Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
justthisbloke

How Would A Game Of Monopoly With Money-Printing Play Out?

Recommended Posts

Thankfully, my children have grown out of the age where they'd insist on playing interminable games of Monopoly[1]. But, I was idly wondering, how the games would have played out if money-printing were allowed; maybe one printer per player or maybe just the banker. Anyone run this thought experiment or actually done it for real?

[1] I think it was an attempt to drive me to buy a TV as the lesser of two evils. Three if you include Cluedo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's along time since I played the game but I guess if you allowed players to print their own money the game would collapse as no one would care about rolling the dice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anybody join a game that had been played for 30 years? ;)

New Player : "Can I play?"

Old Player : "Oooh yes!, Here's £200"

New Player : Roll the dice, tipedy tap.

Old Player : "Right that's £200,000 you owe me, and you can't roll again unless one of your children play."

New Player : "F**k off!"

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had good threads on this in the past.

It's an interesting game designed to prove RK's sig theme, that the problem with capitalism is that one player eventually ends up with everyone else's money. If you think that's bad, try the electronic version.

From 2010: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=147004

Slight correction: The problem with capitalism is that the banker eventually ends up with everyone else's money.

Edited by zugzwang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had good threads on this in the past.

It's an interesting game designed to prove RK's sig theme, that the problem with capitalism is that one player eventually ends up with everyone else's money. If you think that's bad, try the electronic version.

From 2010: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=147004

Yes, that's what I noticed. It was normally my Dad who won, simply by buying everything he landed on from the start of the game. The end result was normally decided within a couple of laps of the board.

Here's Jim Slater with a few insights into the game. Tells you everything you need to know about the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Money printing occurs every time you pass Go.

The only weird thing about the game versus real life is the inability for prices to be bid up and for the players to borrow.

EDIT: Although thinking about it, 'developing' your site to have more houses and then a hotel with more money in circulation may represent rising land prices and rents. And hence why people are driven out of the game. But as I say, you can't borrow.

Depends -

In the official rules, if you land on an unowned property and don't want to buy it, it has to go for auction to the highest bidder. Often seems to be forgotten.

You could borrow money from other players under any agreement you choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Money printing is allowed in Monopoly only to the extent that new money (cash) is required for transactions. i.e. if the bank runs out of cash, you can write up new notes on paper and use those (because the players have all the money in circulation). Note in Monopoly the players keep their cash under the mattress.

I can't think of any circumstance where money printing (to stimulate demand / to extend and pretend) would be required in the game. I guess if ALL the properties had mortgages and everyone had run out of cash, the Bank might want to inject some new funds into the game (because the Bank has all the cash) - but well before that someone would have won (or the game would have been abandoned due to general boredom).

I'm sure this question could be asked on a Monopoly forum for more insights. But I think I've nailed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends -

In the official rules, if you land on an unowned property and don't want to buy it, it has to go for auction to the highest bidder. Often seems to be forgotten.

You could borrow money from other players under any agreement you choose.

To add another twist, you could allow gazumping: if a player lands on an unowned property and decides to buy, anyone else could make a higher offer, which could then be beaten by any other player who chooses. I wonder how that would turn out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Money printing occurs every time you pass Go.

The only weird thing about the game versus real life is the inability for prices to be bid up and for the players to borrow.

EDIT: Although thinking about it, 'developing' your site to have more houses and then a hotel with more money in circulation may represent rising land prices and rents. And hence why people are driven out of the game. But as I say, you can't borrow.

Yes, price controls inhibit inflation, thus disproving the quantity theory of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with money printing the bank wouldn't run out of money. If you play a medium/long game of monopoly with a large number of players than bank runs out of money but there isn't a bank run because in the game the bank doesn't act like a bank. This is because there is a fixed money supply, prices don't really float that much, the bank hands money out on each run round. A more realistic model is too hard to achieve with a board based non electronic system.

Printing money (in the fixed game of monopoly) would mean the bank doesn't run out of bank notes. A better game would be a more realistic/electronic game that has the understanding of interest rates and risk, that game would work very similar to a capitalist economy

Edited by AteMoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what my daughter used to do when she was younger and was winning/had won the game.

She would be desperate to lend us money so the game could keep going. She didn't want it to end because she was enjoying winning so much.

You just described how the birth of banking occurred ;-p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the differences are

a) the rate at which money is introduced is limited to players passing go, unlike real life where the banks will create money limited only by their confidence to lend and peoples' desire for a bigger mortgage

B) new money is not associated with equivalent debt to the bank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She would be desperate to lend us money so the game could keep going. She didn't want it to end because she was enjoying winning so much.

Ben Bernanke followed more or less the same strategy with QE- except he gave the money to banks in hope they would lend it to keep the game going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules of Monopoly have changed. If you are Ed Miliband you take over from your father when he retires from the game with a wad of cash and head straight for the green and dark blue properties. Others will start with nothing and will never get enough together to even have an interest in the Old Kent Road. Others began the game years ago and have got good property when it started cheap despite earning diddly squat....even green and dark blue properties.

The game should suit the new Metropolitan elite ....the water works, electricity and railways are a pile of s**t, but the residential property offers great opportunites for BTL.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.