The game of capitalism that I am referring
to, is not a computer game or a boardgame
— It is the real-life game that humans play
where some people win, but most people lose.
It’s a game not dissimilar to the boardgame
Monopoly, except that the real world typically
has more rules and makes it harder to win.
Proponents of capitalism will argue that if
the government just step out of the way and
let capitalism do its work, everything will
be hunky-dory. Capitalists argue that government
intervention hurts capitalism. And they’re
right, it does hurt capitalism. But is that
the goal? Is that what we want for a free
society? Unfettered capitalism?
I think it’s good to compare the real world
with the boardgame Monopoly. In Monopoly,
players race around the board trying to buy
up as many properties as possible. If a player
purchases a complete colour group, that is,
three (or sometimes two) properties of the
same colour, they can start building houses
and hotels on those properties in order to
increase their revenue. Players that land
on other people’s property must pay the
owner rent based on how many houses or hotels
are there. There’s a lot of luck involved
in the game, but also a little bit of strategy.
The goal is to be the last one left standing
by sending all of your opponents into bankruptcy.
In the game of Monopoly, you could argue that
there is some government intervention in the
form of tax, but it’s only a token amount
and you only have to pay if you’re unlucky
enough to land on the wrong squares (there’s
only two tax squares). So you could go the
entire game without paying any tax. Once a single
player gets past a certain “critical mass”
of property ownership, they pretty much dominate
the game and will eventually force everyone
else into bankruptcy.
I think the game Monopoly is a good analogy
for unfettered capitalism. If we got rid of
all government intervention, we would end
up with one or two giant companies owning
everything, and one or two people owning those
giant companies. Unrestricted capitalism would
hurt most people.
Some people might argue, that’s good. The
best and brightest will bubble to the top
and give us the best products and services.
But I would argue that just as with the game
Monopoly, a lot of luck comes into play. Those
at the top aren’t necessarily there because
they sell the best products, or offer the
best services. They’re there because they
were lucky enough to reach that critical mass
of ownership that allowed them to buy out
the competition.
Look at Facebook, for example. They were lucky
enough to come out on top of the social media
craze. Once they started getting enough income,
they were able to start buying up their competition
— ConnectU, FriendFeed, Friendster, Friend.ly,
Instagram, WhatsApp, the list goes on. You
can see the full list in the link I’ve posted
below.
So as these big companies become more and
more powerful, they can just keep buying up
any companies that pose a threat to them.
If I owned a little company that was a potential
threat to Facebook, and they offered me $1
million, I would probably take it, and I think
most people would. That’s the real-life
game of capitalism. The big fish eat the little
fish.
In the real world, we have an interventionist
system. That is, governments intervene in
the marketplace in order to correct the market
failures and promote the general welfare of
the people — well at least, that’s the
purported goal. We’ve realised that one
or two companies owning everything is not
good for society. But despite these interventions,
despite having a complicated tax code, and
millions of laws with millions of rules and
regulations, some companies are still able
to achieve near-monopoly status. Just as Facebook
keeps buying up companies, so do other huge
companies.
Proponents of capitalism and the free market
will fight tooth and nail against tax increases.
They will argue that tax only hurts business,
and consequently, hurts individuals. Ideally,
they want to get rid of tax all together.
But I think we all know where that would lead.
It would end up like a game of Monopoly where
one person owns it all. We need rules and
regulations to stop all the wealth going to
a single company or individual. We need tax,
or something like it, despite all our complaints
against it.
Some of you might argue that forced redistribution
(i.e. tax) is unnecessary. Many rich people
naturally become philanthropists. They donate
lots of their wealth to charity and help those
in need. Tax is coercive, whereas charity
is voluntary.
So let’s look at a real-life billionaire
and see what they are doing to help society.
Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft, is
the world’s second richest man with a net
worth of approximately $95.6 billion. He’s
made a deal with Warren Buffet, the world’s
third richest man, to donate at least half
of their wealth to charity. It’s called
the Giving Pledge, and currently there are
187 signatories. Most of the signatories are
billionaires. The pledge is not legally binding,
and it doesn’t dictate how and where the
money should be spent. It’s more of a friendly
agreement between rich people. Technically,
they could donate all their money to the Be
a Dear and Donate a Brassiere charity, or
the Zombie Squad, who’s goal is to prepare
and protect humanity against the upcoming
zombie apocalypse (as well as participating
in other charitable undertakings such as disaster
relief). You could just donate all your money
to your family, as long as your family are
involved in some sort of charitable enterprise.
Despite Bill Gates being retired for more
than a decade, and despite him pledging to
donate most of his wealth, he still manages
to be the world’s second richest man. He’s
the co-founder of the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation along with his wife Melinda, which
holds more than $50 billion in assets. It’s
primary goal is to enhance healthcare around
the world and to reduce extreme poverty. In
the US, the foundation’s goal is to increase
educational opportunities and access to information
technology.
The foundation trust invests undistributed
assets, with the exclusive goal of maximising
the return on investment. It has been criticised
for investing heavily in companies that have
been shown to worsen poverty. It has also
invested money in the GEO Group, which is
America’s second largest private prison
corporation. A large part of the prison's
work involves incarcerating and detaining
migrants that have been detained as part of
the Obama and Trump administrations.
Although Bill Gates is one of the world’s
biggest philanthropists, he certainly doesn’t
go without. His $127 million home in Medina,
Washington, took seven years to finish. It
has a trampoline room, a 60-foot swimming
pool, an underground garage, an enormous library
with secret bookcases, 24 bathrooms, and six
kitchens. I’m not sure why one family would
need 24 bathrooms, but who am I to judge?
