Minecraft

I went to see Minecraft and couldn’t help noticing a pattern in recent blockbusters—from Mario Bros. and Everything Everywhere to Spider-Man, Ghostbusters, and The Batman: every character is hustling, struggling, or just scraping by. It signals how economic precarity has been normalized in American storytelling—and not just in dramas or indie films, where you’d expect that tone. It’s everywhere now.

It’s as if the industry’s collective unconscious lags people’s reality but much is much faster than politics. Back in 2020 or 2021, when these scripts were finalized, screenwriters and execs had already recognized that “broke and overworked” wasn’t a quirky character trait anymore—it was the default condition of the American viewer.

The contradiction is sharper considering media kept insisting things were improving—or, in Fox’s case, that they weren’t because of “woke” or brown people. Meanwhile, Hollywood was already packaging narratives that admitted the opposite.

<>

At first glance, Minecraft—a game about infinite possibility, where players sculpt blocky worlds with godlike creativity—seems like an escapist fantasy. But dig beneath its colorful surface, and you’ll find a mirror reflecting the quiet desperation of modern life: the grind. Survival mode, the game’s most iconic format, isn’t about building castles in the clouds. It’s about punching trees for lumber before sunset, frantically cobbling together a shelter to fend off zombies, and mining deep into the earth for scarce resources, all while hunger gnaws at your pixelated stomach. This is precarity, gamified.

Minecraft’s core loop—grind, hoard, survive—resonates because it replicates the rhythms of late capitalism. Players aren’t just crafting tools; they’re performing the daily calculus of scarcity. Will this coal last the night? Can I afford to risk the caves for diamonds? Should I prioritize bread or armor? These aren’t just gameplay choices; they’re metaphors for a world where stability feels just out of reach, where every gain is shadowed by the threat of losing it all. Even Creative mode, with its cheat-code abundance, can’t escape the ethos of productivity: the pressure to build bigger, faster, better, as if self-worth is measured in virtual monuments.

The game’s brilliance lies in its unspoken critique. While politicians spin fictions about “resilient economies” and “opportunity for all,” Minecraft admits the truth: life is a series of precarious transactions. You labor to stack blocks, only to watch a creeper blow them apart. You plant crops, only to have them trampled. You build empires, but the grind never stops—there’s always another resource to extract, another threat to outrun. It’s no accident that “automated farms” became a hallmark of advanced play: even in a world of limitless dirt, players engineer systems to optimize their toil, mirroring our own obsession with gig apps and side hustles.

<>

Hollywood’s recent blockbusters—from Spider-Man’s rent woes to Everything Everywhere’s multiverse-adjacent IRS trauma—have begun to acknowledge this reality. But Minecraft short of did it first, and more honestly. It doesn’t package precarity as a plot twist or a character quirk; it’s the default condition of existence. The game’s unrelenting demand for labor, its indifference to your struggles, and its refusal to guarantee safety even after hours of work make it the purest cultural artifact of our age. In a world where politics peddles fantasy, sometimes the clearest truths come from a world made of blocks—where survival isn’t a hero’s journey, but a daily scramble to keep the lights on.

The pervasive theme of economic precarity in recent blockbusters—from Minecraft to Spider-Man and The Batman—does more than mirror America’s fraying economic reality; it underscores a profound political failure. While Hollywood’s storytellers have instinctively woven narratives of hustling, scraping-by protagonists into mainstream entertainment, the center-left and center-right political coalitions remain strikingly unable—or unwilling—to articulate a coherent response to the material conditions driving this cultural shift. This dissonance reveals a vacuum in political imagination, where pop culture has become a reluctant truth-teller while partisan elites cling to outdated frameworks.

When these films entered development in 2020-2021, creators implicitly acknowledged what policymakers still struggle to name: that stagnant wages, gig-economy exploitation, and the erosion of social safety nets had transformed “broke and overworked” from a temporary setback to a permanent state of being. Yet the political establishment’s response has been muted, even as Hollywood packaged precarity as escapism. The center-left, tethered to incrementalism and allergic to structural critique, offers Band-Aid solutions—student debt tweaks, means-tested tax credits—that fail to match the scale of collapse. The conservative right, meanwhile, defaults to nostalgia for a mythologized post-war prosperity, blaming cultural scapegoats (“wokeness,” immigrants) while accelerating the very policies—deregulation, union-busting, austerity—that gutted economic stability.

