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

281–290 of 374 posts

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

#281

Post by dr_dshiv »

lisper wrote: post #110
nck4222 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Park Place you have to land on it first. Not necessarily. The games rules include an auction that is frequently removed in house rules. What's supposed to happen is if the player who lands on the space (Player A) doesn't buy it from the bank, the property is auctioned to all players. Maybe no one owns Boardwalk yet, and Player A doesn't want to try and get the Park Place/Boardwalk monopoly. Or maybe Boardwalk is own…

You can calculate the game-theoretic value of all of the properties (I'm a little surprised that no one seems to have actually done this AFAICT -- maybe a project for next weekend). At that point the game reduces to pure luck: players who land on properties whose list price is less than their game-theoretic value will buy those properties and gain a (small) edge. The auction clearing price for rational players will b…

Please share!

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

#282

Post by WalterBright »

xg15 wrote: post #118
dr_dshiv wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is zero sum, because no intentional action can increase wealth. Only the gradual, chance-based progression of new money into the game. In contrast, if I take out a loan and build a successful business, my intentional actions (successful business) lead to greater money supply than if I had failed at business. Does that make sense, or am I missing something? I'll admit, the creation of new wealth/money is very myste…

> my intentional actions (successful business) Your intentional action is to start a business. Whether or not it will be a successful business and actually "generate wealth" is to a large part dependant an chance. Also, honestly, "It's not a zero-sum game" is beginning to sound like a religious mantra. Of course you can define "wealth" however your want and for the right definitions, you can certainly pull ever more…

> is to a large part dependant an chance

Not at all. I can start a business tomorrow, and if I do nothing or do stupid things with it, the odds of success are zero.

> only so many natural resources

We've literally only scratched the surface. Also, they aren't consumed. Things can always be refined and repurposed, as long as energy is available.

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

#283

Post by WalterBright »

mullingitover wrote: post #228
chrisco255 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not dependent on chance. It's not some random spin on a roulette wheel. It depends on if you are offering a service that is valued by the marketplace. There may be only so much time in a day, but the critical factor in wealth creation is how much you can get done in a day (productivity). You can also figure out clever ways to get more out of what you have (efficiency).

> No, it's not dependent on chance. It's not some random spin on a roulette wheel. There are many random factors that can cause your business to succeed or fail. You might have a terrible business idea that would normally fail, but a coincidental event could cause your business to become wildly successful. You could be a terrible businessperson, but by luck of birth your family has connections that allow your busines…

You can also quit before you start and fail 100% of the time.

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

#284

Post by WalterBright »

cryptica wrote: post #170
chrisco255 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not dependent on chance. It's not some random spin on a roulette wheel. It depends on if you are offering a service that is valued by the marketplace. There may be only so much time in a day, but the critical factor in wealth creation is how much you can get done in a day (productivity). You can also figure out clever ways to get more out of what you have (efficiency).

>> It depends on if you are offering a service that is valued by the marketplace And who decides what is valued by the marketplace? It's: - Politicians through regulation. - The Federal Reserve Bank by continuously creating new money out of thin air. - Banks by deciding who can get the newly printed Fed money through loans and who can't (typically based on the value of assets which individuals already have; the resul…

> And who decides what is valued by the marketplace?

The people you'd be selling to.

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

#285

Post by bandushrew »

big_chungus wrote: post #268
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of these arguments also tend to elide the fact that even under the most "extreme" tax structures in place or being proposed in first-world democracies across the globe, wealthy people are still wealthy even with those taxes. In practice, no one serious is actually talking about forcing Bill Gates to give up all his money so it can be apportioned equally to every American citizen. If Gates had to pay an annual w…

> I'm aware libertarians believe it's the principle of the thing, dammit, but I'm truly weary of arguments which boil down to "Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax is philosophically indistinguishable from a call for nationalizing all industry." First, while some wealthy people remain wealthy, I'd guess there's a much larger impact on people who are becoming wealthy than those who are already super-rich. Second, as you said…

That is objectively wrong though, isn't it?

The government absolutely can, and does, pass laws to legally take anyone's stuff for any reason it likes.

If that is your bottom line, then almost every government in almost every country I know of overran it almost immediately.

