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

321–330 of 374 posts

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

#321

Post by rorykoehler »

GreenJelloShot wrote: post #233
dr_dshiv wrote: post #143

Wow, I guess that was a revelation and something worth appreciating: the idea that if we just take a little bit of everyone's wealth and share it with the Commonwealth, then there can be a lot more wealth for all.

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…

Delayed gratification is one of many reasons.

If exercise leads to greater health, then why is it necessary to try to encourage people exercise? Why don't people willingly exercise so that they can be healthy?

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

#322

Post by brnt »

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…

The state backs up your right to personal property with violence too. Your stuff is only your stuff we decided it is a right and have our state enforce that right.

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

#323

Post by mewpmewp2 »

aty268 wrote: post #147
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends. If earth overpopulates and there is lack of resources it will be even less than zero sum.

This assumes that wealth does not consist of new or alternative resources.

I mean yes, that's what I said. It might or might not happen. But it's just a scenario where it will be a zero-sum game or less. I'm not saying it will happen, just that it is possible.

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

#324

Post by mewpmewp2 »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #82
znnn wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot mention this on HN. Mr Graham Himself has declared that the pie always grows.

This is strange as economists agree pretty much across the board that one way of making an economy grow is to increase population. It stands to reason that one way to shrink an economy is to decrease population. Note that I am making no comment how that growth or shrinkage affects the quality of life in that economy but when looking at total growth population change is correlated.

Is this always true?

To take it to extremes - just to prove that overpopulation can lower output, imagine our population increased 1000x overnight, do you think in this scenario the economy will grow? I imagine this situation would not be handleable and people would be going completely crazy killing each other.

The above scenario is not realistic, but what about if population grows and grows and then comes a point where we realize that for example we have

1) Reduced potential living space by a huge margin due to for example climate change or pollution. 2) We have no idea how to solve this issue. We can't move to another planet, we don't have the tech yet even if this was possible.

There's many potential ways we could fuck up which causes there to be limited basic resources that at the very least would make the world scramble to solve this issue and produce less value because they have to focus solely on this issue and large proportion of people would have to be fending for themselves, with sometimes only options to get basic necessities is to steal from others.

Or the people who are rich, thanks to using the monopoly principles will be good because they have enough money, power and control to buy the remaining resources.

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

#325

Post by pyrale »

WalterBright wrote: post #282
xg15 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Energy is not infinite, and the subset of that energy that can be used without killing the ecosystem we depend on is very limited.

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

#326

Post by mewpmewp2 »

WalterBright wrote: post #269
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.

> Money increases when you pass start, and cards drawn are on average a source of money. Money itself is of value only if it can be used to buy stuff. The assets in Monopoly are fixed - more and more money chases the same assets, meaning that the real value of that money remains the same. Zero-sum.

Arguably we are in the process of playing monopoly. It is just not near the end yet.

We have not used up all the fixed resources yet - which is why we can keep growing, but we soon might as the population grows and the rich take as much as possible.

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

#327

Post by WalterBright »

pyrale wrote: post #325
WalterBright wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Energy is not infinite, and the subset of that energy that can be used without killing the ecosystem we depend on is very limited.

Yes, there are a limited number of atoms in the universe, and we should be worried about that.

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

#328

Post by WalterBright »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #326
WalterBright wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Money increases when you pass start, and cards drawn are on average a source of money. Money itself is of value only if it can be used to buy stuff. The assets in Monopoly are fixed - more and more money chases the same assets, meaning that the real value of that money remains the same. Zero-sum.

Arguably we are in the process of playing monopoly. It is just not near the end yet. We have not used up all the fixed resources yet - which is why we can keep growing, but we soon might as the population grows and the rich take as much as possible.

> We have not used up all the fixed resources yet

Please explain how iron has been "used up".

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

#329

Post by dTal »

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.

At least they put some effort into it. As it is, your comment contributes nothing. What assumptions, and why are they wrong?

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

#330

Post by dTal »

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.

This seems like an easily solvable problem, frankly. Gazillionaires don't tend to want to live in the tax havens they store their gazillions in because (surprise) they tend to be shitholes. So you just tax the movement of money in and out of the country - money is pointless if you can't spend it.

The reason this isn't done isn't because it's hard, it's because the foxes are running the chicken coop.

Post reply on HN