This paralysis is amplified by media narratives that oscillate between gaslighting and deflection. Corporate outlets tout declining inflation or “record job growth” as proof of recovery, ignoring how metrics like GDP obscure lived realities of working-class Americans juggling three apps to pay rent. Right-wing media, as noted, weaponizes precarity to fuel culture-war panic, framing inequality as a symptom of moral decay rather than policy choices. Both approaches alienate audiences who see their struggles reflected not in political rhetoric, but in Peter Parker’s eviction notices or the existential fatigue of Everything Everywhere’s laundromat-timeline-hopping heroine.

Hollywood’s embrace of precarity-as-backdrop exposes how thoroughly neoliberalism has eroded political language. The center-left, still courting donor classes invested in the status quo, avoids terms like “class struggle” or “redistribution,” recasting systemic failure as individual hardship to be mitigated, not overturned. The center-right, having abandoned even lip service to economic populism, peddles libertarian fairy tales (“just work harder!”) that resonate only with those insulated by wealth. Meanwhile, blockbuster screenwriters—unburdened by partisan constraints—depict a world where systemic collapse is the air everyone breathes: Batman’s Gotham isn’t saved by a bold policy agenda, but by a traumatized billionaire punching clowns.

The result is a cultural moment where fiction feels more honest than politics. Audiences flock to these films not just for escapism, but for the relief of seeing their struggles acknowledged in an era when political leaders refuse to do so. Until the center-left and center-right confront the roots of precarity—corporate power, financialized capitalism, the dismantling of worker solidarity—their platforms will remain as disconnected from reality as a Mario Bros. warp pipe. And Hollywood, however unwittingly, will keep drafting the obituary for an American Dream that politics no longer dares to name.

The irony is almost too rich: Hollywood, an industry built on selling fiction, now peddles narratives closer to material reality than the Democratic Party does. For all its corporate cynicism, Hollywood at least acknowledges the dystopia it monetizes. Its superheroes juggle rent and existential dread; its multiverse-hopping heroes are crushed by IRS audits and immigrant parent guilt. These stories, however garish, are rooted in the lived texture of precarity—the three jobs, the debt, the sense of systems spiraling beyond control. Democrats, by contrast, have crafted a political brand so untethered from material conditions that it verges on magical realism.

Consider the plot holes in the Democratic script: They tout “Bidenomics” while presiding over a housing market where the median home price now requires a $115,000 salary—a sum 75% of Americans don’t earn. They celebrate “record low unemployment” as if gig work and AI-driven layoffs haven’t turned full-time employment into a luxury good. They nod at climate disaster while approving more oil drilling than Trump, as if we’re all living in a Pixar film where the laws of physics pause for moderate bipartisanship. Hollywood’s heroes might battle cartoonish villains, but the Democrats’ villains—corporate greed, oligarchic power—are treated as unmentionable ghosts, haunting a set everyone pretends isn’t on fire.

Hollywood’s “unrealism” is at least honest about its artifice. When The Hunger Games franchises rake in billions by dramatizing wealth inequality and elite sadism, they’re channeling a collective recognition that capitalism has become a death game. Yet Democrats still frame poverty as a personal failure to be solved with tax credits and bootstraps, a narrative so detached from the algorithmic wage suppression and monopoly pricing crushing households that it makes Avengers time travel look plausible. Even Marvel’s Thanos had a clearer policy platform (“snap away half of life”) than the party’s milquetoast stance on corporate monopolies.

The true fiction isn’t Batman’s rogues’ gallery—it’s the Democratic Party’s insistence that incremental tweaks to a broken system will reverse decades of collapse. Hollywood’s writers, for all their clichés, understand that audiences crave catharsis: a villain to punch, a system to smash, a blueprint for revolt. Democrats offer none of these. Instead, they gaslight voters with spreadsheet macros about “cost-saving efficiencies” and “public-private partnerships,” as if the working class hasn’t already seen this movie—and hated the ending.

In this era of compounding crises, Hollywood’s lies are at least useful lies. They admit, however crassly, that life under late capitalism feels apocalyptic. Democrats, meanwhile, are stuck in a Frank Capra fanfic, insisting America is one bipartisan infrastructure bill away from a rainbow-farting utopia. The party’s refusal to name power—to confront banks, monopolists, or the billionaire donor class—renders its rhetoric more delusional than anything in Barbie’s plastic feminist dreamhouse.

