Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Monopoly was invented to demonstrate the evils of capitalism (2017)

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 374 posts

Re: Monopoly was invented to demonstrate the evils of capitalism (2017)

#71

Post by karatestomp »

chungy wrote: post #7
larrik wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any boardgame that involves eliminating players from it is a non-starter for me.

How do you win, then?

1) One or more game-ending game states which may or may not also be win conditions for the person causing them, without any possibility for a player to be "out" before that.

2) Set duration (usually in rounds played).

Usually wins determined, in either case, either by "you were the first to do X so you win" or a scored resolution.

It's usually possible to be de facto eliminated in these games (anyone who's played much Catan has been there, to pick a familiar example) but the best of them keep that from happening until late in the game. Quite a few, frankly, do not do a good job of that but do make it hard to tell who's winning so at least you don't know you've effectively already lost by the halfway point of the game.

[EDIT] for an easy example many might be familiar with: look at most trick-taking card games, like Spades, Hearts, or Bridge. No elimination (unlike, say, poker), but you still get a winner or winning partnership at the end.

Re: Monopoly was invented to demonstrate the evils of capitalism (2017)

#72

Post by vsareto »

mikestew wrote: post #29
andy_ppp wrote: post #4

I love how everyone who wins at monopoly acts like a right arse to the other people and it turns out it was just rolls of the dice that decided if they won... I certainly always feel like I deserve to have won.

As the title implies, the game was designed to be a lot like real life, and it sounds like that from your POV it has succeeded.

Give everyone 10x the bank's cash as inheritance and you'll also learn a lot of real life lessons from it.

Re: Monopoly was invented to demonstrate the evils of capitalism (2017)

#73

Post by captn3m0 »

willart4food wrote: post #24

[flagged]

There is an "Anti-Monopoly" boardgame[0].

>Anspach created Anti-Monopoly in part as a response to the lessons taught by the mainstream game, which he believed created the impression that monopolies were something desirable. His intent was to demonstrate how harmful monopolies could be to a free-enterprise system, and how antitrust laws work to curtail them in the real world.

>In Anti-Monopoly II individual players choose to play either by monopolist or competitor rules at the beginning of the game. This version plays more like the actual Monopoly game in that it is based on the buying and selling of real estate. Among other differences, competitors charge lower rents and can improve any property they own at any time, while monopolists must own at least two properties in a group before building houses on them and charge much higher rents.

I've never played it, and I didn't like the cheap version I found at a store recently. But sounded like an interesting experiment. The reviews/ratings on BGG are fairly negative though[1].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Monopoly

[1]: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1931/anti-monopoly

Re: Monopoly was invented to demonstrate the evils of capitalism (2017)

#74

Post by meddlepal »

nck4222 wrote: post #59
andy_ppp wrote: post #4

I love how everyone who wins at monopoly acts like a right arse to the other people and it turns out it was just rolls of the dice that decided if they won... I certainly always feel like I deserve to have won.

Believe it or not there is an element of strategy in Monopoly (or can be, if you take the time to learn it). Not all spaces are landed on equally, and not all properties have the same return on investment. Playing with common house rules tends to remove elements of strategy.

If you play with auction rules and don't do the stupid free parking == $$$ house rules then Monopoly can be pretty cutthroat and a lot of fun.

Re: Monopoly was invented to demonstrate the evils of capitalism (2017)

#75

Post by giggles_giggles »

skybrian wrote: post #63
pyrale wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The monopoly game is not zero-sum. Money increases when you pass start, and cards drawn are on average a source of money. In fact, the money owned by players inflates as the game goes on.

That's not real wealth though. The houses and hotels are the actual capital improvements. The thing is, supply and demand seem not to matter in the housing market. If you land on Park Place you can't shop around for alternatives. This might be retconned by saying that most housing is occupied and that's where you found a vacancy, but it's still pretty artificial. If the other houses are occupied then why isn't anyone…

> This might be retconned by saying that most housing is occupied and that's where you found a vacancy, but it's still pretty artificial.

Actually this just sounds like the California housing market where NIMBYs perpetually prevent housing stock from increasing, which is of course a result of central planning, not a free market mechanism, LOL!

Re: Monopoly was invented to demonstrate the evils of capitalism (2017)

#76

Post by raintrees »

The board game Cashflow is closer to reality than Monopoly, especially the 202 version, which provides for paper assets options, as well as loss of investment properties to acts of nature. A good way to learn basic investment evaluation using play money.

Re: Monopoly was invented to demonstrate the evils of capitalism (2017)

#78

Post by bobobooey »

Barrin92 wrote: post #18
chungy wrote: post #10

Monopoly teaches people a view of economics being a zero-sum game and too many people learn the wrong lessons from it. Real life isn't a zero-sum game.

as the article points out the game was in particular desgigned to show the economic effects of private land rent, hence the original title 'the landlord's game', and that is in fact a zero sum game as they aren't making any more of it. And in particular on tech websites like these people vastly overstate how non 'zero-sum' economic activity actually is mostly because tech has been in a bubble of highly anomalous grow…

shut it down boys, everything's already been made.

Re: Monopoly was invented to demonstrate the evils of capitalism (2017)

#79

Post by misterbwong »

epistasis wrote: post #44
mikestew wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the title implies, the game was designed to be a lot like real life, and it sounds like that from your POV it has succeeded.

Reminds me of the story of the lucky coin: > If 1024 fair coins are each tossed 10 times, chances are good (> 63%) that at least one will come up heads 10 times in a row; and that coin will be proud to explain how its skill, faith, guts & determination made its achievement possible, and how that combo can work for you too. https://twitter.com/bayesiangirl/status/1214753289528434688?...

I get your (and parent/grandparent's) points but this line of thinking leads to unnecessarily cynical and pessimistic thinking rather than recognition that success/failure are inherently probabilistic.

Yes, plenty is out of our control and luck is often ignored. Yes, some people get really lucky and some people get really unlucky and it sucks. However, this doesn't mean that "skill, faith, guts, & determination" have nothing to do with their success. These behaviors/traits increase your chances at success and positive outcomes, period.

Re: Monopoly was invented to demonstrate the evils of capitalism (2017)

#80

Post by captn3m0 »

jbay808 wrote: post #41
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up Pandemic or Forbidden Island for examples of cooperative games that put players against the game instead of each other.

An issue with games like Pandemic is that a more experienced or dominant player can tend to take charge of the whole team, with everyone else following their orders instead of autonomously making their own decisions. Especially if following the experienced player's advice really does maximize the chance of winning, it basically becomes a single-player game with spectators who help move the pieces around. I think addi…

The fancier term for this is "The Quarterback" problem.

It happens at every Pandemic game, but there are ways around it. Even something as simple as a total-game-timer helps. Another rule that helps is enforcing the "consent" part of the rules (for 2-player interactions, including the one where you're allowed to move other players), and ensuring autonomy is respected in the game, even if its a sub-optimal move.

+1 to secret information/hidden objectives. I guess Pandemic:Legacy uses that?

Post reply on HN