Posts Tagged ‘capitalism’
There are those who argue that it may be a dangerous thing to teach children how they may thus get the advantage of their fellows, but let me tell you there are no fairer-minded beings in the world than our own little American children. Watch them in their play and see how quick they are, should any one of their number attempt to cheat or take undue advantage of another, to cry, ‘No fair!’ And who has not heard almost every little girl say, ‘I won’t play if you don’t play fair.’ Let the children once see clearly the gross injustice of our present land system and when they grow up, if they are allowed to develop naturally, the evil will soon be remedied.”
Lizzie Magie’s 1902 commentary on The Landlords’ Game, on which Monopoly is based
While doing some Christmas shopping I walked past an end-cap in the toy aisle. There I saw a new version of Monopoly. Monopoly Millionaire Edition.
“First to win a million wins!”
The first to win a million dollars wins? What happend to the old Monopoly game where the point was to “crush the competition into the dust”?
From one of the Monopoly strategy websites linked below here is a strategy to win
If you want to win, follow this set of instructions, which is a sum of everything stated above:
- Buy every property you can, especially properties from different color sets.
- Try to acquire the most important sets, otherwise, any set will work.
- Once you have a set, DO NOT get rid of any of your other properties. If you hold on to the other colors, no other player can get a set
- If no other player can get a set, they can’t charge you super high rent. However, since you have a set (hopefully), you can!
- Charging high rents will knock the other players out of the game, leaving you the winner!
Let me translate:
- Get all the land you can. They are not making any more land. It’s a zero-sum game. The more you have the less is available for others
- Get the most expensive properties as a priority. But any land is better than no land.
- Hold on to whole blocks of properties (color sets)
- Charge super-high rents when other players land on your property
- The more high-rent properties you control the faster you can crush the other players into the dust and bankrupt them. You win; they lose. That’s how the game of Monopoly is played and that’s the way it works in real life. From board game to real life – lesson learned.
Kids and adults have played the traditional Monopoly game for decades. Has anyone thought about the underlying values of this game?
Obviously, we are training our kids to be great capitalists through the defeat of other people.
Certainly, Monopoly is not a game of cooperation.
I’m just wondering, this new Monopoly Millionaire edition, is it non-competitive?
Is is realistic, or even possible, that we can all “win” without defeating other people?
I don’t think so.
Harpers and NPR did a great set of articles on the history of Monopoly
Listen to the NPR podcast – http://cpa.ds.npr.org/nhpr/audio/2012/12/wom20121204vp3_0.mp3
Read the article from Harpers – http://harpers.org/blog/2012/10/monopoly-is-theft/?single=1
Lots more links to the history of the game Monopoly and Strategy to win
Lizzie Magie’s 1902 commentary on The Landlords’ Game, on which Monopoly is based
Why Socialism by Albert Einstein
Progress and Poverty
An inquiry into the cause of industrial depressions and of increase of want with increase of wealth… The Remedy
The Landlord’s Game – 1906
The Shocking History of Monopoly
Strategy to win Monopoly
Why the rich can get richer by sheer dumb luck
This pro-communism image shows how, in Capitalism, the worker’s labor results in a benefit to the rich. In communism, labor results in benefit to the person performing the labor. “Man alienated from his labor” … “workers not owning the means of production” … standard Marxist doctrine.
But this cartoon leaves out some important details:
- Where did the machine come from?
- Where did the investment (risk) capital come from to build the machine and the factory?
- Who had the idea for the machine in the first place?
- Who manages the resources for the factory?
- Who determines what product should be produced and how much of it?
- Who charts the life cycle of the product and when to retire the old and bring in the new?
- … and dozen’s more tiny details like the above.
In the second image above, I don’t see the entrepreneur/business-owner present at all – just the factory workers.
What came first – the job or the company?
Workers work and operate the means of production. If workers imagined, got it right, took the risk, found the capital, built the factories, managed the resources, and the product lifecycle… then they would own the means of production.
So what’s stopping them?
Related: The Purpose of Spectacular Wealth
Capitalism vs Socialism
The next presidential election is coming up. It looks like the contest will be between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. These two folks could not be more different. To exaggerate a bit, the contest will be between a confirmed capitalist and someone who has been identified as a socialist.
After one term in office we have an idea about what Barack Obama is all about.
