Did a piece for NPR’s Morning Edition yesterday on the dangers of learning economics from the game of monopoly. You can listen to it here. Here is the text:
When our children got old enough, we’d play Monopoly, a game that was an important part of my childhood. The vivid orange of Tennessee Avenue. The royal blues of Boardwalk and Park Place. The little man with the mustache being hauled off to jail. And all that pastel colored money.
But if I play Monopoly now, it’s only to teach my kids how badly its lessons prepare you for the real world.
In Monopoly, whoever has the most toys wins and winning means taking everything belonging to everyone else.
In Monopoly, landlords are parasites that eventually drive everyone into bankruptcy. And bankruptcy is like death. Game over.
Monopoly is the ultimate zero-sum game. You profit only by taking from others. The assets of its world are fixed in number. Yes, you can build houses or hotels, but somehow, the greater the supply of places to live, the HIGHER the price, an absurd contradiction to real-world economic life.
In Monopoly, hotels never get a makeover and railroads, unlike Amtrak, are always profitable.
In Monopoly, getting rich and succeeding in business only comes from exploiting unlucky suckers who randomly enter your life. There’s no role for hard work or creativity— figuring out what customers might want to buy that isn’t being offered by a competitor. There’s no competition.
I know. That’s why it’s called monopoly. But only Marxists look at the world of capitalism the way the game of Monopoly does—as an unrelentingly gloomy system of exploitation where the rich eventually wear everyone else down.
Ironically, most of the new board games with more realistic economic lessons come, like Karl Marx, from Germany.
In games like The Settlers of Catan players compete, but they also cooperate and trade in various ways. One player’s economic success can end up benefitting fellow players. Yes, there’s a random element to success but life has that too. And in these new German-style board games as they’re sometimes called, strategy and skill matter more than the roll of the dice.
So leave Monopoly on the shelf and try the Settlers of Catan. My wife usually wins when we play, but at least my kids learn about the value of trade and cooperation in creating wealth and success.
I have gotten a number of angry emails from people who believe that the real world really is a lot like monopoly. Many people believe that the world is a zero-sum game and that the wealthy take money from the rest of us. What is the appeal of this worldview? Does it provide some form of consolation? Paul Graham has some interesting thoughts on this issue here.
A hat-tip to Noah Yetter for telling me about the Settlers of Catan. It really is a great game.
Share
{ 25 comments }
The fact that Monopoly was invented in the depths of the Great Depression might have something to do with it.
Excellent!
I was just given Settlers of Catan for Xmas, as evidenced with this picture of the front cover. I can't wait to play it!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/86796820@N00/80360200/
I LOVE playing Risk, particularly Risk 2210ad.
There is strategy, and a bit of economics, but most of the game is psychology: causing other people to make decisions that benefit you when they have a number of somewhat equal choices. Some lessons:
-Don't appear to be powerful, you'll draw an attack
-The game is over in 5 rounds. No agreements/treaties last in round 5.
-Draw an attack from weak players by openly attempting to form treaties against the player.
-Draw attacks against other strong players by attempting to form peace treaties with them.
-Draw illogical attacks by others by making assertions of their mother's spoiled moral fiber.
For a true libertarian alternative to monopoly check out http://www.antimonopoly.com. Description from wikipedia:
Anti-Monopoly is a board game made by San Francisco State University Professor Ralph Anspach, in response to Monopoly. In the original 1974 version the board is "monopolized" at the beginning of the game, and players compete to return the state of the board to a free market system.
Monopoly derived from the Georgist Landlord Game as I understand it. It was invented long before the great depression.
See http://www.ardenclub.com/images/WooleryLandlordGame.jpg
There is more than one game called, “Anti-Monopoly.” In one game for sale at Toys are Us, there are two types of players, monopolists and competitors. The rules and prices are different for each type, but they both play a game similar to the original monopoly.
