9 ms·

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 i

by pyrale 7y ago

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.

koheripbal 7y ago
This is correct - but I think the point the user above is trying to make is that the game doesn't teach the most fundamental lesson of capitalism - that competition drives adaptation.
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  Competition driving adaptation is really important, but darwinism predates capitalism! I'd argue that the most fundamental lesson of capitalism is that markets magically allow individual self-interest to contribute to the collective benefit Ok, fun facts: Adam Smith got his PhD in a department of moral philosophy. His first book was about why people are nice to each other: I feel good if you feel good, I feel bad if you feel bad. His second book, "Wealth of Nations", was also about why people are nice to each other. He described capitalism (aka market economies) as the basis for large-scale moral action. Markets and trade naturally support collective benefit. Adam Smith wasn't extreme -- his point was to promote "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" -- a phrase coined by Adam Smith's PhD advisor, Francis Hutcheson.
airstrike 7y ago
You could argue that's just inflation. Total real value remains the same with every lap, it's just distributed differently between players (particularly if you count the unclaimed tiles as an extra player)
- three_seagrass 7y ago
  The "Do not pass Go" mechanic effectively means some players skip income and it's not uniform inflation. Also players selectively mortgaging properties will destroy overall wealth in the game.
skybrian 7y ago
That's not real wealth though. The houses and hotels are the actual capital improvements. The thing is, supply and demand seem not to matter in the housing market. If you land on Park Place you can't shop around for alternatives. This might be retconned by saying that most housing is occupied and that's where you found a vacancy, but it's still pretty artificial. If the other houses are occupied then why isn't anyone getting any income from them?
- giggles_giggles 7y ago
  > This might be retconned by saying that most housing is occupied and that's where you found a vacancy, but it's still pretty artificial. Actually this just sounds like the California housing market where NIMBYs perpetually prevent housing stock from increasing, which is of course a result of central planning, not a free market mechanism, LOL!
  - fjp 7y ago
    It's not purely "free market" to restrict housing supply, but the freedom to influence politics to your own advantage (like NIMBY's restricting housing supply) is absolutely an effect of the free market system.
    - dr_dshiv 7y ago
      Why wouldn't buying political advantage be just as bad under socialism or communism, etc?
      - fjp 7y ago
        Oh it still is. Capitalism is not exactly equal to "free market". There's still a hell of a lot of market under socialism. I'm just pointing out that you have to regulate SOMETHING. Regulating nothing = people amassing wealth and buying political influence = those current power holders regulating everyone else so the current power holders just continue to win. Then you don't have your "free market" anymore. It's inherently unstable. In my opinion, the wealthy should have no more political power than the poor. But of course the wealthy have an outsized ability to influence politics. So they can work to repeal or nullify the very laws meant to reduce their influence - it's a fight that will never end and requires working and poor people to constantly be aware, organizing, and participating in politics to have any chance at all. Or maybe one day, in my dream world, the rich and powerful will realize hey it's not so bad to have a workforce that is educated and healthy and has enough money in their pocket to buy the things we produce without taking out loans! And then we all leave in peace and harmony...
danem 7y ago
Don't the rules of monopoly guarantee all players but one go bankrupt?
- Corence 7y ago
  At the end of the game, yes, but if players don't try to bankrupt each other it probably won't happen. Early in the game the expected value of a trip around the board is positive because of low rents of undeveloped properties and the net gain from Chance and Community Chest, plus passing Go. Cash flow into the game is positive as a whole. Later in the game, when property is developed you're going to be paying bigger rents. This is going to cause players to mortgage or sell houses to pay the big rents (also their own liquid cash supply is likely lower from developing their own properties), each of which is a money sink since you don't get full value for these. This causes money to exit the game, eventually leading toward bankruptcy. However, this requires that players actually get to develop their properties. If the game hits a lock due to no one trading and no one getting a natural monopoly, the game can go pretty much indefinitely.
  - Sohcahtoa82 7y ago