But what about Mitt Romney? What do we know about him? Seems that, according to the popular press, what we need to know about Romney we can learn from Bain Capital. To know how Bain Capital thinks is to know how Romney thinks. Just like Obama’s “hope and change” the ambiguity of the meaning of these words allowed everyone to fill in whatever they wanted to hear. Without clarity of terms, meaning, and intention, then we may fall prey to filling in our own desires for what is open and ambiguous.
To get elected people have to like you and people need to see their self interests reflected in those for whom they will vote. This is why people running for any office need to manage their image. There are professional image consultants that help people manage their public image to some level of likability – no matter what one is, when the cameras and microphones are tuned off and the doors are closed.
Behind the image – from someone who has nothing to lose
Insight about what Romney might be like, when the cameras are off and the doors closed, might be gained from a partner at Bain Capital. If Mitt won’t speak honestly in the interest of maintaining an image, maybe someone at Bain – with nothing to lose – will speak. And so they have – Edward Conard.
From a New York Times article:
Unlike his former colleagues, Conard wants to have an open conversation about wealth. He has spent the last four years writing a book that he hopes will forever change the way we view the superrich’s role in our society. “Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong,” to be published in hardcover next month by Portfolio, aggressively argues that the enormous and growing income inequality in the United States is not a sign that the system is rigged. On the contrary, Conard writes, it is a sign that our economy is working. And if we had a little more of it, then everyone, particularly the 99 percent, would be better off. This could be the most hated book of the year.
With regard to my previous posting Be Greedy; Be Patient … here is an interesting insight from Conard.
A central problem with the U.S. economy, he told me, is finding a way to get more people to look for solutions despite these terrible odds of success. Conard’s solution is simple. Society benefits if the successful risk takers get a lot of money. For proof, he looks to the market. At a nearby table we saw three young people with plaid shirts and floppy hair. For all we know, they may have been plotting the next generation’s Twitter, but Conard felt sure they were merely lounging on the sidelines. “What are they doing, sitting here, having a coffee at 2:30?” he asked. “I’m sure those guys are college-educated.”
Conard, who occasionally flashed a mean streak during our talks, started calling the group “art-history majors,” his derisive term for pretty much anyone who was lucky enough to be born with the talent and opportunity to join the risk-taking, innovation-hunting mechanism but who chose instead a less competitive life. In Conard’s mind, this includes, surprisingly, people like lawyers, who opt for stable professions that don’t maximize their wealth-creating potential. He said the only way to persuade these “art-history majors” to join the fiercely competitive economic mechanism is to tempt them with extraordinary payoffs.
“It’s not like the current payoff is motivating everybody to take risks,” he said. “We need twice as many people. When I look around, I see a world of unrealized opportunities for improvements, an abundance of talented people able to take the risks necessary to make improvements but a shortage of people and investors willing to take those risks. That doesn’t indicate to me that risk takers, as a whole, are overpaid. Quite the opposite.” The wealth concentrated at the top should be twice as large, he said. That way, the art-history majors would feel compelled to try to join them.
Will greed and the lure of spectacular wealth make America a leader in the global economy? Conard thinks so.
The problem is that many people have already given up. The other problem is that the vote in America has been given to everyone. The Constitution, as originally written, did not give the vote to everyone. Part of the qualifications to vote was that you be a land owner. Or to put a finer point on this, to vote, you had to have skin in the game. Now, that is no longer required. So, those who have “given up” form a powerful voting block.
What’s the danger?
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse [gifts] from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority only votes for candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship — Alexandar Fraser Tytler (1747-1813)
So, at some point, there will be more voters in America that are content to “vote themselves gifts from the public treasury” than opt in for the lure of spectacular wealth.
This gets back to the question you can ask of anyone… Why do more rather than less? The answer is a pre-rational decision.
At the margins of “doing less” is the welfare system and the largesse that supports this. Many have seen this danger
A large proportion of these unemployed and their dependents have been forced on the relief rolls. The burden on the Federal Government has grown with great rapidity. We have here a human as well as an economic problem. When humane considerations are concerned, Americans give them precedence. The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.
The future of America – Doing more or doing less; Pick your poison
For whatever you think of Greed – call it a narcotic if you want – which is better for America? Greed or dependency? Would a world of greed be better than a world of dependent americans? It would seem that as dependency increases without limit you will run out of wealthy people to pay for it and the country will collapse. What happens then, Altlas Shurgged?
Whatever you think, check of the interesting New York Times article on the interview with Edward Conard of Bain Capital to perhaps gain some insight on Mitt Romney
The Weight of the Poor… and how to destroy America