Other German board games you might want to look up:
– Union Pacific: Everyone deals in the stock of various railroads; the larger the railroad's reach, the higher the stock price
– Puerto Rico: if one player chooses to trade or ship goods, every other player gets the chance to trade or ship goods (which influences game strategy a great deal)
– Bohnanza (the Bean Game): since you have to collect a minimum number of certain bean cards to score points, trading is both necessary and encouraged
– Money, the easiest currency-swapping system ever designed
– Amun Re: players develop areas of the board, then re-bid on them
– and there's an entire class of auction-based games, such as Ra and Modern Art.
For some reason — and it may be my circle of friends — I've seen more heated arguments about Settlers than any other similar game. My fiance simply refuses to play with me ever again.
Nah, you've got it all wrong. Do you think the guy that invented Monopoly was trying to teach economics? He was being innovative, gave the people some entertainment at a time of economic disillusionment and made a tidy living for himself. That's what it's all about. Looking out for No.1. It's the same with today's internet pornographers. They are just meeting a free market demand. They are not trying to convert people to nudism. Lighten up. Let's talk about real world problems and solutions.
You wrote:
"Many people believe that the world is a zero-sum game and that the wealthy take money from the rest of us. What is the appeal of this worldview? Does it provide some form of consolation?"
In my opinion, that's exactly what it does.
The worldview you mention gives people a handy excuse for not being successful; indeed, an excuse for not even trying to succeed.
It is so much easier to claim that the cards are stacked against you and that it would be foolish to beat your head up against the brick wall of "Those Greedy Capitalists" than to admit that you're just too lazy to get out there and go for it.
That's the essence Socialism – the government (somehow magically placed under the control of "The People") is supposed to protect us from those who would exploit us. And, of course, if you choose to work for a wealthy person, you are being "exploited."
Marx lived during a time when Industry was exploding and the "rules of the game" were in the process of being adjusted. He didn't see that, once the smoke cleared, The Invisible Hand will have made the proper adjustments. If things had continued in the state of flux he was witnessing during his lifetime, as he thought they must, then his solution might have been worthy of consideration. He simply didn't have Adam Smith's vision.
Re: back40's comment
Great picture. One tends only to hear the story of how Charles Darrow invented the game in 1934 only to be turned down by Parker Brothers (who eventually ended up producing the game). After a rather fun Google search, I found this:
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/pdf/202_monopoly.pdf
Actually, the Landlord Game and the story behind it makes an important point for this discussion as well. The original game makes a mockery of the "capitalism" of the railroad monopolies and puts rent as the root of all evil. Certainly that feeling was around before the Depression, but it seems to me that it's no coincidence that the mass marketing of the game took off in the post-Depression era. Confidence in the capitalist system was at its low point. It must have struck a responsive chord with people.
But in a grand irony, the game promotes a fantasy in which you can be the tycoon by exploiting this oppressive system. I wasn't around in the '30s so I don't know if the people who played Darrow's mass-marketed version back then got the irony. But I would like to think they did. I've long felt that Monopoly would have been an even more tension filled (and more realistic?) game back in the Depression when it first was marketed. Today, for reasons Russ mentions, it is less compelling. It's a game of rather simple strategy with a heavy dose of chance and not much else.
Arbitrary Polarities beat me to it. I had mentally answered the questions, What is the appeal of this worldview? Does it provide some form of consolation? and was all excited to chime in…
Yes, it is a consolation – an excuse. Some people are dirt poor. Some are not. Let's place blame/credit… and for many in this world, it seems mean to blame those who are dirt poor. Why kick them when they're down? Instead, they need help, we are taught.
Helping the poor isn't a bad thing, of course. But don't just give a man a fish. And don't teach him how to hate the fisherman – which is what zero-sum believers do.
It really is a depressing way to view the world, isn't it?
Personally, I prefer to change the rules of Monopoly, to essentially say: any contract between parties is legal. This turns it rapidly into a game more about negotiation than random accumulation. The negotiation of trades for monopoly rents gets really tricky then, and often involves considerable levels of collusion.
I once played that way with a heart surgeon, and got him to loan me his Jag for the weekend in exchange for letting him free ride on my properties for the next 3 trips around the board, so he could stay in the game. The other players were blown away.
