You must log in or register to comment.
gonna teach them by playing monopoly properly
You can teach them properly about capitalism by making them follow the rules to the letter and following slightly relaxed rules for yourself, such as starting with extra cash and the ability to take out interest-free loans on you properties while still collecting rent, and reducing the costs for you to buy houses and hotels because you can leverage market forces in you favor.
New chance cards only you could get would include:
You busted a union, collect $100
Shorted stocks and left everyone else holding the bag, collect $25 from each player
Caught Insider trading, pay $1 or go to jail until your next turn
The original game that Monopoly is based on (The Landlord’s Game) was a tool for teaching how bad landlords and owning land privately and permanently is. Monopoly is still a great tool to show how an early advantage leads to an ever-growing monopoly that will inevitably crush all the other players with no modifications necessary.
Exactly this. If you want to rig the game, just give one player a bunch more money than anyone else and watch how the natural game unfolds.
If you want to simulate Capitalism with the Monopoly game, you need to start with:
- All the land is already owned and randomly developed.
- Not everybody starts with the same conditions: you have 3 classes of player, “high” getting a large amount of money and a share of the land already occupied, the “medium” getting a small amount of money and no land, the “low” starting with no money and no land. You can randomize who gets which class.
That only one of those who starts as a “high” class player has any chance to win and the game is no fun for the rest is part of the lesson.
It’s the only way to play if you don’t want the game to last for three days.
It’s not the only way to play. The original version – “The Landlord’s Game” – had an entire second “Prosperity” ruleset that Parker Brothers didn’t want you to know about.
That wold be cruel.
For every 10 full size snickers you collect, I give you one loose m&m.
I also put a couple of your siblings up for adoption right before Halloween to let you know you’re expendable.
If it bothers you, you can always go talk to your mom, who empathises, so that you feel good enough to get back to collecting
myour candy. But she will immediately come tell me everything you said.You ungrateful worm… After all I’ve done for you?
Did you mean to say that the mom is empathetic? Because emphasising has a different meaning.
Spell check, thanks
That’s why I have it off. Rather just fix the mistakes myself. I like having just the suggestions on.
You forgot to take away 1/3 of the loose M&M after giving it to them.
Additionally, if your bucket handle breaks, you need third party software and hardware to create a matching digital signature to replace the handle.
If your bucket does not have an internet connection, it has no bottom. It is merely a tube.
Aka a donut…
Why does this frighten me to the core. A donut is a tube, it makes sense but I hate this knowledge
Depends on how you see it, a hole or a tube. I prefer a hole.
A common joke is that a topologist can’t see the difference between a donut and a coffee mug because you can mould a mug into a donut (assuming it has a handle).
“Sorry son, little Johnny across the street is willing to go trick or treating for only two pieces of candy per hour, so I’m taking him instead.”
Based. Also teach em to share the buckets so they can distribute the candy democratically.
This is like the level of the boomer meme about teaching kids about taxes.
I think it’s meant to be a parody on the boomer anti-socialism meme
The cycle remains unbroken.
you only get to trick or treat on the property you own
libertarian Halloween is shit!
And the candy is all homemade from raw ingredients made in unregulated factories…
Ah, so the kids take the good candy home from work and package the rest for sale. Bastards.
mom always got her ‘cut’…
as payment for driving us across town to the ‘good’ neighborhoods.
Will you pay them to collect the candy too?
Sure. Out of the 50 pieces gathered by 5 children, each will recieve 1. The owner of the bucket needs to be compensated for their risk, after all!
You collected 36 pieces of candy.
Coincidentally due to forces beyond my control your rent this month is 35 pieces of candy. You understand I’ve got bills to pay too, right?of course. They will recieve 30% of the candy the collect as payment
What a generous rate! And a great way to ease them into the shock that the real rate is much, much worse
Well, lets see, I make my company about 3 orders of magnitude more money than they pay me every year, so I suppose if my kids gather 1000 pieces of candy, I’ll give one back to them as payment.
That’ll be 50 snickers bars please
And in a communist society, the candy belongs to everyone in the neighborhood, so they have to go around passing it out until it’s equally distributed…
Communism isn’t about equal distribution. Communism is about addressing everyone’s needs from everyone’s collective abilities.
And who gets to decide that?
The collective. Democratic processes and councils.
Lol so people who you elected, just like the system we have now.
Not at all, Capitalism would be abolished.
So you’re back to a committee telling people what they need to do and how much they get, just without the freedom to change jobs…got it.
ah yes, the classic room temperature IQ dunk
Yes because your comment has totally provided a ton of rebuttal.
No, the buckets would be communally owned, and those who were luckier - perhaps they got to the good houses earlier - would be made to give some of their surplus to Jimmy, who fell ill just that morning and couldn’t go trick-or-treating to not infect others. They’d still have enough, but Jimmy wouldn’t be left out just because he was unlucky.
So how does that work for real life? You going to cut off a bedroom and give it to jimmy? Or give him one of your cars?
I don’t even have a car, because I can’t afford one, nor do I have a spare bedroom because I live in a small apartment, paying a chunk of my monthly earnings to a person whose only contribution is having a piece of paper that says they’re allowed to charge for the fundament necessity of having a place to live.
