201–210 of 374 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I stopped reading at "socialist utopia Bernie Sanders is selling". It's too much for my poor European point of view, using my capitalist Chinese phone to read your comment and write my answer.
[flagged]
If you don't live in USA, why are you bringing their politics in the debate?
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?...
“Because luck is involved, it’s only luck that matters.”
When in reality, it’s luck and effort that matter. You can’t control the luck part, but you can control the effort part.
It's similar to health - a great deal of how healthy you are has to do with luck (e.g. genetics). If someone said "the health game is rigged so there is no use in trying to be healthy" we'd think they were nuts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've enjoyed adding more rules, such as the bank adding loans with interest, bank robberies, insurance and organised crime and other things to make it more like a role play game.
How did you work out things like (for example) bank robberies? When the banker gets up to pee, you snatch some bills from the drawer? Or every X turns, roll for chance to hit vault-armor class 0?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any boardgame that involves eliminating players from it is a non-starter for me.
There's some intense relationship-ending games of Sorry in your past, I can sense it.
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.
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.
P.S. Just because this also bothered me: inflation doesn't happen during the game. Land itself does not increase in value during the course of the game, it only increases with direct capital expenditures. Example: if no one buys "Park Place" for 90% of a game, it does not increase in cost the cost for the player who eventually buys it[1], that cost is fixed throughout the game.
[1] Despite its marginal utility (i.e. value) for each player increasing as the game goes on. In that example, it's nice because utility increase whether you have Broadway (I think thats the other piece) or not (preventing someone from building on it is a strategy too).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's some intense relationship-ending games of Sorry in your past, I can sense it.
lol, more like my kids getting eliminated and then causing trouble.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regulation is a reaction to demand, it's not what creates demand. We can debate about the pros and cons of regulation, but that is quite a tangent. Certainly some businesses are prohibited by the existence of stringent regulations. Certainly regulations make it more expensive to start a business in certain industries. But they do not determine what the market wants. The Fed also doesn't create demand for products and…
Y Combinator is completely out of reach for most people. There are limited slots and tens of thousands of applicants. It makes the whole selection process essentially pseudo-random. Also, Y Combinator is not popular because it is successful, it is successful because it is popular. It's no coincidence that Y Combinator operates the most popular technology news link aggregator in the world which all the big corporate t…
The outcome is still the same: a stalled industry, little to no innovation, and many times, high prices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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…
Regulation is a reaction to demand, it's not what creates demand. We can debate about the pros and cons of regulation, but that is quite a tangent. Certainly some businesses are prohibited by the existence of stringent regulations. Certainly regulations make it more expensive to start a business in certain industries. But they do not determine what the market wants. The Fed also doesn't create demand for products and…
A regulation that mandates, e.g. catalytic converters, creates demand for them. Requiring car insurance, same. Examples abound.
> The Fed also doesn't create demand for products and services.
The Fed(eral reserve) sets monetary policy. It's supply side. By setting interest rates low, it increases demand for credit.