Aboriginal heritage site damaged at BHP Pilbara iron ore mine

https://www.smh.com.au/national/western-australia/aboriginal-heritage-site-damaged-at-bhp-pilbara-iron-ore-mine-20210222-p574uf.html

By Tess Ingram and Marta Pascual Juanola

February 23, 2021 — 4.19pm Larger text size

A registered Aboriginal heritage site has been damaged at one of BHP’s Pilbara iron ore mines, despite the major miner pledging in June to consult with traditional owners before disturbing sites in the area.

In late January, a culturally significant rock shelter was impacted at BHP’s Mining Area C project in the Pilbara, causing a rockfall at the site. It is understood neither BHP or the Banjima people are clear on what caused the damage.

The blast happened at the company’s South Flank iron ore mine.
The blast happened at the company’s South Flank iron ore mine.CREDIT:AP

Mining Area C is adjacent to BHP’s $US3.06 billion ($4 billion) South Flank project, which is under construction and will be the largest iron ore mining and processing facility ever built in Western Australia. It is located on Banjima’s traditional lands in Western Australia’s Pilbara region, 130 kilometres north-west of Newman.

The news comes almost a year after fellow Pilbara miner Rio Tinto drew international condemnation when it destroyed 46,000-year-old Aboriginal rock shelters while blasting at Juukan Gorge in the same region.

T

he destruction of Juukan went against the wishes of the traditional owners, the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people, shocked investors, forced the resignations of former chief executive Jean-Sebastian Jacques and two of his deputies, and sparked a federal parliamentary inquiry.

On May 29 2020, just five days after Rio’s blast at Juukan, WA Treasurer and Aboriginal Affairs Minister Ben Wyatt gave BHP approval to proceed with work at South Flank that would result in the destruction of 40 Banjima heritage sites. That approval was provided under the controversial section 18 of WA’s Aboriginal Heritage Act, which the WA government is in the process of reforming.

In a statement in June, BHP said it would “not disturb the sites identified without further extensive consultation with the Banjima people. That consultation will be based on our commitment to understanding the cultural significance of the region and on the deep respect we have for the Banjima people and their heritage.”

It is understood that commitment extends to all sites identified within Section 18 approvals, however, while the rock shelter was approved under a Section 18 application, BHP did not deliberately proceed with work that could affect the site.

BHP President Minerals Australia, Edgar Basto, said the rock fall at the site was identified as part of monitoring on January 29.

“This site is not part of current mining operations. The cause of the rock fall is not known,” Mr Basto said in a statement.

“The heritage site was first recorded in 2005 with the Traditional Owners of the land, the Banjima. The site does not contain rock art or archaeological deposits, and could not be dated. Section 18 approval was subsequently obtained following consultation with the Banjima and with their support.

“We notified the Banjima Traditional Owners of the rock fall, and I and Western Australia Iron Ore President Brandon Craig subsequently met with Banjima Elders as part of the Banjima Heritage Advisory Council, and agreed to a joint investigation with the Banjima to determine the cause of the rock fall. We are committed to learning from the outcomes of the joint investigation.

“The relationships we hold with the traditional custodians of the land on which we operate are critically important to BHP. Over many years, we have built a strong relationship with the Banjima people based on deep respect for their heritage and their connection to country. This includes the establishment of the Banjima Heritage Advisory Council last year. We will continue to work with the Banjima in a spirit of respect and cooperation.”

A spokesman for the Banjima Native Title Aboriginal Corporation confirmed an investigation had been launched into the incident.

RELATED ARTICLE

The site at Juukan Gorge that was reduced to rubble to extend one of Rio Tinto's iron ore mines.
Indigenous

Juukan Gorge destruction shines light on Aboriginal group ‘gags’

“In late January 2021, BHP submitted a report to Banjima Native Title Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (BNTAC) outlining rockfall impact to a registered Banjima site, located within BHP’s Mining Area C,” the BNTAC spokesperson said.

“Following the initial report, Banjima’s newly established South Flank Heritage Advisory Council — together with BNTAC and BHP — launched an investigation into the cause of the rockfall.

Banjima’s South Flank Heritage committee met with BHP executives on 11 February to clarify the initial report’s details and progress of the investigation.”

The Banjima People told the Juukan inquiry they “have a long and sometimes difficult relationship with mining companies” and the “cumulative destruction of our country is something which sits uneasily with our people”.

“We are resolute in our position that the events at Juukan Gorge, the subject of this inquiry,
and the destruction of Aboriginal heritage generally — without due regard to the cultural
custodians of that heritage — must not be repeated, nor should it continue,” Senior Banjima elder and BNTAC chairman Maitland Parker told the inquiry.

RELATED ARTICLE

The yellow box tree, widely referred to as the directions tree or fiddleback, has been cut down.
Explainer
Indigenous culture

What do these sacred trees tell us about Aboriginal heritage in Australia?

In the wake of the Juukan disaster, BHP and BNTAC established the Heritage Advisory Council in September to provide input into mine planning at South Flank.

The council comprises of Banjima elders and senior BHP representatives.

Mr Basto said in September the council would “ensure on-going high level dialogue between us on important cultural heritage and other matters”.

WHY POLITICIANS AND DOCTORS KEEP IGNORING THE MEDICAL RESEARCH ON VITAMIN D AND COVID

18 February 2021 — Jonathan Cook

By Jonathan Cook

It is probably not a good idea to write while in the grip of anger. But I am struggling to suppress my emotions about a wasted year, during which politicians and many doctors have ignored a growing body of evidence suggesting that Vitamin D can play a critically important role in the prevention and treatment of Covid-19.

“. . ..For many years, limited studies – ones that Big Pharma showed no interest in expanding – had indicated that Vitamin D was useful both in warding off respiratory infections and in treating a wide variety of chronic auto-immune diseases such as diabetes and multiple sclerosis by damping down inflammatory responses of the kind that often overwhelm hospitalised Covid patients.