My neighbour has a big house, three cars in their driveway and most of the time, at least two of them are standing around unused. He probably could afford to share. That’s the meaning of “everyone, according to their needs” - that guy most likely doesn’t need as much as he has, so it won’t hurt him to give some away to people that do need it.
But the issue isn’t him having something nice. He can have his house for all I care. I want him to have a nice house. I want Jimmy to have a nice house, and you too! I want all of us to have nice things, because a bit of luxury isn’t the problem, and covering a symptom won’t cure the disease. And the disease is the belief that property rights matter more than human welfare.
You wouldn’t achieve anything by taking a little from those that have a little more than the rest. You’d have to take away the systems that constrain us.
There’s an empty flat? Great, let’s give it to Jimmy! What do you mean, if he can afford the rent? Man needs a place to live, for fuck’s sake. Jimmy needs medical care? Get him to a doctor. The community carries the cost, because we all would want the same if we needed care.
How do we reach that? That’s a tough one. Eventually, a concerted effort to uproot that system will have to take place. I’m not positive that’ll succeed on ballots alone and as has become increasingly evident, peaceful protests tend to meet violence all the same.
But whether through coordinated civil action like protests and disobedience or through outright revolution, awareness is the first step. Informing people of the injustice done to us all, that it doesn’t have to be this way, and that together, we’re strong enough to change it.
The only people that don’t profit from it are the ruthlessly selfish ones that think “I’d rather have a second car than let someone else have one” is a reasonable sentiment.
Because yes, if I had a car I didn’t need, and Jimmy needed it, I’d let him use it. What good would it do standing around?
Kids will start using their pillow case
My pillow case.
Child: “But daddy, this pillowcase smells like chemicals and has holes in it?”
Dad: “Halloween is cancelled, you’re a freedom hating lib-cuck that hates freedom.”
If they learn anything, it’s to shove some rocks in the pillow case and beat their dad with it until they get to keep all the candy they collect.
“Nobody wants to work on collecting candy anymore!”
deleted by creator
The same object lesson could apply to technofascism, data-silos, police seizures, …
Under capitalism, a properly regulated, and competitive free market is not zero sum.
Such a thing is impossible. The current system is working exactly as intended
Such a thing is impossible.
What is your argument to support this statement?
The current system is working exactly as intended
If the current system is intended to be capitalist, then it is not working as intended, as was described above.
What is your argument to support this statement?
You got it wrong. What’s your empirical evidence to support your statement?
If the current system is intended to be capitalist, then it is not working as intended, as was described above.
Not at all. This is capitalism. Actually existing capitalism. I’m de-facto correct.
What is your argument to support this statement?
You got it wrong. What’s your empirical evidence to support your statement?
I don’t really understand this. You claimed that it is impossible. Saying something is impossible is different than saying that it hasn’t happened. To claim that something is impossible is a final statement where certain rules can never be satisfied. As such, you certainly can provide an argument for your claim. That being said, my counterargument would be a simple example: Person 1 wants an apple, and Person 2 wants money. Person 1 and Person 2 agree that 1$ is a fair price for an apple. Person 2 gives the apple to Person 1 in exchange for Person 1 giving 1$ to Person 2. Person 1 is happy because they have an apple, which they wanted, and Person 2 is happier because they received money, which they wanted. The net satisfaction is greater than zero — both sides received something that they wanted.
If the current system is intended to be capitalist, then it is not working as intended, as was described above.
Not at all. This is capitalism.
I can use one simple example to counter that: If one can find an example of a monopoly then the market in which that monopoly exists is not capitalist — one example to prove that point is private utilities.
That not how science works. You don’t get to posit a theory without falsification and declare it as true until someone else comes up with a falsification for it and tests it.
You have no evidence you just have wild theories based on “perfectly spherical cows in a vacuum” .
And monopolies don’t prove the non existence of Capitalism. They’re it’s natural end result.
That not how science works. You don’t get to posit a theory without falsification and declare it as true until someone else comes up with a falsification for it and tests it.
You have no evidence you just have wild theories based on “perfectly spherical cows in a vacuum” .
Did you not read my previous message? Or did you, perhaps, misinterpret it? My original thesis was “under capitalism, a properly regulated, and competitive free market is not zero sum.”, which you claimed was impossible. I then provided a simple example for why it was not impossible. You seem to perhaps take issue with the example’s idealistic nature, but the original thesis was idealistic, so I’m not sure why there would be an issue with that. This is purely a conceptual discussion — my statement wasn’t making a claim about how effective regulation is at ensuring adequate competition. So I’m not really sure where the issue lies.
And monopolies don’t prove the non existence of Capitalism. They’re it’s natural end result.
Monopolies appear to be the natural end result of a true free market — that is, a market with no regulation. Capitalism simply describes a competitive market. To that end, note that a monopolistic market — ie an anticompetitive market — is, by definition, not capitalist. In practice, to ensure fair competition, a central governing body is required.
BRB gonna buy the bucket off of your kids and give them money so they can go buy their own candy.
Like a true capitalist would.