    > If the game hits a lock due to no one trading and no one getting a natural monopoly, the game can go pretty much indefinitely. Yeah, I once played with someone whose strategy was "Never trade". In an act of desperation, I offered him $1,000 for a light-blue property, and he refused. The game lasted for nearly an hour before I quit out of extreme boredom. A typical 4-player game of Monopoly should only last around 30 minutes, but people often have terrible strategies or play with ridiculous house rules that constantly inject money into the game, prolonging it. A lot of people don't even know that the house rule they're playing is even a house rule because it's what they were taught when they first learned to play.
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      My friends and I tried the rule that you could loan other players money. We had to stop playing after that.
    - 7y ago
dr_dshiv 7y ago
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 mysterious. How to know when it is growing the pie?
- sokoloff 7y ago
  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.
  - dr_dshiv 7y ago
    Is trading legal in Monopoly? I'm assuming that's what you are referring to.
    - jmpman 7y ago
      It is in my house.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      Yes. It's part of the official rules (and the absence of it would be fairly disastrous to the game dynamics I think).
    - e12e 7y ago
      Apparently not in the original : http://landlordsgame.info/rules/lg-1904p_patent.html http://landlordsgame.info/rules/lg-1904p_patent.html However: > Borrowing: A player may borrow from the “Bank" in amounts of one hundred dollars, and for every one hundred dollars borrowed the " Bank" takes a mortgage on one or more of the borrower's lots, the total value of which must be at least ten dollars more than is borrowed. For every one hundred dollars borrowed from the "Bank" a bank mortgage is placed upon the property on which the loan is made, and the player puts his note in the "Bank," paying upon each note five dollars (interest) every time he receives his wages. One player may borrow from another, giving a mortgage on any property he may own and making the best bargain he can as to interest, terms of payments &c. The player loaning the money places his individual, mortgage on the top of the borrower's deed to show that he has a mortgage on that property, Should a loan be repaid before passing the beginning-point, the borrower saves the interest. But there are a few variations... This one looks closer to "modern" monopoly - I can't seem to locate the "two rulesets" referenced by Wikipedia though (one "pro" one "contra" monopoly - in the second everyone supposedly benefits from created value). http://landlordsgame.info/games/lg-1906/lg-1906_egc-rules.html http://landlordsgame.info/games/lg-1906/lg-1906_egc-rules.ht... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game) > Magie created two sets of rules: an anti-monopolist set in which all were rewarded when wealth was created, and a monopolist set in which the goal was to create monopolies and crush opponents. See also: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/11/secret-history-monopoly-capitalist-game-leftwing-origins https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/11/secret-... [edit: here are the combined rules with rules for "prosperity" https://landlordsgame.info/games/lgp-1932/lgp-1932_rules.html https://landlordsgame.info/games/lgp-1932/lgp-1932_rules.htm... ]
jdc 7y ago
While true, in almost any iterated trading game major disparities emerge — a point Monopoly makes well. In real life however, these disparities are only a problem if people leverage them against others.
- ska 7y ago
  > In real life however, these disparities are only a problem if people leverage them against others. Isn't this nearly always the case though? Absent external constraints?
three_seagrass 7y ago
There is also wealth destruction when mortgaging the properties, which means the total wealth in the game can go down.
rubyn00bie 7y ago
The game is strictly zero-sum, you win by bankrupting your opponents. The amount of money in circulation has nothing to do with whether it's zero sum or not, it's the distribution of money-- and in monopoly, the goal is to have it distributed to _one_ person. 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).
karamazov2 7y ago
But the transactions between players are zero-sum... An interesting, related point: zero-sum trading games (even ones based on chance [1]) always devolve into pareto/power law distributions when bankruptcy is a possibility. More a matter of natural law than "evil" capitalism [1] trading game simulation: https://youtu.be/CsRLVZTYpGo?t=313 https://youtu.be/CsRLVZTYpGo?t=313
WalterBright 7y ago
> 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.
- mewpmewp2 7y ago
  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.
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    > We have not used up all the fixed resources yet Please explain how iron has been "used up".
karamazov2 7y ago
But the transactions between players are zero-sum... An interesting, related point: zero-sum trading games (even ones based on chance [1]) always devolve into pareto/power law distributions when bankruptcy is a possibility. More a matter of natural law than the "evils" of capitalism [1] trading game simulation: https://youtu.be/CsRLVZTYpGo?t=313 https://youtu.be/CsRLVZTYpGo?t=313

by pyrale 7y ago

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.