But many doctors and politicians were stuck in an old paradigm – one rooted in the 1950s that viewed Vitamin D exclusively in terms of bone health.

The role of Vitamin D – produced in the skin by sunlight – should have been at the forefront of medical research for Covid anyway, given that the prevalence of the disease, as with other respiratory infections, appears to slump through the sunny, summer months, and spikes in the winter.

And while the media preferred to focus exclusively on poverty and racism as “correlative” explanations for the disproportionate number of deaths among BAME doctors and members of the public, Vitamin D seemed an equally, if not more plausible, candidate. Dark skins in cloud-covered northern latitudes make production of Vitamin D harder and deficiency more likely.

MAGIC BULLET PREFERRED

We should not be surprised that Big Pharma had no interest in promoting a vitamin freely available through much of the year and one they cannot license. They would, of course, rather patent an expensive magic bullet that offers the hope of enriching company directors and shareholders.

But that is why we have governments, isn’t it? They could have stepped in to pick up the bill for the research after profit-motivated firms had refused to do so – if not to safeguard the health of their populations, at least to keep their health budgets under control. Most developed countries, even those with lots of sunshine, have large sections of their population that are Vitamin D deficient, especially among the elderly and housebound, the very groups most affected by Covid.

But governments shirked their responsibility too. Most have not offered supplements beyond measly and largely useless 400IU tablets to the elderly, and they have failed to fortify foods. Those taking small doses are unlikely to significantly and quickly address any deficiency they have or maximise their resistance to Covid.

To give a sense of what was potentially at stake, consider the findings of one of last year’s correlative studies, done by a team in Heidelberg. Their work implied that, had the UK ensured its population was not widely Vitamin D deficient, many tens of thousands of lives might have been saved. . . .”

What Will Happen to Your Body If You Walk Every Day

“Walking is a totally free, easy exercise that requires little effort, and benefits not only your physical but also your mental well-being. If you’re looking for a simple yet very effective way of losing weight and improving your overall health, walking is something just for you. People who are physically active throughout their life are much less prone to this disease than those who have a more sedentary lifestyle. And that’s because they have more volume in their hippocampus, the part of the brain responsible for verbal memory and learning. A daily half-hour walk helps avoid serious problems, like coronary heart disease to name one, by lowering high blood pressure and cholesterol levels and improving blood circulation. Because of better-quality and deeper breathing, some symptoms associated with lung disease can show significant improvement thanks to walking. Muscle tone and weight loss is also totally achievable through simple walking. Find your optimal pace, but don’t break out into a jog. This sort of speed walking is low impact and doesn’t require any recovery time, which means no sore muscles to keep you from getting out and walking the next day. The Arthritis Foundation recommends at least 30 minutes of moderate walking a day to reduce pain, stiffness, and inflammation in the joints. Building strong bones will help you prevent osteoporosis and reduce bone loss. Walking contributes to better blood circulation within the spinal structures, pumping important nutrients into the soft tissues and improving posture and flexibility, both of which are vital for a healthy spine. A group of researchers at Iowa State University worked with hundreds of college students. Walking changed their mood for the better, even though no one warned them it could do so. If you still don’t feel motivated enough to start walking for your health, try joining a class or find a buddy who also wouldn’t mind getting all the benefits of walking. Another idea could be to hire a personal trainer. Music: https://www.youtube.com/audiolibrary/…​ TIMESTAMPS Brain-boosting effect 0:45​ Improved eyesight 1:44​ Prevention of heart disease 2:47​ Increased lung volume 3:14​ Benefits for the pancreas 3:51​ Improved digestion 4:23​ Toned muscles 4:59​ Sturdier bones and joints 5:45​ Back pain relief 6:10​ A calmer mind 7:04​ Bonus: the FIT formula 8:00​ SUMMARY -Walking prevents the early onset of dementia, reduces the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and improves your overall mental well-being by reducing stress and releasing endorphins. -Get on the road to improve vision and protect your eyes now from potential problems, such as glaucoma, in the future. -Walking is no less effective than running when it comes to the prevention of heart disease and stroke. -Walking is an aerobic exercise, which means that it increases oxygen flow in the bloodstream and helps eliminate toxins and waste, which is great for your lungs. -Walking for exercise is a surprisingly more effective way to prevent diabetes than running is. -Just half an hour of walking every day not only lowers the risk of developing colon cancer but also improves digestion and regulates bowel movements. -Just 10,000 steps a day can be just as effective as a full-blown workout at the gym, especially if you add some intervals or uphill walking. -Walking can provide more joint mobility, prevent the loss of bone density, and even reduce the risk of fractures. -Walking is a real life-saver for those who experience back pain during more challenging high-impact exercises. -Walking improves depression symptoms in patients with MDD, just imagine how easily it could help us cope with just feeling down or exhausted. -Keep in mind the FIT formula. It stands for Frequency (how often), Intensity (how fast), and Time (for how long).”

Subscribe to Bright Side : https://goo.gl/rQTJZz

Title: Gurrupudu the Diver Bird

Artist: Bob Bilinyara

 

Title: Gurrupudu the Diver Bird

Artist: Bob Bilinyara

Date: 20th Century

Materials: Mineral pigments on eucalyptus bark

Dimensions: 26 cm width x 59 cm length x 28 cm width x 64 cm length

Location: Madison Art Collection

Accession Number 83.4.2

Visual Analysis

Artist Bob Bilinyara’s (1915-1959) eucalyptus bark painting Gurrupurru the Diver Bird (c.1930-1956), depicts a diver bird and six catfish in the Ramingining-Glyde River region at the permanent waterholes of the Gatji lagoon in Central Arnhem Land (1). The diver duck is both the central figure and the largest, it dominates the composition and the six smaller catfish that surround it. The background of the work is filled with a red ochre, or mineral pigment, that has faded over the years, while white lines filled in with black ocher create a border around the centralized subject matter. This bark painting is believed to depict the story of the ancestral diver bird. The ancestral diver bird is related to the creation of the Yathalamarra and Gatji waterholes around Arnhem Land . . . .