So yes: Hollywood is a profit-hoarding, union-busting machine. But in a perverse twist, its greed forces it to listen. To stay relevant, it must metabolize the anxieties of its audience, even if only to repackage them as entertainment. The Democratic Party, by contrast, answers to a donor aristocracy that profits directly from the status quo—and thus has no incentive to see, hear, or speak the truth. The result? An industry that sells $20 popcorn to audiences watching films about late-stage collapse is still more reality-based than a political party asking those same audiences to vote for “4 more years of normalcy.”

The final act twist? Hollywood’s fictions are a cry for help. The Democratic Party’s fictions are a demand for complacency. One admits the house is burning. The other hawks commemorative “This Is Fine” mugs.

Tech-Economics-Values

Rethinking the Relationship Between Technology, Economics, and Values

Introduction: In today’s fast-paced world, the interplay between technology, economics, and societal values shapes the trajectory of our global landscape. However, an examination of this relationship reveals a complex web of influences. This essay delves into the intricate connections between technology, economics, and values, challenging conventional wisdom and shedding light on how technological advancements are often a consequence rather than a cause of economic stagnation. By reevaluating the narratives surrounding labor demand, productivity, and automation, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics shaping our present reality.

The Technology-Economics Nexus: Traditionally, it is assumed that technology is the driving force behind economic progress. However, a closer examination reveals a nuanced relationship between the two. Rather than technology being the primary catalyst, it can be seen as a response to worsening economic stagnation caused by overcapacity and underinvestment. As markets become overcrowded and investment declines, the natural consequence is a slowdown in output growth. This deceleration, rather than productivity gains, becomes the main driver of declining labor demand.

Redefining Labor Demand: Contrary to popular belief, the current discourse on automation and its impact on labor demand can be misleading. The focus on productivity as the sole determinant of job displacement overlooks the broader context of output growth rates. Misreading the gap between productivity and output growth obscures the understanding that technological advancements are not the cause but a response to the declining demand for labor in an environment of economic slowdown.

The Complexities of Low Labor Demand: To grasp the causes of low labor demand, it is crucial to examine the multifaceted factors contributing to this phenomenon. Overcrowded markets, coupled with declining investment, create an environment in which companies seek innovative technological solutions to streamline operations and maintain profitability. Technology, then, becomes a tool to mitigate the adverse effects of economic stagnation rather than the primary instigator of labor displacement.

Questioning Technological Evidence: When seeking evidence to support the causes of low labor demand, a narrow focus on technology can obscure the underlying economic factors at play. By fixating solely on technological advancements, we risk overlooking the broader context of overcrowded markets, declining investment, and economic slowdown. Understanding the intricate interplay between technology and economic conditions allows us to construct a more comprehensive narrative of the dynamics shaping labor demand.

Realigning Values in the Technology-Economics Paradigm: As we reassess the relationship between technology, economics, and values, it is imperative to align our societal values with this new understanding. Recognizing that technology is often a response to economic challenges highlights the need to address issues such as overcapacity, underinvestment, and economic stagnation. By prioritizing sustainable economic growth, fostering innovation, and promoting equitable distribution of resources, we can navigate the intricate web of technology and economics in a way that aligns with our collective values.

Conclusion: The interplay between technology, economics, and values presents a complex and multifaceted landscape. By recognizing that technology is often a consequence rather than a cause of economic stagnation, we gain a deeper understanding of the dynamics influencing labor demand. Shifting the focus from productivity alone to a broader assessment of output growth rates allows for a more accurate analysis of the challenges we face. By reassessing our assumptions, questioning conventional narratives, and aligning our values with this new understanding, we can shape a future that embraces technology as a tool for sustainable economic growth and societal progress.

The Casino Economy

The Casino Economy: Unraveling the Impacts and Gamifying a Transition

Introduction: The concept of a casino economy is a multifaceted one that encompasses both financial implications and its effects on labor markets. Not only does it involve the evaporation of trillions from public equity markets, but it also disrupts neighboring businesses by drawing labor supply towards the lucrative wages offered by casinos. This essay aims to explore the intricate dynamics of the casino economy, highlighting the labor market consequences and drawing parallels between the financial world and the gamification of human perception. Furthermore, it delves into the possibility of gamifying a transition from the casino-centric economy towards a model that aligns with the principles of the Green New Deal.

