>A UBI recipient has not monopolized anything I'm not sure I understand. You could equally say a shareholder of public company stock hasn't monopolized anythin

>A UBI recipient has not monopolized anything I'm not sure I understand. You could equally say a shareholder of public company stock hasn't monopolized anything in exactly the same way, no? That's what the word share means. If you have Apple stock, you're not monopolizing any of their assets. So are you saying that there's an essential difference between someone who owns an apartment or two and rents them out vs. someone who owns an equal amount of an investment fund (whether real estate or not) and makes the same amount of money? Is the former a "rentier" and the latter not? It's an interesting idea, that modern finance is largely socialist, and the remaining work to be done is to eliminate all the small time capitalists that own actual means of production rather than shares, and redistribute the shares equally. But there is all this romanticization of "small businesses" that has to be undone to get to that socialist paradise.