Please, go to the website. There is a lot more interesting information!

SEASON’S GREETINGS

by http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/

Another year is behind us. It’s been the most torrid since the end of WWII. I don’t need to elaborate.

Another year is behind us. It’s been the most torrid since the end of WWII. I don’t need to elaborate

http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/posts.aspx?authorid=Ad%20astra

“Premier Dan Andrews, by insisting on rigorous prophylactic measures, has all but eliminated the virus in his State. He has done this while being attacked every day by journalists, the malignant Murdoch press and its hangers-on, and of course opportunistic politicians operating in shameful adversarial mode. His most persistent critic, Opposition Leader Michael O’Brien, is now under scrutiny himself – from his own party, dismayed at his ineffectiveness.”

5 tips for staying healthy this festive season

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-24/christmas-day-covid-safe-tips-for-festive-season/13006496

Have yourself a merry COVID-safe Christmas: 5 tips for staying healthy this festive season

The Conversation / 

By Philip Russo and Brett Mitchell

A dining table decorated with Christmas baubles, a tree and holiday-themed napkins.

A dining table decorated with Christmas baubles, a tree and holiday-themed napkins.(Pixabay)

. . . . .

5 tips to reduce the risk

  1. 1.If there’s one thing we’ve learnt this year, it’s that it’s not heroic to soldier on if you’re sick. If you are feeling unwell, stay at home. This applies to you and your guests. If you are hosting and you’re unwell, look for another venue, or cancel
  2. 2.Plan for an outdoor gathering — the risk of transmission is significantly lower outdoors. We should make the most of Christmas falling in summer in Australia
  3. 3.If you’re hosting a gathering indoors, dine in your biggest room, or spread everybody out across a few rooms. Open your windows and doors to let in the fresh air and, importantly, increase ventilation
  4. 4.Avoid crowded seating at the table. Set up a few extra trestles or camp tables to space people out
  5. 5.Encourage your guests to perform frequent hand hygiene. Stock up on hand sanitisers and soaps and have them readily available in all rooms and outside, especially if people are helping themselves to food.

Food for Thought

https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/how-to-set-boundaries-at-christ

“This year Ginger Gorman says her family Christmas will be a two-hour brunch after which she plans to spend the afternoon by a pool with friends.”

https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/yumi-stynes-on-why-women-should-go-on-strike-this-christmas/11628692

“Change is afoot this Christmas for Yumi Stynes’ festive family get-togethers.”

https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/guide-to-a-less-stressful-christmas/11745088

Woman relaxing in a chair at a table with a large Christmas tree in the background to depict having a less stressful Christmas.

“Take a breath, pause a moment and read our guide to having a less stress-filled Christmas.” (Pxhere: An Min)

https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/how-to-save-money-while-shopping-online-this-christmas/100002658

“A few minutes planning and researching before hitting “buy” can pay dividends.”

https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/christmas-gift-ideas-when-youre-on-a-budget/12839442

“This year, you could make some presents yourself or give the gift of time — whether it’s helping a family friend with their garden or babysitting your friends’ kids.”

https://www.abc.net.au/everyday/benefits-of-family-secret-santa/100001868

Secret Santa’s fast becoming a family tradition that saves time, money and the environment

ABC Everyday / By Grace Jennings-Edquist

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-20/christmas-shopping-presents-gifts-season-budgeting/11766344

A woman with red nail polish wraps up and decorates a gift. Her face is not visible.

Gift-giving should be fun. But often, it can blow the budget. (Pexels)

“Vivienne Anthon has wrapped over 60,000 gifts in her life. ABC Life caught up with Vivienne to grab her top tips for gift wrapping this Christmas.”

Read more here: https://ab.co/2EFW8kG Subscribe to ABC Life on YouTube ►► http://bit.ly/35n2vn5 ABOUT ABC LIFE ABC Life helps you navigate life’s challenges and choices. Stay on top of food, wellbeing, travel, style, sex and relationships and more: https://www.abc.net.au/life/ How to wrap Christmas presents like a pro | ABC Life

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-21/plastic-free-gift-giving/10639500

Plastic-free Christmas gifts to feel smug about this season

By Clara Williams RoldanPosted FriFriday 21 DecDecember 2018 

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/drive/the-art-of-receiving-shitty-presents/9280316

The art of receiving shitty presents

By Claire BrackenSunday 24 December 2017

bc.net.au/news/2017-12-25/christmas-gifts-sustainable-low-waste-options-popular/9284808

Three Christmas hampers that include eco-friendly products and are encased in cardboard packaging rather than plastic

These Christmas hampers come without any plastic wrapping.(ABC News: Hayley Roman)

Climate change is wreaking havoc on Australians’ health. What’s our plan to fix things?

By Catherine Taylor and Bridget Judd

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-05/climate-change-wreaking-havoc-australians-health-national-plan/12950018

. . . .

“Even something as simple as retrofitting homes with heat-reflective roofing and reducing concrete and paving in backyards by increasing grassed areas can reduce what he calls “heat sinks around the home” and lower air temperatures.

When it comes to fighting fires, Gissing advocates investment in technology that can lead us to “the next generation of firefighting”.

“How are we going to be fighting fires in 2040 or 2050 when the frequency of blazes is only going to increase because of climate change?” he says, pointing out that new technology which aims to rapidly detect and suppress fires could prevent catastrophic fire events in the future.

Aerial view of Melbourne from the end of the Eastern Freeway in Abbottsford
Concrete, tile and paving can increase the way heat is absorbed and raise the temperature of a city.(Supplied: Linking Melbourne Authority)

. . . . .”

Plan for an Emergency

https://www.abc.net.au/emergency/

Survival kit: Things you’ll need in case of an emergency

ABC Emergency survival kit

Share

Emergency agencies recommend having a kit ready with items that will help you survive and recover from a disaster.

The Red Cross talks with hundreds of people each year who are recovering from an emergency including what they wished they’d done to prepare.

