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

301–310 of 374 posts

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

#301

Post by AnimalMuppet »

legitster wrote: post #34

Monopoly was meant to show the benefits of Georgism - essentially a flat-value land tax. Georgism is not opposed to capitalism. In fact, Adam Smith himself advocated a similar tax. So did Keynes, Friedman- nearly every economist. However, it is likely that Elizabeth Magie herself didn't quite understand this - the Georgist set of rules in the Landlord's game doesn't quite match what Henry George was proposing. George…

> In fact, Adam Smith himself advocated a similar tax. So did Keynes, Friedman...

OK.

> ... nearly every economist.

Hogwash. Far from "nearly every" economist. Reciting 3 names doesn't get you anywhere close.

Before I believed "nearly every", I'd want to see a poll of a wide sample of professional and/or academic economists, showing 60+ percent support. I'm pretty sure you can't produce any such data...

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

#302

Post by monocasa »

refurb wrote: post #296
monocasa wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/us/politics/wage-growth-b...

That's average, not median.

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

#303

Post by AnimalMuppet »

_bpgl wrote: post #241
GreenJelloShot wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If sharing wealth leads to greater wealth, then why is it necessary to try to take wealth (by force)? Why don't people willingly give up their wealth so that they can make more? If it is possible to make more wealth by giving up some, why not let people choose whether or not they will share? If you theory holds true, then people who share will get richer and the people who don't share will get poorer and the problem…

[flagged]

> The marker of the arrested mind of the libertarian.

Personal insults are against site rules, and that comment comes mighty close.

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

#304

Post by blackflame7000 »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #291
big_chungus wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. Given that her proposed tax is for wealth over $50M, I'd guess there is not much impact at all on people who are "becoming" wealthy. > If you don't comply, a bunch of agents will bust down your door at 3 AM and haul you away (see the disturbing number of p…

>Given that her proposed tax is for wealth over $50M, I'd guess there is not much impact at all on people who are "becoming" wealthy.

It's the corporate taxes that hurt the most because in a globalist society those taxes are taxes their competition does not have to pay and therefore can undercut them in price in world markets.

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

#305

Post by blackflame7000 »

bena wrote: post #248
GreenJelloShot wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If sharing wealth leads to greater wealth, then why is it necessary to try to take wealth (by force)? Why don't people willingly give up their wealth so that they can make more? If it is possible to make more wealth by giving up some, why not let people choose whether or not they will share? If you theory holds true, then people who share will get richer and the people who don't share will get poorer and the problem…

Let's say that you could somehow increase your wealth by 1% each day. If you have $100, tomorrow you will have $101. Then $102.01. And so on and so forth. At the end of the year, you'll have $3778.34 Now let's say that if you give $50 to someone else, you can both increase your wealth by 1.1% each day. At the end, both of you will have $2711.08. Individually less, but collectively more. That's the issue: individually…

Ok now do year 2 and see how that $50 turned into a net loss of $146,998.73

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

#306

Post by Rury »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #300
jamie_ca wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent's "wealth for all" does not mean "wealth for each." Of course taxing the wealthiest to share with everyone results in the wealthiest having less than they would otherwise, which is why they tend not do do so voluntarily. However, if it makes most people better off, and makes society as a whole better off, then maybe it's worth it for the government to force their most-successful citizens away from their selfis…

>taxing the wealthiest to share with everyone results in the wealthiest having less than they would otherwise No taxing the wealthiest results in the wealthiest moving their capital investments elsewhere.

If that's the case, then why don't we see capital always rushing to countries that have the lowest tax rates? Last I checked Japan has lots of capital investment, a large economy, a substantial wealthy class, and yet a high tax rate...

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

#307

Post by aeternum »

monocasa wrote: post #272
aeternum wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to this real wages have been rising for the last 30 years: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/06/are-wages-rising-or-flat/

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

The FRED seems to disagree: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

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

#308

Post by mullingitover »

WalterBright wrote: post #283
mullingitover wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's not failing if you didn't waste time and you still have 100% of your capital in the bank. I'm also not saying nobody should take risks, or that you can't create your own luck, just pointing out that there's an element of chance in every success.

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

#309

Post by machello13 »

abfan1127 wrote: post #266
mytherin wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prisoner's dilemma. A single wealthy person giving up their wealth will not have a large enough effect on society to actually change anything. It will only make them worse off (as they now have less wealth). From the perspective of a single person, hoarding as much wealth as possible is a local optimum. When all wealthy people get together and divide their wealth, this enables education, housing, preventative health…

there seem to be a ton of assumptions in this comment.

I don't think you can talk about this stuff without resorting to unsubstantiated beliefs about the way the world works.

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

#310

Post by stiglitz »

sokoloff wrote: post #114
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…

I would argue that if I hold 2 of the yellow and 1 of the green properties and you hold 1 of the yellow and 2 of the green in a 3+ person game, that we do have an intentional action that can leave us both better off.

You are only better off in the sense of having more opportunities to collect rent from each other. The result is still zero-sum.

Here’s a mental shortcut: as long as the objective of the game is to bankrupt all other players (i.e. to own all of the money), the game is zero-sum. No other details matter. It’s a cake-cutting game where everybody wants all the cake.

Post reply on HN