Monopoly and the Landlord's game; some musings

When I was a teenager learning Economics for A level, I tried out a variant of Monopoly I'd devised myself based on what I'd been learning in class and textbooks. More recently I've been reading a book about the history of the game Monopoly. One of the interesting things I learnt was that it was devised originally (by a woman) as an educational tool to help players understand the way a land value tax would work in comparison with the monopolistic tendencies of unchecked capitalist land ownership, rents etc:

"The Landlord’s game had a second set of rules, based on a single tax, or anti-monopoly. The aim of these rules was to create wealth for all players; the game would be won when the player with the least money had earned double what they started the game with. The point of having two sets of rules was educational: to demonstrate the effects of land-grabbing, and contrast it with the fairer alternative."

My variant was devised unknowing of the origins of Monopoly, but it did help demonstrate some economic dynamics. My variant (and I thank my sisters for literally playing along) had a single change to the rules: the banker became the government, so to say, and was empowered to levy an income tax and to redistribute it to players in distress. The result was to demonstrate the power of redistribution.

Of course the game could go on for ever!

However, it also made obvious one thing that all players of the game must know: while there is some skill involved in making decisions sometimes about use of money or assets, most of the games are won by a piece of luck compounding. It illustrates how rent works independently of merit over time -you may deserve something for making a good decision, but really to keep on getting rent at some point it becomes increasingly undeserved and oppressive.

Reflecting on the game now I find it is helpful in thinking about monetary theory. It makes plain that money is a means for the game to continue -if it runs out, the banker ('government') can create more 'out of nothing' simply so that transactions in the economy of the game can continue. No new value is created -and there is certainly nothing to 'back' the currency except the continuing transactions of the game. In this way it begins to show the foolishness of austerity economics. Of course, if you restrict the money circulating in the game, it will shut the game down very quickly; to continue trading and transacting, you need to increase the money supply...

I reckon there's cause to come up with a new Landlord's game to help make some of this clear. BTW Waddington's ended up with the monopoly on Monopoly -a somewhat shady story if memory serves aright. They don't deserve the rental income they have made from this game; it's a kind of mirror image proof of the learning point of the original game, ironically.

'via Blog this' Funding UBI with a tax on land – Katy Preen – Medium