Hacker News Reader

Comment by Retric | Hacker News Reader

Depends, if you distribute resources aka stock land etc then you are going to end up with a different set of rich people. If you just redistribute money then it's like handing out money in monopoly after every property is bought, it might make the game take longer but the end game is not going to change.

View on HN

Yes, because just as in the game monopoly when you have land ownership from which you can derive rent you inexorably end up in this situation. All value added flows to the landlords.

This was the original point of the game, originally named "The landlords game" and later renamed "Monopoly".

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/11/secret-h...

I wonder how Monopoly would play if you got assessed for Income Tax when you passed Go, or perhaps every fifth turn, instead of when you landed on a particular square.

> I wonder how Monopoly would play if you got assessed for Income Tax when you passed Go, or perhaps every fifth turn, instead of when you landed on a particular square.

The alternative game to ur-Monopoly, that is "Prosperity", had all rents split up when a player landed on a square. The property owner got a rent payment that reflected the value of the houses/hotels, whereas the rent on the land itself was paid to a common fund.[1]

[1] http://landlordsgame.info/games/lgp-1932/lgp-1932_rules.html

I also wonder how it would go, if it were cashless. Our problem is always that we run out of cash, at some point.

This already exists http://www.debtproofliving.com/Portals/0/Blog/images/2007/09...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com