koheripbal 7y ago

This is correct - but I think the point the user above is trying to make is that the game doesn't teach the most fundamental lesson of capitalism - that competition drives adaptation.

dr_dshiv 7y ago
Competition driving adaptation is really important, but darwinism predates capitalism! I'd argue that the most fundamental lesson of capitalism is that markets magically allow individual self-interest to contribute to the collective benefit Ok, fun facts: Adam Smith got his PhD in a department of moral philosophy. His first book was about why people are nice to each other: I feel good if you feel good, I feel bad if you feel bad. His second book, "Wealth of Nations", was also about why people are nice to each other. He described capitalism (aka market economies) as the basis for large-scale moral action. Markets and trade naturally support collective benefit. Adam Smith wasn't extreme -- his point was to promote "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" -- a phrase coined by Adam Smith's PhD advisor, Francis Hutcheson.

airstrike 7y ago

You could argue that's just inflation. Total real value remains the same with every lap, it's just distributed differently between players (particularly if you count the unclaimed tiles as an extra player)

three_seagrass 7y ago
The "Do not pass Go" mechanic effectively means some players skip income and it's not uniform inflation. Also players selectively mortgaging properties will destroy overall wealth in the game.

skybrian 7y ago

That's not real wealth though. The houses and hotels are the actual capital improvements. The thing is, supply and demand seem not to matter in the housing market. If you land on Park Place you can't shop around for alternatives. This might be retconned by saying that most housing is occupied and that's where you found a vacancy, but it's still pretty artificial. If the other houses are occupied then why isn't anyone getting any income from them?

giggles_giggles 7y ago
> This might be retconned by saying that most housing is occupied and that's where you found a vacancy, but it's still pretty artificial. Actually this just sounds like the California housing market where NIMBYs perpetually prevent housing stock from increasing, which is of course a result of central planning, not a free market mechanism, LOL!
- fjp 7y ago
  It's not purely "free market" to restrict housing supply, but the freedom to influence politics to your own advantage (like NIMBY's restricting housing supply) is absolutely an effect of the free market system.
  - dr_dshiv 7y ago
    Why wouldn't buying political advantage be just as bad under socialism or communism, etc?
    - fjp 7y ago
      Oh it still is. Capitalism is not exactly equal to "free market". There's still a hell of a lot of market under socialism. I'm just pointing out that you have to regulate SOMETHING. Regulating nothing = people amassing wealth and buying political influence = those current power holders regulating everyone else so the current power holders just continue to win. Then you don't have your "free market" anymore. It's inherently unstable. In my opinion, the wealthy should have no more political power than the poor. But of course the wealthy have an outsized ability to influence politics. So they can work to repeal or nullify the very laws meant to reduce their influence - it's a fight that will never end and requires working and poor people to constantly be aware, organizing, and participating in politics to have any chance at all. Or maybe one day, in my dream world, the rich and powerful will realize hey it's not so bad to have a workforce that is educated and healthy and has enough money in their pocket to buy the things we produce without taking out loans! And then we all leave in peace and harmony...

danem 7y ago

Don't the rules of monopoly guarantee all players but one go bankrupt?

Corence 7y ago
At the end of the game, yes, but if players don't try to bankrupt each other it probably won't happen. Early in the game the expected value of a trip around the board is positive because of low rents of undeveloped properties and the net gain from Chance and Community Chest, plus passing Go. Cash flow into the game is positive as a whole. Later in the game, when property is developed you're going to be paying bigger rents. This is going to cause players to mortgage or sell houses to pay the big rents (also their own liquid cash supply is likely lower from developing their own properties), each of which is a money sink since you don't get full value for these. This causes money to exit the game, eventually leading toward bankruptcy. However, this requires that players actually get to develop their properties. If the game hits a lock due to no one trading and no one getting a natural monopoly, the game can go pretty much indefinitely.
- Sohcahtoa82 7y ago
  > If the game hits a lock due to no one trading and no one getting a natural monopoly, the game can go pretty much indefinitely. Yeah, I once played with someone whose strategy was "Never trade". In an act of desperation, I offered him $1,000 for a light-blue property, and he refused. The game lasted for nearly an hour before I quit out of extreme boredom. A typical 4-player game of Monopoly should only last around 30 minutes, but people often have terrible strategies or play with ridiculous house rules that constantly inject money into the game, prolonging it. A lot of people don't even know that the house rule they're playing is even a house rule because it's what they were taught when they first learned to play.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    My friends and I tried the rule that you could loan other players money. We had to stop playing after that.
  - 7y ago

dr_dshiv 7y ago

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 mysterious. How to know when it is growing the pie?

