• Whelks_chance@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s really not a perfect metaphor for capitalism though. Just look at any high street in a less than prosperous town. Landlords may own the buildings, but if people can’t afford to run businesses or pay for services, they sit vacant or are sold off to other people who can run other businesses with different profit potential.

    Monopoly is too simplistic because the rents are fixed. If the owners of the properties were able to set the rents variably at whatever the demand could afford, and the game modelled mortgage rates and inflation, then this would be a suitable critique.

    • Square Singer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Of course it’s a big simplification. Even the concept that you have to pay rent on the square you land on. Not having the choice which building you want to rent makes variable rents completely useless.

      Because if you don’t have a choice and have to pay rent on the field you land on, why would the owner of that building do anything but maximize the rent?

      But it was never intended to be a perfect model of capitalism, but instead a simple tool to teach regular people why monopoles suck and using a property tax as the single tax is better.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord's_Game