The landlords game has two different sets of rules you could play with. One set of rules was basically the same as the Monopoly we know today. When the game ends when one player acquires ownership of everything and bankrupts everyone else.
The other set of rules, called “prosperity”, involved a tax that redistributed wealth. The game ends when all players have doubled their original stake and everyone wins.
The game was intended to show how unbridled capitalism ultimately leads to a few billionaires owning everything and everyone else being poor/bankrupt. (Sound familiar?)
And compared it to the prosperity rules which were based on Georgism, a kind of socialism/capitalism hybrid that both rewards people for the value they produce while also creating surplus public revenue that can be used to create social safety nets.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
If you’re playing monopoly, isn’t everyone a loser? 😝
Sigh. I hate myself.
— Actually yes! That was the point of the original game.
the landlords game
What blows my mind 🤯
The landlords game has two different sets of rules you could play with. One set of rules was basically the same as the Monopoly we know today. When the game ends when one player acquires ownership of everything and bankrupts everyone else.
The other set of rules, called “prosperity”, involved a tax that redistributed wealth. The game ends when all players have doubled their original stake and everyone wins.
The game was intended to show how unbridled capitalism ultimately leads to a few billionaires owning everything and everyone else being poor/bankrupt. (Sound familiar?)
And compared it to the prosperity rules which were based on Georgism, a kind of socialism/capitalism hybrid that both rewards people for the value they produce while also creating surplus public revenue that can be used to create social safety nets.
Nice.