sokoloff 7y ago
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.
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  Is trading legal in Monopoly? I'm assuming that's what you are referring to.
  - jmpman 7y ago
    It is in my house.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    Yes. It's part of the official rules (and the absence of it would be fairly disastrous to the game dynamics I think).
  - e12e 7y ago
    Apparently not in the original : http://landlordsgame.info/rules/lg-1904p_patent.html http://landlordsgame.info/rules/lg-1904p_patent.html However: > Borrowing: A player may borrow from the “Bank" in amounts of one hundred dollars, and for every one hundred dollars borrowed the " Bank" takes a mortgage on one or more of the borrower's lots, the total value of which must be at least ten dollars more than is borrowed. For every one hundred dollars borrowed from the "Bank" a bank mortgage is placed upon the property on which the loan is made, and the player puts his note in the "Bank," paying upon each note five dollars (interest) every time he receives his wages. One player may borrow from another, giving a mortgage on any property he may own and making the best bargain he can as to interest, terms of payments &c. The player loaning the money places his individual, mortgage on the top of the borrower's deed to show that he has a mortgage on that property, Should a loan be repaid before passing the beginning-point, the borrower saves the interest. But there are a few variations... This one looks closer to "modern" monopoly - I can't seem to locate the "two rulesets" referenced by Wikipedia though (one "pro" one "contra" monopoly - in the second everyone supposedly benefits from created value). http://landlordsgame.info/games/lg-1906/lg-1906_egc-rules.html http://landlordsgame.info/games/lg-1906/lg-1906_egc-rules.ht... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game) > Magie created two sets of rules: an anti-monopolist set in which all were rewarded when wealth was created, and a monopolist set in which the goal was to create monopolies and crush opponents. See also: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/11/secret-history-monopoly-capitalist-game-leftwing-origins https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/11/secret-... [edit: here are the combined rules with rules for "prosperity" https://landlordsgame.info/games/lgp-1932/lgp-1932_rules.html https://landlordsgame.info/games/lgp-1932/lgp-1932_rules.htm... ]

jdc 7y ago

While true, in almost any iterated trading game major disparities emerge — a point Monopoly makes well. In real life however, these disparities are only a problem if people leverage them against others.

ska 7y ago
> In real life however, these disparities are only a problem if people leverage them against others. Isn't this nearly always the case though? Absent external constraints?

three_seagrass 7y ago

There is also wealth destruction when mortgaging the properties, which means the total wealth in the game can go down.

rubyn00bie 7y ago

The game is strictly zero-sum, you win by bankrupting your opponents. The amount of money in circulation has nothing to do with whether it's zero sum or not, it's the distribution of money-- and in monopoly, the goal is to have it distributed to _one_ person. 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).

karamazov2 7y ago

But the transactions between players are zero-sum... An interesting, related point: zero-sum trading games (even ones based on chance [1]) always devolve into pareto/power law distributions when bankruptcy is a possibility. More a matter of natural law than "evil" capitalism [1] trading game simulation: https://youtu.be/CsRLVZTYpGo?t=313 https://youtu.be/CsRLVZTYpGo?t=313

WalterBright 7y ago

> 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.

mewpmewp2 7y ago
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.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  > We have not used up all the fixed resources yet Please explain how iron has been "used up".

karamazov2 7y ago

But the transactions between players are zero-sum... An interesting, related point: zero-sum trading games (even ones based on chance [1]) always devolve into pareto/power law distributions when bankruptcy is a possibility. More a matter of natural law than the "evils" of capitalism [1] trading game simulation: https://youtu.be/CsRLVZTYpGo?t=313 https://youtu.be/CsRLVZTYpGo?t=313