Jacqui Pringle from Red Cross Emergency Services says you should ask yourself what are the things that will bring comfort and how will I protect the things that are important.

“A good example is proof of identity: what if you have lost your wallet and are not able to access your computer, how can you prove who you are?Get PreparedGet Prepared is an app that helps you connect with your key support people, accomplish simple tasks to make you and your loved ones safer, and protect the things that matter most to you.Read more

“Thinking through some of this in advance can make you feel less stressed and give you some control in a situation that is often out-of-control,” said Ms Pringle.

Having an emergency kit is one of the top four survive and recover preparations recommended by the Red Cross, along with knowing your risks, getting connected and getting organised. Find more Red Cross prepare information at redcross.org.au/Prepare or download the Red Cross Get Prepared app.

You should keep your kit in a handy location, in a container or bag that’s big enough to add extra items when you’re responding to a specific disaster.

Some basic items to include:

  • Radio: battery-powered, wind-up or solar-powered radio. Mark on the dial the frequencies of ABC Radio and other local services.
  • Light: a waterproof torch is good, and consider a backup windup version that doesn’t need batteries, plus candles with waterproof matches or glow sticks.
  • Drinking water (consider having 10 litres per person to last three days).
  • Food: dried and long-life food to last three days, include a can opener and utensils.
  • Spare batteries for all devices (check batteries every six months).
  • Toiletries including soap, handwash gels, alcohol wipes, toilet paper, tissues, toothpaste and sanitary items.
  • Cash: enough to meet basic needs for a few days.
  • First aid kit and guide book.
  • Waterproof bags for valuable items and documents
  • Copies of essential documents such as prescriptions and insurance details. You can also store this on a portable hard drive, give a copy to a trusted person, and/or upload to cloud-based storage.
  • Your written bushfire, cyclone, flood or emergency survival plan, including contact numbers of family or neighbours.
  • Protective blankets and clothing suitable for likely emergencies in your area such as long-sleeved natural-fibre shirts for bushfire areas, protective footwear or rubber boots in flood areas. Sunscreen, insect repellent and wide-brimmed hats are also useful.

Set an annual reminder on your phone or calendar to check your emergency kit.

If you need to relocate, include:

  • Prescription medications
  • Toiletries and a change of clothes
  • Mobile phone charger
  • ATM cards and credit cards
  • Important documents or valuables including passports, wills, photos, jewellery, insurance papers or mementoes

Don’t forget people with special needs in your family:

  • Mobility aids
  • Nappies and supplies for infants
  • Encourage children to pack familiar things that will bring them comfort in times of stress such as a  favourite toy
  • Items to keep your pets comfortable including a leash, basket, travelling cage and pet food

Posted 2 JulJuly 2020, updated 7 SepSeptember 2020Share

The “Landlord’s Game” versus “Monopoly

The antimonopolist history of the world’s most popular board game

I published this article in 2015 here:

https://auntyuta.com/2015/06/30/this-was-published-in-harpers-magazine-in-october-2012-about-the-landlords-game-versus-monopoly/

By Christopher Ketcham

The players at Table 25 fought first over the choice of pawns. Doug Herold, a forty-four-year-old real estate appraiser, settled on the car. The player across from him, a shark-eyed IT recruiter named Billy, opted for the ship and took a pull from a can of Coors. The shoe was taken by a goateed toxic-tort litigator named Eric, who periodically distracted himself from the game on a BlackBerry so that he “could get billable hours out of this.” The dog was taken by a doughy computer technician named Trevis, who had driven from Canton, Ohio, as a “good deed” to help the National Kidney Foundation, sponsor of the 25th Annual Corporate Monopoly Tournament, which is held each year in the lobby of the U.S. Steel Tower in downtown Pittsburgh. On hand for the event, which had attracted 112 players, divided into twenty-eight tables of four, were the Pittsburgh Steelers’ mascot, Steely McBeam, who hopped around the lobby grunting and huzzahing with a giant foam I beam under his arm; three referees dressed in stripes, with whistles around their necks; and a sleepy-looking man, attired in a long judges’ robe and carrying a two-foot-long oaken gavel, who was in fact a civil-court judge for Allegheny County donating his time “to make sure these people follow the rules.”

I had spoken the night before with Doug, who won the previous year’s tournament, about his strategy for victory. “Well, last year I managed to get Boardwalk and Park Place, and then everybody landed on them,” he explained, chalking his success up to dumb luck. “What you have to do,” he said, “is get a monopoly, any monopoly, as quickly as you can.” I asked him if he knew the secret history of the game. He confessed that he did not.

The official history of Monopoly, as told by Hasbro, which owns the brand, states that the board game was invented in 1933 by an unemployed steam-radiator repairman and part-time dog walker from Philadelphia named Charles Darrow. Darrow had dreamed up what he described as a real estate trading game whose property names were taken from Atlantic City, the resort town where he’d summered as a child. Patented in 1935 by Darrow and the corporate game maker Parker Brothers, Monopoly sold just over 2 million copies in its first two years of production, making Darrow a rich man and likely saving Parker Brothers from bankruptcy. It would go on to become the world’s best-selling proprietary board game. At least 1 billion people in 111 countries speaking forty-three languages have played it, with an estimated 6 billion little green houses manufactured to date. Monopoly boards have been created using the streets of almost every major American city; they’ve been branded around financiers (Berkshire Hathaway Monopoly), sports teams (Chicago Bears Monopoly), television shows (The Simpsons Monopoly), automobiles (Corvette Monopoly), and farm equipment (John Deere Monopoly).

The game’s true origins, however, go unmentioned in the official literature. Three decades before Darrow’s patent, in 1903, a Maryland actress named Lizzie Magie created a proto-Monopoly as a tool for teaching the philosophy of Henry George, a nineteenth-century writer who had popularized the notion that no single person could claim to “own” land. In his book Progress and Poverty (1879), George called private land ownership an “erroneous and destructive principle” and argued that land should be held in common, with members of society acting collectively as “the general landlord.”