Very well-stated! I personally know many that see the world as a zero sum game like Monopoly. Of course that doesn't explain why the standard of living in the world has risen for thousands of years world-wide.
It's obvious from the replies that some people need to go back and read the real rules of Monopoly. Any action involving "Free Parking" is explicitly prohibited. After the first person lands on a property they have the OPTION to purchase at the list price OR allow the property to go to auction. People hate it when they play with me or my friends for the first time. They land on say an ornage property but don't have or don't want to pay so I chime in "$5." and reach for the card. They stare at me like I was from another planet. After a refill of Chardonay and hunt for the rules and clarification they always end up paying MORE than the list price for that first property. They didn't know the real rules and suffered for it while we are annoyed by their trying to play a game they don't know and may not even like. Sound like the current housing market? Still think Monopoly is irellevant to greater society? We aren't done yet. Monopoly is not a zero sum game. The game starts with an empty board and runs for (game time) years after which the landscape is fully developed with all kinds of improvements visible.
I have no idea what game other people are trying to confuse with the real Monoploy.
So WHY do people see zero-sum results everywhere? What is it about the human experience that pushes people into thinking that every transfer is zero-sum?
It's all about Illinois.
In the version of Settlers of Catan that I play, we add to the basic rules of the game the simple meta-rule that all contracts are binding. This allows all manner of clever economic arrangements, including futures ("I'll give you a clay, a wheat, and a wheat future for two rock") and bribery ("I'll give you two sheep not to put the Robber on my sheep hex").
By the way, I particularly recommend Seafarers of Catan, an expansion set to Settlers. The board is much bigger, and doesn't often get cramped the way the Settlers board can.
It's also interesting to remember the origin of the term "capitalism". I think the author of the term fully meant to imply that it was a zero-sum game; and one that the typical working peron is going to lose. The author of the term is Karl Marx.
I'm glad you're enjoying the game, Russ!
There is but one element of conflict in Settlers: the robber. Anytime a 7 is rolled, or a player plays a Soldier card, the robber moves. The player moving the robber may (note: MAY) steal a resource at random from a victim player, and the tile the robber lives on will not produce resources.
My friends and I, after a couple of years of playing the game, came to identify the robber with socialism: he redistributes resources and negatively impacts productivity.
He also makes players angry at each other. We have found that the best strategy in the early game is to place the robber on an unoccupied tile, or a poor number such as 2 or 12, so as not to bring the ire of competitors while everyone is getting started.
We enjoy Settlers also, especially with the Cities and Knights expansion. It really changes the game with the commodities and developments so much that the standard game isn't much fun anymore.
After the first couple of games with my brother, I started calling the black marker the "Taxman" because he took from all those with resources and could be moved by gov coercion. We should petition Klaus to change the terminology.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com
I never lost in Monopoly.The last one who lost with me, told me that normal people lose in that game.The kee of sucess is simple, in those times that you are almost broken dont give up. (Almost people start to do bad deals )
* Please forgive my bad inglish
Well, isn't it interesting, that obviously Germans captured and enjoy the spirit of capitalism in board games, but hate it in real life. Just take a look at my home countries politics and intellectuals and you know what I am talking about.
It is all the more fascinating that such games can exist even in this vile anti-marketplace climate.
Are you kidding me?? Momopoly teaches kids poor virtues??? You people still never cease to amaze me. Protest this, petition that… Do the rest of us a favor and save your breath. I think you spend your time focusing all this energy on something truly worth while.
Jessica wrote, way back in Jan.:
"Do you think the guy that invented Monopoly was trying to teach economics? He was being innovative, gave the people some entertainment at a time of economic disillusionment and made a tidy living for himself."
Actually, the game was invented by followers of the economist Henry George, with the precise intention of teaching his economic principles. You can read about some of the early history of the game at History Detectives online, the transcript of a PBS TV series:
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/pdf/202_monopoly.pdf
More on George's economic ideas can be found here:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/05/eminent_domain.html#011205
and in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/George.html
This doesn't invalidate the rest of your point!
I still don't get what the difference from the monoply during the great depression and today was