…Monopoly was literally designed to be a poorly-designed and infuriating game, and was meant to show people how capitalism is wrong and vile at its core.
Anon is asking a legitimate question.
If you’re already coming with the presumption that capitalism is wrong and vile, I can see why you think a board game is a valid criticism of scholarly work and decades of economic theory.
And @reasonandempathy‘s statement is not even true. If Monopoly was “literally” designed to be infuriating it would not be fun to play and would fail. Monopoly was highly successful because it was fun to play. I’m not sure who started this myth but it simply is not true. I’m sure it’s been floating around in meme form on the internet where liberals get most of their information.
The original design of the Monopoly game was supposed to be a progressive critique on wealth accumulation and private property called the “Landlord’s Game.” It wasn’t until a engineer picked it up and changed some of the cringe-worthy aspects of the game – such as “labor upon mother’s earth produces wages”, “coal taxes” and “trespassing on Lord Blueblood’s property” – turning it into what it is today that it became successful.
There has been a recent push to make a hero out of the original creator of the game by leftist academics but she sold away her rights to her original game a long time ago. The Monopoly game was far superior and popular, so the Landlord’s Game never made it. As the gushing author at the Guardian writes of this would-be progressive icon, “She died in 1948, a widow with no children, whose obituary and headstone made no mention of her game invention. One of her last jobs was at the US Office of Education, where her colleagues knew her only as an elderly typist who talked about inventing games.” In true progressive fashion she died alone a bitter, resentful bureaucrat.
Meanwhile, the creator of the Monopoly game we all know today died happy, rich, and famous.
So, the truth is that the original intent of the Monopoly game was meant to be a social criticism of wealth accumulation and private property but it never made it. The game the public enjoyed is one of obtaining property and money. Because making money is fun and being a progressive social justice warrior is lame.
But I just want to emphasize that it is still just a game and not any kind of real comparison to the actual market. There is no sole bank that owns all property and deeds in reality. You do not start off life with $1,500. If a landowner owned a “monopoly” on property they would not force occupants to pay double rent (in fact, prices historically fell and quality increased when large companies became major industry titans). You cannot get away with not paying for rent just because the owner did not ask for it. In reality, you are free to lend or give money to others, which the game also prohibits. And in life, you do not simply collect $200 for passing go.
I could go on and on but I believe it is fairly obvious that it is just a game and therefore transcends any meaningful comparison to reality or how a market operates. Even the original progressive version of the game failed in that regard. And just in case the OP needed more clarification, the Game of Life also does not really resemble real life either.
Recent Comments