The New Monopoly

Lately, I have been thinking of a new way to play the game of Monopoly. You know, the classic board game, by Milton Bradley.

I figure that there just has to be a way of making it much more realistic–more true to life. You know, so the game becomes an educational treat for the kids to enjoy.

The game also needs to be made more equitable. It is not fair that some players get to be rich while others go bankrupt.

At the outset, I think at least two sets of players ought to be established: the businessmen and the government officials. This can easily be accomplished by a simple roll of the dice.

This new game could be a combination of both “Risk” and “Monopoly.” Indeed, it could be a lively cross between the two games. We might even call the new game “Protectionism” or “Big Government” instead of “Monopoly.”

Obviously, the objective of the businessman would be to try and be as rich as possible. In order to do this, he has to successfully fend off the greedy government officials while prudently managing his businesses (properties).

The government officials, in turn, must amass as much loot as possible, without putting the businessmen out of business. The goose that lays the golden eggs must be ruthlessly extorted yet carefully preserved.

Obviously, then, the game should have two winners in the end: the most successful businessman and the most skillfully rapacious government man.

Here’s how it might work. After each player picks his symbol or marker, they then roll the dice and go around the board, just as in the regular game of Monopoly. In this case, each businessman has the option of purchasing any property he lands on, be it Park Place, Board Walk, or Baltic Avenue. (The properties need not be real estate. If the board were designed more like Risk, we could be dealing with countries instead.)

The twist is that every government player also gets to claim the country or property he lands on–except that, in this case, unlike the businessman, the government player gets to claim the property without ever having to pay for it. He gets Board Walk or Brazil automatically–no questions asked.

Now if the government player secures a piece of property, he or she then has the right to tax the private owner of the property–in other words, the businessman player who purchased it, or any private player who lands on it. So that, for example, if private player Pellegrino buys Park Place, government player Jones can hit him with the property tax rate of his choice–be it 20%, 45%, 75%, or whatever suits his whim.

Now if private player Pellegrino decides to sell Park Place to private player Smith, government player Jones still retains the right to tax Smith, which means that government player Jones’ tax rate would have to figure into Smith’s purchase price or Pellegrino’s selling price, just as it would in the real market.

The government players, however, would not have the right to trade tax zones for any reason. They are stuck with the free tax zones they landed on.

On the other hand, the government players would certainly have the right to tax any private capitalist players entering their tax zones (borders). Furthermore, the government players would also retain the right to penalize competing government players for “unfairly” overtaxing their private players in their respective tax zones by retaliating with similar taxes or regulations of their own.

How about it? Shall we play “Big Government Protectionism”? Naturally, each private player would be free to bribe the government players for policy changes.

It would be a corrupt yet fascinating game–as in real life.