He also owns a classic car collection, a private
jet (a Bombardier BD-700 Global Express that
can cost upwards of $40 million), and owns
lots of other real estate and ranches. He
has stated that he doesn’t like to spend
his money on frivolous things, but one must
wonder, who needs a trampoline room?
And that’s the major issue with leaving
it up to billionaires to be in charge of wealth
redistribution. Some billionaires could choose
to horde their wealth. Others might donate
to charities that don’t really benefit many
people. It’s all based on the whims of a
select few. Many Americans are living in poverty
and have little to no ability to escape it.
Are the American billionaires that made all
of their money in America helping those people?
Are they helping their fellow impoverished
Americans?
I don’t blame Bill Gates. He’s just playing
the game of capitalism the best way he knows
how. He’s found a way to feel good about
himself by donating some of his wealth to
his own charity, but also allowing himself
to remain one of the world’s richest men.
You see, once you have wealth, and lots of
it, you don’t really have to do much anymore
to maintain it. Your money works for you.
Just put all your money in an investment company.
In Bill Gates case, it’s a company called
Cascade Investment, which he is the founder
and chairman of. Every year, you’ll earn
billions of dollars and you can donate some
of that to charity — your own charity — but
a charity nonetheless. This makes people look
up to you, as well as making yourself feel
good in the process.
The current capitalist system is great for
a handful of billionaires. Imagine if we got
rid of taxation all together and left it up
to the billionaires to decide how they should
redistribute their money. It would be very
risky indeed. Can we rely on a handful of
rich people to help out the rest of society.
I think we all know the answer — No, we
can’t!
We need a democratically elected government
that is there to serve the people. That is,
a government of the people, by the people,
for the people. We need some form of taxation
in our current capitalist environment, so
that the rich don’t just horde all the wealth.
If we get rid of tax, the whole world will
just turn into a giant game of Monopoly — one
person will eventually win and get it all.
Yes, taxation has many problems — I’m
not saying it’s perfect. Taxation often
unfairly targets the poor, because wealthy
individuals and large corporations are able
to lobby the government to change the rules
to suit the wealthy. It’s not in the best
interest of Bill Gates to increase the tax
rate for rich Americans. That would hurt him
and his philanthropy.
And there lies the biggest issue. When wealthy
people are afforded so much power, they use
that power to keep themselves and their families
in power. They may offer token gestures of
philanthropy, donating $10 million here, or
$20 million there, but it doesn’t hurt them
financially in the slightest. If Bill Gates
was serious about donating his wealth, well,
it would all be gone by now, wouldn’t it?
But obviously, he’s not going to do that.
He likes his classic car collection. He likes
his private jet. He likes being the second
richest man in the world. (I assume he’s
trying to hatch a plan to become the world’s
richest man again. Of course, he’d have
to do it in a way where he isn’t seen to
be giving up on his philanthropy).
Bill Gates is business savvy. He knows how
to keep and maintain wealth in America. He
knows the rules of the game and knows what
he needs to do to keep winning.
I’m not trying to dis capitalism (well,
I guess I am a little bit), but it has had
its place. It has lifted so many people out
of poverty and allowed them to live a somewhat
decent life. But it needs rules. We can’t
just let a handful of people collect all the
wealth. That hurts society. We need ways to
redistribute that wealth, and currently, we
use the taxation system here in the West.
It’s not perfect by any means, but the average
person benefits from it. Of course we need
to keep evolving. We need to find better ways
to reduce wealth inequality. We can’t have
millions of people struggling to survive,
and then five people owning $100 million houses.
That’s not very fair. And that’s what
this is all about, isn’t it? Fairness.
I want to live in society where we look after
our fellowman. If one man is on the streets,
struggling to find food, well, we should give
him some food. If millions of people are struggling
to pay the rent, we should give them enough
money to pay the rent. It’s not fair that
some people own vast amounts of wealth — more
wealth that they’ll ever need in a thousand
lifetimes — but others are struggling to
survive.
This video is titled, The Game of Capitalism
(And How to Win!), so I better give an answer.
There are two options, depending on how you
define winning.
The first option is to follow in the footsteps
of people like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg,
create some software, get lucky promoting
it, buy out all the competition once you become
big enough, and then use your massive wealth
to stay rich by investing wisely. Then, and
only then, you have to found your own charity
and promise to donate most of your wealth
towards it over the course of your lifetime.
You should always refer to it as YOUR wealth,
even though most of if came from the pockets
of normal, hard-working individuals. You have
to buy lots of over-the-top real estate, and
then come up with reasons why you need it.
The Zuckerberg’s bought a $100 million plantation
and a white-sand beach on the island of Kaua`i.
They stated that they bought the land because
they’re “dedicated to preserving its natural
beauty”.
On the other hand, if you’re not able to
become a billionaire, the other option to
win this silly game is just to live your life
in the best way you know how. Live a moral
and ethical life. Help those in need. Be nice
to people. Spend time with your family and
friends. Fight the good fight. Fight for causes
that you believe in. Support politicians that
want to help the world, and don’t support
those who are just out to line their own pockets.
Be charitable in your everyday life, not just
when you become a millionaire, or a billionaire.
Charity doesn’t require money. Charity just
requires the time and the inclination.
So what are you thoughts? Are billionaires
helping the world? Or are they just greedy
moguls taking advantage of the current political
environment? Is the game of capitalism a fair
game? Is it winnable? Should it be winnable?
Is the boardgame Monopoly a good analogy of
uncontrolled capitalism? Is uncontrolled capitalism
bringing the world to ruin?
Let me know in the comment’s section below.