The Landlord's Game, 1906

Magie called her invention The Landlord’s Game, and when it was released in 1906 it looked remarkably similar to what we know today as Monopoly. It featured a continuous track along each side of a square board; the track was divided into blocks, each marked with the name of a property, its purchase price, and its rental value. The game was played with dice and scrip cash, and players moved pawns around the track. It had railroads and public utilities—the Soakum Lighting System, the Slambang Trolley—and a “luxury tax” of $75. It also had Chance cards with quotes attributed to Thomas Jefferson (“The earth belongs in usufruct to the living”), John Ruskin (“It begins to be asked on many sides how the possessors of the land became possessed of it”), and Andrew Carnegie (“The greatest astonishment of my life was the discovery that the man who does the work is not the man who gets rich”). The game’s most expensive properties to buy, and those most remunerative to own, were New York City’s Broadway, Fifth Avenue, and Wall Street. In place of Monopoly’s “Go!” was a box marked “Labor Upon Mother Earth Produces Wages.” The Landlord Game’s chief entertainment was the same as in Monopoly: competitors were to be saddled with debt and ultimately reduced to financial ruin, and only one person, the supermonopolist, would stand tall in the end. The players could, however, vote to do something not officially allowed in Monopoly: cooperate. Under this alternative rule set, they would pay land rent not to a property’s title holder but into a common pot—the rent effectively socialized so that, as Magie later wrote, “Prosperity is achieved.”

For close to thirty years after Magie fashioned her first board on an old piece of pressed wood, The Landlord’s Game was played in various forms and under different names—“Monopoly,” “Finance,” “Auction.” It was especially popular among Quaker communities in Atlantic City and Philadelphia, as well as among economics professors and university students who’d taken an interest in socialism. Shared freely as an invention in the public domain, as much a part of the cultural commons as chess or checkers, The Landlord’s Game was, in effect, the property of anyone who learned how to play it.

Thousands of Monopoly tournaments are held in the United States each year: county tournaments, school tournaments, church tournaments, corporate tournaments, tournaments in basements, in boardrooms, in lunchrooms, in public libraries, and online. Every four or five years there are the big officiated tournaments—the U.S. Championship and the World Championship—sponsored by Hasbro, which hands out $20,580 pots to the winners of each. I missed the big tournaments—both were last held in 2009—and instead ended up in the lobby of U.S. Steel. I thought the venue fitting, as the corporation was the brainchild of supermonopolists Andrew Carnegie and J. P. Morgan, the latter being the inspiration for Monopoly’s top-hatted, monocled, tails-wearing mascot, Rich Uncle Pennybags.

The emcee called the lobby to order, shouting into his microphone, “You have ninety minutes. Let’s play Monopoly!” Immediately, the men at Table 25 began rolling dice and frantically buying property as they rounded the board. Doug snagged Pacific Avenue (an expensive investment at $300), two yellow parcels, and several slummier properties. Trevis’s portfolio included two railroads and Marvin Gardens, the most expensive property in the yellow group. Billy held the ultrachic Boardwalk ($400). Eric got Tennessee Avenue and St. James Place ($180 each). These last are among the properties most coveted by competitors, because they are relatively cheap and frequently landed on, along with the other properties that sit directly downboard of the jail, where odds are the players will spend a lot of time.

Sixteen minutes into the game Doug offered Billy a trade. (“The propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another,” writes Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, “is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals.”) Land was already growing scarce, and as land becomes scarce in Monopoly—as in the real world—its market value rises, often beyond its nominal value. “This,” said Doug, holding up one of his yellow deeds, “for that,” pointing at one of Billy’s slum deeds, “plus three hundred bucks.”

Billy was unimpressed. “No, you give me three hundred bucks.”

“Give you three hundred bucks?”

“Cash is king!”

This in turn inspired Trevis and Eric to start haggling, with Billy and Doug interjecting to gum up the talks when their own interests were threatened. The table got loud. The parties offered, counteroffered, rejected all offers, sweetened the original offers, rejected the sweetened deals with greater aplomb. Doug heaved a great sigh. “We’re just gonna go around the board and around the board,” he said, “and collect our little money.”

“It’s gotta make sense for me,” said Trevis.

“This guy wants my left testicle,” Doug replied.

In what amounted to open conspiracy, Billy then told Eric that if they made a trade and each received a monopoly as a result, they’d share a “free ride”—no rent would be charged—when they landed on one another’s monopolies: a corrupt duopoly, in effect, targeting Doug and Trevis.

Doug shrugged as Eric pondered the deal, but Trevis was aghast. “You can’t do that—it’s against the rules.”

“Rules!” said Billy. “I’m gonna set my price.”

“Bullshit!”

“Ref!”

A referee, whistle around his neck, hurried over—the judge with the gavel had disappeared—to decide on the matter as the players barked at each other. “You can’t do that,” he said finally.

A few weeks before the tournament, I’d had a conversation with Richard Marinaccio, the 2009 U.S. national Monopoly champion. “Monopoly players around the kitchen table”—which is to say, most people—“think the game is all about accumulation,” he said. “You know, making a lot of money. But the real object is to bankrupt your opponents as quickly as possible. To have just enough so that everybody else has nothing.” In this view, Monopoly is not about unleashing creativity and innovation among many competing parties, nor is it about opening markets and expanding trade or creating wealth through hard work and enlightened self-interest, the virtues Adam Smith thought of as the invisible hands that would produce a dynamic and prosperous society. It’s about shutting down the marketplace. All the players have to do is sit on their land and wait for the suckers to roll the dice.

Smith described such monopolist rent-seekers, who in his day were typified by the landed gentry of England, as the great parasites in the capitalist order. They avoided productive labor, innovated nothing, created nothing—the land was already there—and made a great deal of money while bleeding those who had to pay rent. The initial phase of competition in Monopoly, the free-trade phase that happens to be the most exciting part of the game to watch, is really about ending free trade and nixing competition in order to replace it with rent-seeking.

