In a game of Monopoly® someone always ends up with all the properties, and everyone else rents. Now, the in-between states may show lots of people vying for control, but as the game gets closer to the end, there are really only a two players who seem to have divided the board equally, but then, a small shift happens, and soon, there is one owner of everything.
This is the game we are playing now, with land.
Land, an important thing needed for continued life.
Also something that no "one" can use up.
Billy Gatez can't even walk around all the farm real estate he "owns".
Some rich people "own" entire forests.
The US govern-cement owns entire areas of land in America, basically everything that wasn't already "owned" when the Bureau of Land misManagement came into being. (Although The US govern-cement is not supposed to own any land. Not supposed to compete with the people for land rights)
Further, there is so much land that hasn't even had a human step foot on it in years. Forests in New England. Deserts in Arizona. There is tons of open space.
However, our current frame of mind is that someone owns it all.
Well, we have a type of "ownership" that basically means "finders keepers" or first person gets it.
And we have never updated it for children, (who came after the "ownership") or other people who also need land to live.
You can be the first person to find a river, but you cannot drink it all, nor should you be able to deny everyone else water.
Did the first person to bask in the sun's rays gain "ownership" of the sun, where they could deny others from its warmth?
Nobody but insane people think that they can block other's from the sunlight.
Nobody in their right mind thinks that they can deprive others of water.
But, this is what we do with "water rights". Instead of coming up with good water management strategies.
(And why the bleep don't we have solar powered desalinization plants for Los Angles???!!!)
We really need to solve this… well, we already solved this, but we forgot. Kings have decided to own estates, and all that is on them. (yes, that includes the people. Don't like it, serf? Well you should have left the king's estate before you were born)
Since we became farmers, instead of hunter / gatherers, we needed to have some kind of claim on the farmland, such that we were fairly assured that we would be the ones to harvest what we planted.
Owning the property seemed like a normal, and adequate method of claiming, my farm is mine.
However, the American Indians never had such a system, and got along fine without it. Aboriginals in the Amazon don't have such a system.
But, is this because they had lots of space, and few farmers? Some tribes, it is rumored, planted seeds in the spring, and migrated back around to get the harvest in the fall.
The "tragedy of the commons" is a economics story about overgrazing. It's a story that didn't really happen until cattle became money, and those people over there, in cities, paid for sheep. You see, you only overgraze once. And then, you are no more. Today, cattle farmers figure out how much feed they have for the winter, and if there isn't enough, culling happens. A lot of meat, for cheap, if you are nearby.
Farmers, when left to their own devices, tend to work things out. Between themselves and neighbors.
It is when we introduce banksters into the system, that everything falls apart. Now, more crops have to be grown, and if you aren't growing in excess, you are going backwards, losing ground. Their is interest to pay. And soon after, taxes. And after that, you have a mortgage on your farmland. And you have to push even harder.
(not boomers in specific, but the economics that came about because of the decoupling of the dollar from gold, and the mindset that engendered.
Before the boomers, there was a lack of houses. But that was working itself out as we built more houses. But, then what ran out was real estate, in urban areas.
The boomers bought it all up with their new found riches (money printing). Many boomers having two houses. (from a single income)
And then, the boomer notion of kicking kids out when they turned 18. They had built themselves up and owned house(s), the next generation was just lazy if they couldn't do the same.
Our entire idea of real estate is really tied to the boomer experience.
And the banksters encouraged this.
Before this time, the parents helped their children find partners and then helped build them a house, somewhere on the farm, or in the town. A brand new adult doesn't have resources, nor a lifetime of skills to build a house. Who did we become that we believe an 18 y.o. has the capabilities to fend for themselves?
Only a group that got unskilled labor jobs starting at over $100 an hour (in today's money)
Where houses were quite plentiful and more was being built.
Where there was a lot of room to grow around cities.
Where asset inflation made them rich, or at least feel rich.
The boomers felt they had made it, and adopted a world view based on their little bubble.
So, the boomers inverted life from that day forward. The land belonged to them, bleep the children.
In the near future, things are going to drastically change.
The population will decline.
And the biggest change will be humanity forming into tribes / small communities / "families"
When you have small communities, which can live anywhere on Earth with modern technology, we will find that there are groups dotted all over the place. With buffer zones around each.
They will each be quite independent. Self reliant.
If you were to equate these places to current verbiage, you might call them "countries". They will not pay homage to the king. There will be no "real estate", unless you consider the tribe as the king, and their community as the estate. But they will not be for sale. Not traded. Not an asset on a balance sheet.
Space for children to occupy will be planned way in advance.
Banksters will be hung on site sight
We will have stopped playing Monopoly®
