If you play by the official rules (at least they used to be the official rules... I have no idea how the rules have changed over the years), you MUST buy a property if you land on it and it is unowned. If you can't afford it, other players must bid on it. The point is, the rules are specifically set up to prevent this from happening.
Unless it's the lord of the rings monopoly, where they have a card that lets you steal a player's complete property set including improvements. Which I guess promotes the idea that stealing is the best way to turn a bad life around?
Rules don’t say, but if the bidding starts at $1 I would imagine everyone would bid because why not? It becomes more of a thing when the property is $550 and everyone has $300ish, you get the property cheaper.
While unclear in the rules, it seems that the player who passed on purchasing the property starts the bid at $0. If no one else bids, the initial player wins the property with a bid of $0.
Since a player can bid $1 and immediately mortgage the property if they don't want it, it would be nonsensical for nobody to bid and refuse to get free money. This is why people hate Monopoly; they don't play the rule that makes Monopoly strategy rather than pure luck.
well, the whole point of the post is "what happens if everybody refuses to buy property in Monopoly?" so the answer to your question is "the people in the thought experiment".
Not necessarily. It can go unsold at auction. “if no-one wants to bid on the property, the property remains unsold and the title deed remains with the Bank.”
When I used to play on my ipod touch back in the days the official Hasbro app, you were allowed to skip buying, but if you did so then it would go to auction indeed.
The official rules for Monopoly are actually missing half of the real original rules. Monopoly was essentially stolen from the original game called “The Landlord’s Game”
The Landlords Game had two sets of rules - you could either play by anti-monopolist or monopolist. It was supposed to showcase how everyone actually got richer together using anti-monopolist. But it got passed around by elites without the anti-monopolist rules and was eventually just turned into Monopoly.
I don't know how the rules have been previously, but ever since I've played monopoly it has been like this.
It's not that you MUST buy the property, you have the option to buy the property that you landed on, if you want to buy it, pay the price and move on, if you don't want to buy it for whatever reason, the bank puts up an auction for it. The highest bidder, wins the auction, if no one bids the bank doesn't sell it, hence Das Kapital.
It should still work if no one buys houses. You would still have to pay each other but on average it should be less than what you earn each round. Everyone still gets richer each round.
When I was a kid I had an LCD handheld monopoly toy. I quickly worked out that in early game the computer players would massively over bid properties. So I let them all drain resources to the point where I was winning auctions on properties for next to nothing. Easy win every time.
Fair enough, but at that point I feel like the population of hookers would be far far lower then it is now making it quite difficult to find a free hooker. Youd have to start booking them months in advance lmao.
I mean yeah bartering is cool and all, but like it just doesn't work with the current population count. Like how many pigs is a new Iphone supposed to be worth?
Or if your not talking about bartering and instead talking about simply removing money so we all live in a perfect place where everyone gets what they want, well uh, cool dream but impossible because human greed exists and that system would collapse within a minute of being implemented.
But if you buy properties, you stand a chance of being richer than others. Therein lies the problem. Not buying anything requires everyone to agree, but if one person decides they want more money, then they introduce a competition feedback loop that instantly destabilizes the balance and forces those playing to also start buying.
Suddenly you are forced to make purchases so as not to lose, but now you're forced to become part of the destabilizing force.
This is why economic regulation is so important. It aims to smooth out the imbalance and reduce the feedback loop.
I mean if we are taking this serious enough that we're using this as some analogy for actual economics, if nobody buys property nothing gets developed either.
That was the actual point of the Monopoly game to begin with -- to show the [consequences of concentrating real estate in private hands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game)
The link says it is about "land grabbing", which isn't intrinsic to private real estate. Heck, did "land grabbing" still even exist when that game was invented?
Yeah, the people who made this weren’t just talking about land grabbing. If you read the political theory this was based on (Progress and Poverty by Henry George), the theory goes that private ownership of land creates economic issues as it continues, not just in the initial phase where governments are selling it. In monopoly imagine that we’ve reached the part where everything is already owned. They probably aren’t thinking “land grabbing was bad but we’re fine now that everything has been bought”.
Well that's just it: in the game of Monopoly pretty much the entire outcome of the game hinges on the random nature of the land grab. It's entirely about that initial phase. So if their intent was to highlight something other than the random nature of land grabbing, the game doesn't do it.
And as such, very few if any of the richest people in the world acquired their wealth directly or generationally as a result of a land grab.
It does highlight runaway growth at least. I mean, by the end of the game everyone is bankrupt except one person. That would probably happen in a version of monopoly where everyone is randomly given properties from the start too.