Henry George was not formally trained in economics. At age sixteen, he shipped out of his native Philadelphia as a mast boy on the freighter Hindoo,bound for Australia and India, where he watched the crew threaten mutiny over their miserable working conditions. By the age of twenty, transplanted to California, he was working as a printer’s apprentice, a rice weigher, and a tramp farmworker. George was soon married and broke, caught up in a wave of unemployment on the West Coast, and by the winter of 1865 his pregnant wife was starving. “Don’t stop to wash the child,” the doctor told George upon the birth of a son that January. “Feed him.” Poverty turned his mind to economics, to the question of why poverty proliferated in a land of plentiful resources. Economics turned him to newspapers, where he imagined he might get paid for his ideas. Eventually, journalism brought him to live in New York City.

What puzzled George was that wherever he saw advanced means of production arise in the United States—wherever industry was built up and capital accumulated—more poor people could be found, and in more desperate conditions. It was for him a stunning paradox. “It is the riddle which the Sphinx of Fate puts to our civilization, and which not to answer is to be destroyed,” wrote George. “So long as all the increased wealth which modern progress brings goes but to build up great fortunes . . . progress is not real and cannot be permanent.” In 1879, he published the book that made him famous, Progress and Poverty: An Inquiry into the Cause of Industrial Depressions and of Increase of Want with Increase of Wealth—The Remedy, which provided a sweeping answer to the riddle: land monopoly was the reason progress brought greater poverty. As American civilization advanced, as populations grew and aggregated in and around cities, land became scarce, prices soared, and the majority who had to live and work on the land paid those prices to the minority who owned it. For the laboring classes, rent slavery was the result. “To see human beings in the most abject, the most helpless and hopeless condition,” George wrote, “you must go, not to the unfenced prairies and the log cabins of new clearings in the backwoods, where man singlehanded is commencing the struggle with nature, and land is yet worth nothing, but to the great cities where the ownership of a little patch of ground is a fortune.”

From those little patches, primarily in New York City, had arisen the dynasties of the American nouveau riche: the Astors, the Beekmans, the Phippses, the Stuyvesants, the Roosevelts, and, later, the Tishmans, the Rudins, the Roses, the Minskoffs, the Dursts, and the Fisher and Tisch brothers. According to George, the sequestering of valuable land assets in private hands was itself the product of a system of property “as artificial and as baseless as the divine right of kings.” “Historically, as ethically,” he wrote, “private property in land is robbery. . . . It has everywhere had its birth in war and conquest.” This was, in fact, the original sin of Western civilization:

In California our land titles go back to the Supreme Government of Mexico, who took from the Spanish King, who took from the Pope, when he by a stroke of the pen divided lands yet to be discovered between the Spanish or Portuguese—or if you please they rest upon conquest. In the eastern states they go back to treaties with Indians and grants from English kings; in Louisiana to the government of France; in Florida to the government of Spain; while in England they go back to the Norman conquerors. Everywhere, not to a right which obliges, but to a force which compels.

George noted that many premodern tribes recognized no right of land ownership; the tribesman’s property was the bow and arrow he built with his hands, not the land he hunted on. Nor was such a right recognized under the laws of the Old Testament, in which land was “treated as the gift of the Creator to his common creatures.” Moses had, after all, instituted the jubilee, under which land was redistributed every fifty years, and the debts incurred against land were canceled—a tradition ended by Roman rule. Everywhere George reviewed the annals of the precapitalist world, he saw the “struggle between this idea of equal rights to the soil and the tendency to monopolize it in individual possession.”

By the nineteenth century, however, the “superstition” of “absolute individual property in land,” represented by the complex array of state-sanctioned deeds and titles, had become fundamental to the American legal system. It could not be crushed—nor should it be, said George. Land seizure and nationalization, he believed, would lead to tyranny. “Let the individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land.” George would not revoke the right to buy and sell property or to will land to one’s descendants. Instead he argued that society might leave landowners “the shell” of their holdings if it could “take the kernel.” As George wrote, “It is not necessary to confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent. . . . In this way the State may become the universal landlord without calling herself so.”

Rent was the key. In line with classical economics from the time of Adam Smith, George defined rent as the unearned income owners derived from the rising value of land, meaning it was distinct from the labor that went into property in the form of improvements, the construction of homes and offices and factories, and the cultivation of fields. A community’s productivity was the invisible hand that caused land values to increase. The cabin in the woods became a prize when a mine opened up across the field, a road linked the cabin to the mine, a country store opened to supply the miners, more homes were built, a railroad came in, a town was born. The land under the cabin derived its worth from what society built around it. Its increase in value therefore belonged to society, and George said this value was to be assessed and taxed at market rates. This “single tax” on land and natural resources offered a reform of capitalism—whose self-destruction George believed it was his task to prevent—that “open[ed] the way to a realization of the noble dreams of socialism.” [1]

Georgism, as it came to be known, was denounced by wealthy landowners as the most radically lunatic notion of its time, and the single tax as more insidious than all the writings of Karl Marx put together. The Catholic Church ruled George’s thought “worthy of condemnation.” Yet within five years of the publication of Progress and Poverty, hundreds of thousands of Americans would come to believe in the gospel of the single tax. In New York City, the populist priest Father Edward McGlynn referred to George simply as “this prophet . . . this messenger from God.” Mark Twain proselytized as a Georgist, as did the philosopher John Dewey. “It would require less than the fingers of the two hands,” wrote Dewey, “to enumerate those who, from Plato down, rank with Henry George among the world’s social philosophers.”

Leo Tolstoy proclaimed that George would “usher in an epoch.” “The method of solving the land problem has been elaborated by Henry George to such a degree of perfection that, under the existing State organization and compulsory taxation, it is impossible to invent any other better, more just, practical, and peaceful solution,” wrote Tolstoy. “The only thing that would pacify the people now is the introduction of the system of Henry George.”

