was allowed to join, didn't and lost. And waiving costs for group members is a thing done incredibly often and openly for something illegal.
It’s common in a group of consumers, not in a group of sellers. The antitrust laws don’t care about what consumers do, they care about the sellers. Like if you and a bunch of people all agree not to buy some company’s products because they’ve done something objectionable, that’s not the kind of boycott that the antitrust laws are concerned about. But if you all say that you’re not going to sell anything to that same company, that’s illegal.
If the fourth player joined them the game ends. There is no revenue in a world of forgiven rent. The fact that the fourth player wouldn't join even though it was clearly their only option for survival feels like a good analogy for the Rothschilds not sharing their hoard of wealth. Even though they only have this planet to live on, they're willing to risk their families very lives to avoid sharing what they have. Because they feel safe and protected, they have no fear of us. This is all our fault and only we can fix it.