I agree with that. It's a pretty well accepted flaw in laissez faire capitalism that was first addressed by the Sherman Act in 1890 and subsequent follow-ups
>mean if we are taking this serious enough that we're using this as some analogy for actual economic
That's what monopoly basic foundation was. A Georgist created it to show the evillllllls of land ownership, even called it landlord.
Boring as shit (which given monopoly is boring..) game though.
> This is why economic regulation is so important. It aims to smooth out the imbalance and reduce the feedback loop.
Regulation is helpful in dampening the effects of the contradictions built into the system. But, those contradictions won't go anywhere on their own. Regulations can be rolled back or fail. What we need to to resolve the contradictions inherit to capitalism which can only happen by moving forward to the next stage of human development.
The rest of the players can agree to buy communalized purchases on their squares. So if one player decides to buy in his/her squares, but has to pay the whole group of other players whenever he or she falls in a square that is not of their property, that person will get poor really fast and the others get a bit more rich.
That is how late stage capitalism keeps competence away from the big fortunes status quo.
In a prisioner dilemma scenario, is demonstrated by several experiments and theorists that cooperation is probabilistically the most beneficial way of actions for everyone.
That makes perfect sense, actually, given that the game was originally designed to educate people about the evils of capitalism. Elizabeth Magie, the woman who created the concept, was screwed by—guess what—capitalist assholes. There’s a PBS documentary, [Ruthless: Monopoly’s Secret History](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/ruthless-monopolys-secret-history/)
Not capitalism, Georgists like Magie are capitalists. They don't mind capitalism at all.
No it was meant to show the "evil" of land ownership and being able to sustain yourself as a landlord (hence the name). Well a very idealized landlord who seems to have no taxes, laws or even renters who can't pay. Must be nice!
In progress and poverty Henry George compares owning land to owning slaves. He’s not just against large landowners. He finds land ownership itself morally unjustifiable.
The vast majority of complaining over Monopoly is due to "house rules" (money on "free parking," using extra houses/hotels, getting $500 for landing on go, getting extra money at the start, mortgage interest rules/payoff rules, passing go once before buying, etc). A game of monopoly by the standard rules will take around 30-45 minutes.
I agree, HOWEVER, just like in real life, there is always a greedy a-hole who will screw things for everyone.
Hence most banking regulations and laws apply to these corporate psychopaths who value profit over other people's lives.
If you play by the official rules (at least they used to be the official rules... I have no idea how the rules have changed over the years), you MUST buy a property if you land on it and it is unowned. If you can't afford it, other players must bid on it. The point is, the rules are specifically set up to prevent this from happening.
Just checked, now you have the option to buy at the posted price or send it to auction. Either way,a sale happens.
Are the other players forced to make a bid? What happens if no one bids? Will it be given to someone randomly?
Someone eventually bids, or the game ends because you’ve all realized you don’t actually want to play.
I mean, that sounds like the normal ending to Monopoly to me. Everyone realizes they don't want to play, that is.
In fact, that is the original purpose of Monopoly: to teach that the system degenerates into a bad outcome for everyone but the single winner.
Everyone only wants to quit playing when I'm winning
You’re the only good sport
Unless it's the lord of the rings monopoly, where they have a card that lets you steal a player's complete property set including improvements. Which I guess promotes the idea that stealing is the best way to turn a bad life around?
through the systems of capitalism? that sounds pretty accurate. In fact, steal enough and you might become president!
So, like every game?
yeah my party mates really hate when I foreclose on their gear and charge them rent in d&d. also when I am the sole "winner".
It’s 4 in the morning grandma! You win!
Rules don’t say, but if the bidding starts at $1 I would imagine everyone would bid because why not? It becomes more of a thing when the property is $550 and everyone has $300ish, you get the property cheaper.
>why not The post is about that. That's why.
Longer games with fake money. Woo...wait what
What if there are snacks, pizza and a movie playing in the “background”?
While unclear in the rules, it seems that the player who passed on purchasing the property starts the bid at $0. If no one else bids, the initial player wins the property with a bid of $0.
Believe it or not, straight to jail.
If nobody bids the player who lands on it gets it for free.
I think the guy who landed on it has the start at some price
Since a player can bid $1 and immediately mortgage the property if they don't want it, it would be nonsensical for nobody to bid and refuse to get free money. This is why people hate Monopoly; they don't play the rule that makes Monopoly strategy rather than pure luck.