In 1886, the United Labor Party, fresh from the battles and boycotts of the first May Day, nominated George as its candidate for mayor of New York. His campaign offered a radical vision for the time: wherever railroads, telegraphs, telephones, and gas, water, electric, and heating utilities could be operated more efficiently at scale, as “natural monopolies,” the public would own them; transit in New York would be made free for all; city government would be responsible for social services; he would end child labor and mandate an eight-hour workday. The land-value tax would pay for his programs.

Though not a single major newspaper endorsed him, clubs were founded in George’s name in twenty-four districts across the city. Members financed his campaign, each contributing twenty-five cents, and George, in between sixteen-hour days of speeches and rallies, sat at headquarters rolling coins for distribution to his workers. The coalition he built with the ULP was big-tent, crossing lines of class, ethnicity, and religion that had long divided New York. Three days before the election, his supporters—merchants, lawyers, doctors, tailors, plumbers, cigar makers, brassworkers, Germans, Irish, Russians, Poles, Italians, Jews—gathered by the tens of thousands in lower Manhattan. They carried banners reading HONEST LABOR AGAINST THIEVING LANDLORDS, and at Tompkins Square, in driving rain, they chanted, “Hi! Ho! The leeches must go!” But George was defeated, amid allegations that Tammany Hall had engineered massive voter fraud to ensure his loss.

George returned to journalism, went on the lecture circuit, wrote five more books, and dedicated himself to spreading the word of the single tax. He has been credited with inspiring a generation of progressive reformers. William Jennings Bryan said thatProgress and Poverty “ought to be read by every thinking man and woman.” Samuel Gompers, Jacob Riis, Upton Sinclair, and Ida Tarbell read him and sang his praises. But George showed little interest in reform beyond the single tax. A believer to the end in Adam Smith, he denounced the socialists and labor organizers who were his strongest supporters, and, as one critic wrote, came to lead single-tax supporters “of intolerably dogmatic and doctrinaire spirit.” He refused to accept that unearned income might be gleaned from investments other than land, and thus he was accused of failing to confront the rising power of finance capitalism, which made money off of the socially created value behind stocks and bonds. By the time of his death in 1897, when 100,000 New Yorkers lined up to view his body in state, George’s “great idea” was already, as Tolstoy would lament in 1908, on the long road to being forgotten.

About a month before the Pittsburgh tournament, an amateur Monopoly historian and game collector named Richard Biddle invited me to the village of Arden, Delaware, to have a look at the first Landlord’s Game ever fashioned. Arden had been founded as a Georgist experiment in 1900, four years after a failed attempt to implement the single-tax system across the state. It was envisioned as a self-sufficient utopia on 160 acres of woodland, and it soon attracted artists, poets, actors, anarchists, and freethinkers. Upton Sinclair had a cottage there, dubbed the Jungalow. Ardenites were barred from “owning” their plots, instead purchasing ninety-nine-year leases on cooperatively held land. It didn’t matter whether the residents built mansions or shacks: they were taxed only on the underlying value of the land, often at very high rates. This revenue paid for roads, parks, a commons, playgrounds, and utilities.

Lizzie Magie visited the village not long after its founding, and brought with her an oilcloth mock-up of her Landlord’s Game, which soon became a pastime among residents. While at Arden, she built a board for the game with the help of a resident carpenter. Biddle spoke solemnly of this alpha board; he estimated that it could be worth a million dollars.

We met at the village green and walked a few blocks, where we found the owner of the board, an eighty-year-old retired autoworker named Ronald Jarrell, standing outside his cottage looking nervous. Apprised of our visit, Jarrell had earlier in the day gone to his safe-deposit box at the local bank to retrieve the board. We entered his living room, where, amid a collection of antique china, jade statues, and old dolls, he laid out the prized artifact on his coffee table. Jarrell’s three yapping poodles made it difficult to talk.

“It was the summer of 1903,” he said. “A woman was down visiting here—”

“Lizzie Magie,” said Biddle.

“I don’t remember the name,” said Jarrell, “but she had an idea for a game.” He told us his stepgrandfather, a Georgist carpenter named Robert Woolery, had grown tired of playing checkers at the general store and needed new entertainment. Woolery looked over the plans drawn up by Magie on the oilcloth and immediately set about making the board.

Arden Board, 1904

Biddle held it up and nodded his head approvingly. It was hand-painted and hand-carved out of the backside of a reclaimed pressed-wood crokinole board, and it smelled like an old shoe.

I had earlier looked up Magie’s 1904 rule set, which she produced several months before she and Woolery completed the original board. Oddly, it contained no rule about forming monopolies out of the property groups, nor did it mention charging players higher fees after they’d built houses or hotels (constructions that also didn’t exist in Magie’s original rules). Nor was there anything about Henry George, land-value taxation, or the evil of rent. If the game was designed to teach Georgism, it seemed Magie hadn’t quite thought out the lesson. Two years later, when the game was officially published,the rules had evolved: the business principle of monopoly was fully established, as was the Georgist alternative of cooperation. Theories abound as to how the changes arose; one holds that someone in Arden had pushed The Landlord’s Game in the direction of Henry George, and also in the direction of the Monopoly we know today.

I asked Biddle about the discrepancy. “Ask the Monopoly monopolist,” he said.

“Excuse me?”

“Patrice McFarland. The Monopoly monopolist. She’d have all the answers because she is now the possessor of Lizzie Magie’s diaries. And a lot of other key stuff. But she isn’t talking.”

McFarland, I later learned, was a former exhibit specialist at the New York State Museum who in 1992 had received $25,000 from a Georgist organization, the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, to produce a biography of Magie. In the ensuing years, Biddle said, she had acquired, along with Magie’s diaries, a trove of early Landlord’s Game prototypes handcrafted by players in Arden and elsewhere. But she had never produced her book, nor, according to Biddle, had she been willing to share the information or documents she’d amassed. “She’s a tough player,” he said. “I once bid against her on eBay for my 1939 Landlord’s Game. Bid almost $10,000.” (I called and emailed McFarland several times to ask about her alleged Monopoly monopolism, but she never responded.)

