41–50 of 170 posts
[1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BoardGamePatentMagie...
[2]: https://smartasset.com/mortgage/price-to-rent-ratio-50-large...
https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/investigation/earl...
Monopoly was popular with kids on my block back in Palo Alto in the 60's. At least, it was omnipresent in collections, and we'd attempt to play it every so often... I can't remember one game that didn't feature (a) disputes about rules and the administration of the bank; (b) animosity and dissatisfaction upon exit; and (c) hollow emptiness for the (newly friendless)"winner".
It’s curious that Lizzie Magie chose a price-to-rent ratio of 10 [1] for the first version of The Landlord’s Game , wonder if that would have been typical for US real estate in 1904. The same ratio today would be unusually landlord-friendly. [2] [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BoardGamePatentMagie... [2]: https://smartasset.com/mortgage/price-to-rent-ratio-50-large...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who live in dense areas use the least energy on average.
Do you have numbers on that? The last time I looked it up, over here at least, that wasn't really the case. It seemed that while people in cities use less energy on personal transportation and housing, they consume much more goods and services than people in rural areas.
It's really hard to spend money to catch up to the carbon emissions from fossil fuel activities like driving, heating, and flying.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-iphone-x-environmental-repor...
P.S. See also this extensive map of carbon consumption per household that I posted in a different comment:
> Any natural resource which is inherently limited in supply can generate economic rent... Georgists argue that taxing economic rent is efficient, fair and equitable. Take out "natural" and it seems like any non-inflationary cryptocurrency would be a target for a Georgist tax.
Georgism just makes so much sense because if "mother nature" (or "natural capital", if you want to sound less hippie) is not charging for the things we take from it, then we're basically stealing from it. Even if you're a hardcore capitalist, you have to agree that it's not truly capitalism if it's all based on stealing from the largest provider in the system.
Quite a coincidence: Just a week or two ago I saw a History Detectives episode on this. https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/investigation/earl...
Monopoly was popular with kids on my block back in Palo Alto in the 60's. At least, it was omnipresent in collections, and we'd attempt to play it every so often... I can't remember one game that didn't feature (a) disputes about rules and the administration of the bank; (b) animosity and dissatisfaction upon exit; and (c) hollow emptiness for the (newly friendless)"winner".
The one thing I hated about Monopoly is that when you're down, you rarely can make a come back. It's not long before you know if you're going to win or not, and the rest of the game is just a slow death for the other players. No real joy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even Adam Smith complained about landlords though.
Adam Smith also wanted inheritance mostly abolished except for the small amount necessary to continue supporting a man's wife and young children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Short version: You're _supposed_ to strictly follow the rules AND the lack of pieces. Depleting the bank of houses to upgrade property with as a market cornering tactic. IRL similar to urban growth boundaries and no programs for upgrading the housing within them.
A very interesting twist is to play with real money. Set a sensible exchange rate to real money and treat the Monopoly money as “chips”. The tactics and strategy significantly change because there is real external value to the assets and currency - but only for the duration of the game. Apart from anything else it means the game ends much faster.