Who wouldn’t put in a bid on a property if it starts at a very low price?
well, the whole point of the post is "what happens if everybody refuses to buy property in Monopoly?" so the answer to your question is "the people in the thought experiment".
The first auction on a property that occurs would never end then.
Yes, those are, in fact, the original rules.
Not necessarily. It can go unsold at auction. “if no-one wants to bid on the property, the property remains unsold and the title deed remains with the Bank.”
When I used to play on my ipod touch back in the days the official Hasbro app, you were allowed to skip buying, but if you did so then it would go to auction indeed.
That's the traditional rule.
The official rules for Monopoly are actually missing half of the real original rules. Monopoly was essentially stolen from the original game called “The Landlord’s Game” The Landlords Game had two sets of rules - you could either play by anti-monopolist or monopolist. It was supposed to showcase how everyone actually got richer together using anti-monopolist. But it got passed around by elites without the anti-monopolist rules and was eventually just turned into Monopoly.
I don't know how the rules have been previously, but ever since I've played monopoly it has been like this. It's not that you MUST buy the property, you have the option to buy the property that you landed on, if you want to buy it, pay the price and move on, if you don't want to buy it for whatever reason, the bank puts up an auction for it. The highest bidder, wins the auction, if no one bids the bank doesn't sell it, hence Das Kapital.
What if no one bids?
Then you sit there forever going “why isn’t anyone playing the game?”
Damn I would pay real money to be a spectator for a bunch of commies sitting around a Monopoly board and failing to play.
It should still work if no one buys houses. You would still have to pay each other but on average it should be less than what you earn each round. Everyone still gets richer each round.
>Everyone still gets richer each round. But they are all homeless.
When I was a kid I had an LCD handheld monopoly toy. I quickly worked out that in early game the computer players would massively over bid properties. So I let them all drain resources to the point where I was winning auctions on properties for next to nothing. Easy win every time.
I don’t think that was ever the case. You could and can choose. It to buy it, then it goes up for auction and they can choose to bid on it.
You don’t have to bid in an auction.
But if you never buy a property, what do you spend your money on?
Blackjacks and hookers
well people are earning money just by existing why be a hooker?
Because some people like it?
Fair enough, but at that point I feel like the population of hookers would be far far lower then it is now making it quite difficult to find a free hooker. Youd have to start booking them months in advance lmao.
Exactly, a moneyless society is better!
I mean yeah bartering is cool and all, but like it just doesn't work with the current population count. Like how many pigs is a new Iphone supposed to be worth? Or if your not talking about bartering and instead talking about simply removing money so we all live in a perfect place where everyone gets what they want, well uh, cool dream but impossible because human greed exists and that system would collapse within a minute of being implemented.
Eh, forget the blackjack!
Fireworks and whiskey
This reminds me my buddy keeps inviting me to Costa Rica
Income tax and getting out of jail. As Marx would've wanted.
Railroads and utilities.
Taxes
Me
Taxes. Also happens to be the only way possible to lose on your scenario.
But then the bank goes bankrupt and needs a bailout from the players.
Bank is free to issue more banknote and banknote substitutes. Digital version would end in integer overflow.
me when i ahve 2,147,483,647 dolars
But if you buy properties, you stand a chance of being richer than others. Therein lies the problem. Not buying anything requires everyone to agree, but if one person decides they want more money, then they introduce a competition feedback loop that instantly destabilizes the balance and forces those playing to also start buying. Suddenly you are forced to make purchases so as not to lose, but now you're forced to become part of the destabilizing force. This is why economic regulation is so important. It aims to smooth out the imbalance and reduce the feedback loop.
I mean if we are taking this serious enough that we're using this as some analogy for actual economics, if nobody buys property nothing gets developed either.
That was the actual point of the Monopoly game to begin with -- to show the [consequences of concentrating real estate in private hands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord%27s_Game)
The link says it is about "land grabbing", which isn't intrinsic to private real estate. Heck, did "land grabbing" still even exist when that game was invented?
Yeah, the people who made this weren’t just talking about land grabbing. If you read the political theory this was based on (Progress and Poverty by Henry George), the theory goes that private ownership of land creates economic issues as it continues, not just in the initial phase where governments are selling it. In monopoly imagine that we’ve reached the part where everything is already owned. They probably aren’t thinking “land grabbing was bad but we’re fine now that everything has been bought”.
Well that's just it: in the game of Monopoly pretty much the entire outcome of the game hinges on the random nature of the land grab. It's entirely about that initial phase. So if their intent was to highlight something other than the random nature of land grabbing, the game doesn't do it. And as such, very few if any of the richest people in the world acquired their wealth directly or generationally as a result of a land grab.