The Impact on Labor Supply: Casinos have the ability to lure employees away from neighboring sectors by offering higher wages. This phenomenon poses a challenge to businesses in the vicinity, as they struggle to retain skilled workers and maintain their productivity levels. The allure of increased pay and potentially better benefits provided by the casino industry often leads to labor shortages in other sectors, thereby disrupting the overall labor market equilibrium.

Parallels to Wall Street and Ads Technology: The concept of a casino economy can also be linked to Wall Street and advertisements technology, as all three involve gamifying human perception. Wall Street and the financial world, through their complex systems and algorithms, effectively put a price on human perception by turning investments into a game with variable rewards. Similarly, advertisements technology leverages gamification techniques to engage users and manipulate their behavior. Both these realms capitalize on the human inclination towards novelty, reward, and risk-taking, mirroring the dynamics found in a casino environment.

Imagining the Transition: Gamifying a Path to the Green New Deal: While the idea of transitioning away from the casino economy may seem challenging, if not daunting, gamification techniques could potentially play a role in facilitating such a shift. By implementing systems that offer rewards and incentives for engaging in sustainable practices and supporting initiatives aligned with the principles of the Green New Deal, individuals and communities can be motivated to participate actively in the transition. Through gamification, elements of competition, achievement, and reward can be utilized to create an engaging and immersive experience that encourages the adoption of environmentally-friendly behaviors.

Conclusion: The casino economy encompasses both financial implications and labor market effects, with casinos attracting employees through higher wages, thus impacting neighboring businesses. Parallels can be drawn between the casino economy and Wall Street or advertisements technology, highlighting the gamification of human perception. However, considering the challenges posed by the casino economy, the concept of gamifying a transition towards a model overlapping the Green New Deal provides an intriguing avenue. By harnessing the power of gamification techniques, it may be possible to create an engaging and rewarding experience that motivates individuals to actively participate in the shift towards a more sustainable and equitable future.

“Expired: Offer a service, create a product”.

The meme “Expired: Offer a service, create a product. Tired: Make as much profit and do what’s arguably legal. Wired: artificially change the price of a security with the intent to make a profit. Galaxy Brain: Launder Saudi oil Billions and exit through IPO that offloads companies on suckers” highlights the evolution of unethical business practices, from the traditional model of offering a service or creating a product to the current trend of exploiting legal loopholes for profit. The meme serves as a warning against the dangers of greed and corruption, as individuals and corporations seek to maximize their profits at any cost.

The first stage of the meme, “Expired: Offer a service, create a product,” refers to the traditional business model, where companies create a product or offer a service to meet the needs of their customers. This model prioritizes quality and customer satisfaction, and businesses are rewarded for their efforts with repeat business and positive word-of-mouth referrals. While this model still exists, it is increasingly being overshadowed by the pursuit of profits above all else.

The second stage of the meme, “Tired: Make as much profit and do what’s arguably legal,” reflects the current business landscape, where companies prioritize profits above all else, often at the expense of their customers or the wider community. This mentality has led to a range of unethical practices, from exploiting tax loopholes to avoiding responsibility for environmental damage. While these practices may be technically legal, they are not necessarily moral or ethical.

The third stage of the meme, “Wired: artificially change the price of a security with the intent to make a profit,” highlights the rise of more sophisticated and unethical practices in the financial industry. This includes practices such as insider trading, market manipulation, and other forms of securities fraud. These practices are illegal and can have significant consequences for investors, yet they remain prevalent in the industry.

The final stage of the meme, “Galaxy Brain: Launder Saudi oil Billions and exit through IPO that offloads companies on suckers,” reflects the most extreme and unethical business practices, where individuals and corporations seek to exploit every opportunity for personal gain, even if it means breaking the law or harming others. This stage highlights the dangers of unchecked greed and corruption, where individuals and corporations prioritize their own interests above all else, regardless of the consequences.

In conclusion, the meme “Expired: Offer a service, create a product. Tired: Make as much profit and do what’s arguably legal. Wired: artificially change the price of a security with the intent to make a profit. Galaxy Brain: Launder Saudi oil Billions and exit through IPO that offloads companies on suckers” serves as a warning against the dangers of unchecked greed and corruption in the business world. As individuals and corporations seek to maximize their profits, it is important to remain vigilant against unethical practices that harm the wider community and erode trust in the business world. Ultimately, businesses must strive to balance their pursuit of profits with their responsibility to act in a moral and ethical manner.