• wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    100
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    It was originally designed to convince people that capitalist greed and acting as a landlord is morally abhorrent and the whole system should be replaced with socialism. The idea was, and I am not joking or exaggerating at all, to play the monopoly you know, and realize that it’s the worst game. Then, you play it with slightly different rules that change how land ownership and rent works, and you realize that literally everyone can win, and everyone plays cooperatively.

    Then, capitalists saw it, stole the idea, and the original inventor didn’t have sufficient money to fight for her exclusive rights, so now we have only the capitalist, rent-seeking shit show of a game that Parker brothers stole.

    It’s not “monopoly”. It’s The Landlord’s Game.

    • Denjin@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      9 days ago

      Problem was that the second part of the game was terrible at being a game whereas the part we know now as Monopoly was, compared to its contemporary board games, quite good.

      • Doubleohdonut@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        9 days ago

        But still needs house rules to make it fun to play with friends. Playing from the rulebook is miserable. Side note: it really broke my immersion in A Quiet Place that the kids were quietly playing monopoly together. That’s how I knew it was a work of fiction lol

        • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          One popular opinion is that it is more fun with the actual rules, it is just difficult to follow the rules, especially the auctions. My computer had monopoly programmed into it when I was growing up and it was a lot of fun playing single player by the actual rules.

          The free parking pot I’m kind of ok with, even though it makes the game longer it introduces a little randomness. Otherwise monopoly snowballs pretty fast.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 days ago

      Then, capitalists saw it, stole the idea, and the original inventor didn’t have sufficient money to fight for her exclusive rights,

      And this is why IP law only protects the rich. They’re the only people who can afford to sue for it.

  • adarza@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    and in the game, the wealthy often want to stay in jail so they can stay wealthy. can’t land on a square that costs money but you still collect rents, build, and can wheel-and-deal while in there. so jail must be more mayberry pd and less federal pen.

  • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    9 days ago

    Also, the game was supposed to be teaching everyone why monopolies are terrible, not as a set of goals for the epstein class.

  • A_norny_mousse@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    9 days ago

    TBF: both rich and poor people pay luxury tax (tobacco, alcohol etc.) - but such taxes always affect low income people more.

        • A_norny_mousse@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          Hardly. If the alcohol tax on a bottle of wine is €5 and the bottle is sold for €10, that’s a pretty steep price. If the bottle is sold for €100 or even more, it’s nothing.

          But I understand that you were probably thinking about companies calculating spending & sales.

          • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            What? Tax is not a punishment. If a company finds that they can poison the environment and release PFAS into a local stream, but that they will be charged $12000 if they’re caught, then all they have learned is that, for the potential price of $12000, they can purchase the right to not have to follow environmental regulation (and they’ll only have to pay it if they’re caught!)

            • A_norny_mousse@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              Tax is not a punishment.

              Are you replying to the wrong person? I specifically pointed out that they were thinking about something else.

              • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 days ago

                I was originally replying to the person who pointed out that flat fines are worthless. The luxury tax bit is irrelevant to what i was saying. My reply to you was trying to figure out why you were bringing luxury tax back into it, when the specific thing to which I was replying was about flat fines as a punishment. I still don’t know what the heck you meant by “hardly”

      • A_norny_mousse@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        Even the countries that do this employ all sorts of edge case rules not to make it too fair.

        Well, at least my country does. One of those famous Northern European “Socialist” countries.

  • danekrae@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    And the person winning can have family members take their place, while others have to start from scratch. Or is it only the real world that’s so ridiculous?

    You’re insane if you want to tax the new, rich players…