4 ms·

> It communicates that wealth is a zero-sum game, and encourages a mindset whereby ideas about wealth are oriented around ownership of real-estate. I think yo

by retube 16y ago

> It communicates that wealth is a zero-sum game, and encourages a mindset whereby ideas about wealth are oriented around ownership of real-estate. I think you're probably reading to much into this. It's just a game. I don't think it's particularly promoting anything. > A better wealth game is Pit/Billionaire. It's zero-sum, but that reflects the reality of the setting (commodity trading) How is commodities zero-sum and property not? > The likes of Monopoly give board games a bad name. That's like saying Star Wars gives movies a bad name. It might not have the best script, it might not have the best acting, but it's a movie that has and continues to appeal to young and old alike, that is still watched like a gazillion times a year. Edit: the original star wars trilogy obviously, not the recent triple travesty of video game-esque inanity.

zipdog 16y ago
> I think you're probably reading to much into this. It's just a game. I don't think it's particularly promoting anything. The original game was purposefully designed to be anti-capitalist and in particular an attack on landlords who exploited tenants. I think it was called The Landlord's Game and the game mechanic was deliberate. Monopoly changed a few elements but it's game mechanic is essentially the same.
- brudgers 16y ago
  >"purposefully designed to be anti-capitalist" I believe it is technically incorrect to classify Monopoly as "anti-capitalist" in the sense implied. Because of the nature of real-property, landlord tenant relationships are not inherently capitalist. They can exist even in communist economic systems in which people are tenants on government property. Lest we forget, the origin of much of our current landlord tenant system is in feudalism.
  - zipdog 16y ago
    You're right, its more about landlord-tenant power imbalance, although the mechanic allows players to be in both roles at once
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  I always thought buying hotels on purple properties were a much better investment than buying any blue properties. In real life, it would be easier for me to own several duplexes in a 'shady' part of town versus several luxury rentals (tenants demand alot more).
doty 16y ago
> I think you're probably reading to much into this. It's just a game. I don't think it's particularly promoting anything. Strangely enough, cturner isn't just reading something into it, the original iterations of the game were designed "with the object of showing that rents enriched property owners and impoverished tenants". The Wikipedia article on the history of Monopoly is fascinating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_board_game_Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_board_game_Monop...

by retube 16y ago

zipdog 16y ago

> I think you're probably reading to much into this. It's just a game. I don't think it's particularly promoting anything. The original game was purposefully designed to be anti-capitalist and in particular an attack on landlords who exploited tenants. I think it was called The Landlord's Game and the game mechanic was deliberate. Monopoly changed a few elements but it's game mechanic is essentially the same.

brudgers 16y ago
>"purposefully designed to be anti-capitalist" I believe it is technically incorrect to classify Monopoly as "anti-capitalist" in the sense implied. Because of the nature of real-property, landlord tenant relationships are not inherently capitalist. They can exist even in communist economic systems in which people are tenants on government property. Lest we forget, the origin of much of our current landlord tenant system is in feudalism.
- zipdog 16y ago
  You're right, its more about landlord-tenant power imbalance, although the mechanic allows players to be in both roles at once
chopsueyar 16y ago
I always thought buying hotels on purple properties were a much better investment than buying any blue properties. In real life, it would be easier for me to own several duplexes in a 'shady' part of town versus several luxury rentals (tenants demand alot more).

doty 16y ago

> I think you're probably reading to much into this. It's just a game. I don't think it's particularly promoting anything. Strangely enough, cturner isn't just reading something into it, the original iterations of the game were designed "with the object of showing that rents enriched property owners and impoverished tenants". The Wikipedia article on the history of Monopoly is fascinating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_board_game_Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_board_game_Monop...