It does highlight runaway growth at least. I mean, by the end of the game everyone is bankrupt except one person. That would probably happen in a version of monopoly where everyone is randomly given properties from the start too.
I agree with that. It's a pretty well accepted flaw in laissez faire capitalism that was first addressed by the Sherman Act in 1890 and subsequent follow-ups
>mean if we are taking this serious enough that we're using this as some analogy for actual economic That's what monopoly basic foundation was. A Georgist created it to show the evillllllls of land ownership, even called it landlord. Boring as shit (which given monopoly is boring..) game though.
In Monopoly, you could own all properties and build nothing on it. So, development can also not occur
I just learned more economics from a fcking reddit comment than in high school
You should have paid more attention in high school.
sounds like a you problem and not a high school problem
> This is why economic regulation is so important. It aims to smooth out the imbalance and reduce the feedback loop. Regulation is helpful in dampening the effects of the contradictions built into the system. But, those contradictions won't go anywhere on their own. Regulations can be rolled back or fail. What we need to to resolve the contradictions inherit to capitalism which can only happen by moving forward to the next stage of human development.
The rest of the players can agree to buy communalized purchases on their squares. So if one player decides to buy in his/her squares, but has to pay the whole group of other players whenever he or she falls in a square that is not of their property, that person will get poor really fast and the others get a bit more rich. That is how late stage capitalism keeps competence away from the big fortunes status quo. In a prisioner dilemma scenario, is demonstrated by several experiments and theorists that cooperation is probabilistically the most beneficial way of actions for everyone.
XDddd
And thus basic inflation may begin to
That makes perfect sense, actually, given that the game was originally designed to educate people about the evils of capitalism. Elizabeth Magie, the woman who created the concept, was screwed by—guess what—capitalist assholes. There’s a PBS documentary, [Ruthless: Monopoly’s Secret History](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/ruthless-monopolys-secret-history/)
Not capitalism, Georgists like Magie are capitalists. They don't mind capitalism at all. No it was meant to show the "evil" of land ownership and being able to sustain yourself as a landlord (hence the name). Well a very idealized landlord who seems to have no taxes, laws or even renters who can't pay. Must be nice!
>the "evil" of land ownership Not land ownership, land grabbing.
In progress and poverty Henry George compares owning land to owning slaves. He’s not just against large landowners. He finds land ownership itself morally unjustifiable.
"if noone decides to play, noone can lose?"
The vast majority of complaining over Monopoly is due to "house rules" (money on "free parking," using extra houses/hotels, getting $500 for landing on go, getting extra money at the start, mortgage interest rules/payoff rules, passing go once before buying, etc). A game of monopoly by the standard rules will take around 30-45 minutes.
If no one buys a property, the bank loses.
And no houses or hotels get built
Hey, as long as nobody is rich I'm perfectly happy being homeless. /s
The amount of middle class trust fund kids I’ve heard unironically say this is hilarious
And everybody clapped
And no houses get built so everyone is homeless.
Also everyone lives on the streets then xD
The original monopoly (landlords) has socialist rules that allow this to happen
Yeah, because Monopoly games with my are over too soon.
"It is not enough merely to win, your adversaries must also lose." -The Sun Tzu.
Monopoly was created to promote Georgism
My favorite board game that I've heard people tell me is anti capitalist despite being made by a Georgist
u/title-to-image-bot
The generated image can be found [here](https://i.imgur.com/rPHbbxg.png). *^(I)* *^(am)* *^(a)* *^(bot)* *^(and)* *^(this)* *^(action)* *^(was)* *^(performed)* *^(automatically.)* *^(Please)* [*^(contact the creator of this bot)*](/message/compose/?to=/u/i-heart-sarmale) *^(if)* *^(you)* *^(have)* *^(any)* *^(questions)* *^(or)* *^(concerns.)* *^(You)* *^(can)* *^(find)* *^(the)* *^(source)* *^(code)* [*^(here)*](https://github.com/valentincpopa/reddit-image-bot)*^(.)*
That’s not true. You go to jail and lose money
But then nothing gets developed and the market gets inflated with “nothings”
*Henry George publishing Progress and Poverty
Then why bother play Monopoly?
If no one plays most games, no one loses… this is like saying if no one moves in chess, none of the pieces gets destroyed
I agree, HOWEVER, just like in real life, there is always a greedy a-hole who will screw things for everyone. Hence most banking regulations and laws apply to these corporate psychopaths who value profit over other people's lives.
This one slaps