by Norman Horowitz
Back when I played Monopoly, I remember games when I was the last remaining opponent and I would land on “Boardwalk,” where there was a hotel. But the rent was more then I had, and the game would be over. I was broke and had lost the game.
The American attitude to life seems to be that so many want to win as they would in Monopoly, and they won’t be satisfied until they have aggregated all the money in the game — that is, until everyone else is broke.
We have organized the greatest concentration of wealth since we organized our country. We have also created the greatest concentration of worldwide media power during the same time frame.
Is there something wrong in America when only 400 Americans have more wealth then the “poorest” 150 million Americans? Would the broadcast news organizations of the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s have pressured their managements to “expose” this to the American public?
CBS broadcast “Hunger In America”. Would they have broadcast “Poverty In America”?
In my opinion, there’s something wrong when the four most powerful media companies control so much and report on so little.
The “Monopoly players” in life must change the rules of the games so that anyone foolish enough to land on “Boardwalk” is not destroyed and all of the players in the game are allowed to live a decent life.
I am not advocating a socialist environment. I’m merely asking our country not to promote the notion of the “have’s” having yet more than they already have.
The gigantic electronic deliverers of “the message” might conceivably inform their follow Americans of our problems — were they not a major part of the problem. Necessary societal changes appear futile when the apparatus for promoting change is in the hands of those media giants who only want to expand their control and profitability.
Monopoly is just a game; having an expectation of a decent life is not.