What we are discussing right now is....given that they ca, and do....under what circumstances we want them to do it.

Think of it as a reality based discussion.

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

#286

Post by monocasa »

refurb wrote: post #275
monocasa wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average has, median has not. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...

Your ignoring total compensation as wages are only one part of it. Total compensation at all income levels has vastly outstripped inflation over the past 50 years.

[citation needed]

Median is $60k household. People making $30k each aren't having side perks thrown at them.

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

#287

Post by monocasa »

chrisco255 wrote: post #278
monocasa wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're testing self driving trucks on I-70 outside of Denver specifically to test them in the worst conditions. They're not coming, they're already here. The issue though, isn't that a specific job is going away, but instead the whole class of "human as control theory implementation" is going away. That's way more disruptive. Like, people instead becoming control software for guillotines level disruptive. > And no,…

Out of curiosity, do you have a link to the test trials in Denver? They're not already here. Even if they're 95% of the way, if that last 5% is catastrophic failure that ends in death and destruction, it's not even close to ready for production. I'm well aware of what real wages means in terms of inflation. "From January 2019 to January 2020, real average hourly earnings increased 0.7 percent" https://www.bls.gov/new…

> Out of curiosity, do you have a link to the test trials in Denver? They're not already here. Even if they're 95% of the way, if that last 5% is catastrophic failure that ends in death and destruction, it's not even close to ready for production.

I literally see Embark trucks going down the I-70 mountain in the snow. They are already here.

Here says they are already making deliveries (albeit test ones): https://www.wired.com/story/embark-self-driving-truck-delive...

> I'm well aware of what real wages means in terms of inflation.

> "From January 2019 to January 2020, real average hourly earnings increased 0.7 percent"

> https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm

And meanwhile when you don't cherry pick a single year (and really 0.7% increase isn't something to be writing home about in the first place), they've been stagnant for decades.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...

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

#288

Post by WalterBright »

pslw71 wrote: post #270
WalterBright wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that is in fact a zero sum game Not at all. Putting a 10 story building on a lot is multiplying the area by 10.

And the proceeds still go to the landowner. The times that high rise buildings had cheap rents are long gone. So what is the point? Get out of your bubble and see how poor people are. Typical Caltech brat.

> And the proceeds still go to the landowner.

You can buy property and multiply its value by 10 by putting a 10 story building on it, and even sell floors on it. It happens all the time. It is simply not a fixed supply.

> Typical Caltech brat

LOL. My opinions on markets were quite atypical for Caltech students in the 1970s. They're likely even less typical today.

Setting aside opinions, I've been in business and associated with business entrepreneurs ever since Caltech. Consistently, those with positive outlooks and willingness to take action have done very well. Those with negative views and a victim mentality have all done poorly.

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

#289

Post by dntbnmpls »

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.

> Real life isn't a zero-sum game.

Wealth may not be zero-sum within the narrow artificial scope of "money", but power is zero sum. Wealth viewed as money is a sneaky neaningless distraction. Wealth viewed outside of power is meaningless.

Lets say bob and alice are in a room. They both have a nerf gun. Now bob gets a machine gun and alice gets another nerf gun. So the "wealth" in the room increased. But the power in the room didn't increase. It shifted from 50/50 between bob and alice to 100/0.

When you view wealth superficially, it's not zero sum. When you view wealth seriously, it's zero sum.

The value of wealth isn't the pile of worthless money. The value of wealth is the power it projects over other human beings.

If everyone on earth died but jeff bezos, his wealth would be meaningless. What does $130 billion mean when only he's around? It means nothing because it can't be converted to power in a world with 1 person.

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

#290

Post by smegger001 »

hirundo wrote: post #93
Barrin92 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I just drove from Seattle to Albuquerque, through vast tracts of empty land. Land is politically, not physically scarce. That's even true right around major metropoli, let alone the hinterlands. And even that doesn't count unused potential square footage along the vertical axis. The truly constraining axis isn't x, y or z, but NIMBY.

Yeah CGP Grey had a god video about federal land ownership the majorty of land in western states is federal land.

https://youtu.be/LruaD7XhQ50

Its kind of ridiculous. how little control states have over the land within their own boarders.

Post reply on HN