With us in Jarrell’s cottage was Mike Curtis, an Ardenite who twenty years earlier had played a round of Magie’s original 1906 Landlord’s Game (one of his opponents, as it happened, was Patrice McFarland). The Georgist rules by which Curtis had played were known as the Single Tax set, and they went beyond having players simply pay rent into Magie’s “Public Treasury.” They also aimed to teach the shared ownership of public goods. Under Single Tax rules, when the amount in the treasury reached fifty dollars, the player who owned the lighting utility was forced to sell it, and thereafter the utility cost no money to land on, as it was now publicly owned. This process repeated itself with the Slambang Trolley, then with the railroads, then with the Go to Jail space, which became a public college that, instead of sending players to jail, provided extra wages at the end of the game. After that, each fifty-dollar deposit in the treasury raised players’ wages by ten dollars. A “win” in Single Tax, which Magie later dubbed Prosperity Game, occurred when the player with the least amount of money had doubled his original capital. “The Landlord’s Game,” said Magie, “shows why our national housekeeping has gone wrong and Prosperity Game shows how to start it right and keep it going right.” Curtis admitted that he didn’t think much of the game, pronouncing it “kind of boring after a while.” [2]

In the summer of 1971, Ralph Anspach, a game inventor and retired economics professor who lives in San Francisco, emerged from a crushing Monopoly defeat in his living room—his eight-year-old son had bankrupted him—and found himself considering the salability of a board game that was explicitly antimonopolistic. “My game would have to start,” he wrote in a self-published memoir, The Billion Dollar Monopoly Swindle, “where Monopoly ends, when the board is full of monopolies.” The goal of play would be to break them up, with monopolists fighting off trustbusters. The game Anspach created, Anti-Monopoly, sold 200,000 copies in 1973, its first year of production, and was on pace to top 1 million sales by Christmas of 1974. Parker Brothers, at that time a subsidiary of General Mills, was not pleased. The company threatened to sue Anspach for trademark infringement. Instead, he preemptively sued Parker Brothers—“a sort of buckshot maneuver,” his lawyer called it—on the theory that he could show the company’s Monopoly trademark was invalid.

One of Anspach’s first discoveries as he built his case was the existence of The Landlord’s Game. But he could not explain how Magie’s invention, with its promotion of socialized land and shared wealth, had been transformed into the proprietary commodity that made billions of dollars for Parker Brothers. The key to the mystery, he learned, was a radical socialist professor of economics named Scott Nearing, who taught at the Wharton School of Finance from 1906 to 1915. Anspach spoke to Nearing in 1974, when Nearing was ninety-one years old. The professor said he had learned to play the game around 1910, while living in Arden, then taught it to his students at Wharton in order that they might learn, in his words, “the antisocial nature of monopoly,” and in particular “the wickedness of land monopoly.” The students apparently taught it to their friends. It was around this time that the game became known as “monopoly”—denoted in lowercase, like checkers, chess, or dominoes. The game spread widely over the next several years, to the hometowns of Nearing’s students and to other universities. It would slowly lose its antimonopolistic message, however, as players came to the conclusion that Magie’s vision of Georgist redistribution was not nearly as entertaining as ruining one another.

By 1913, monopoly had made its way to Altoona, Pennsylvania, and four years later it arrived in Philadelphia. The economist Rexford Tugwell, a future member of FDR’s “kitchen cabinet,” remembered having played it in 1915. By the 1920s, camp counselors in the Poconos were playing it, as were students at the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, Harvard, Haverford, Princeton, and Swarthmore. During the early stages of the Depression, the game reached Indianapolis, where a Quaker schoolteacher-in-training named Ruth Hoskins played it. Hoskins soon traveled to Atlantic City and taught the game to two fellow Quakers, Jesse and Eugene Raiford.

The brothers were so taken with the game that they worked to improve it. Along with other members of the Quaker community, they changed the pawns to household objects: tie clips, hairpins, keys, thimbles. They changed the names and property values to reflect those of Atlantic City. Baltic and Mediterranean Avenues, slums in the Raifords’ hometown, became slums on the board; Boardwalk and Park Place, the carrefour of chic, became the most expensive deeds to purchase. The rules related by Ruth Hoskins stipulated that properties were to be auctioned when players landed on them; Jesse Raiford instead set the prices on the board. (This change later made the game marketable to children, who had difficulty understanding how auctions worked.)

The Raifords taught the game to a friend of theirs, Charles Todd, who taught it to its putative inventor, Charles Darrow. Sometime in 1932, Darrow copied the layout of the board, the rules of play, the property names, the deed values, and the Chance cards, and made his own version of the game. His only innovation seems to have been to claim the mantle of sole inventor. He would soon be assumed into the pantheon of American heroes of commerce.

The irony was not lost on Anspach. Before being monopolized by a single person working in tandem with a corporation, Monopoly had in fact been “invented” by many people—not just Magie and the Raifords but also the unknown player who gave the game its moniker and the unsung Ardenite who had perhaps aided Magie in advancing its rules. The game that today stresses the ruthlessness of the individual and defines victory as the impoverishment of others was the product of communal labor.

None of the information Anspach uncovered helped his case when it went to trial in 1976. The widows of Eugene and Jesse Raiford testified, as did seven other witnesses who claimed to have played monopoly as many as twenty years before Darrow marketed his game. Anspach even put Robert Barton, the former president of Parker Brothers, on the stand. Barton, who was pivotal in helping Darrow secure a patent for his “invention,” admitted under oath that he was fully aware of the game’s history and that he knew Darrow had not in fact invented it. The judge was unmoved. He dismissed Anspach’s complaint, ordering all unsold copies of Anti-Monopoly to be “deliver[ed] up for destruction.” Seven thousand of the games were bulldozed into a garbage dump in rural Minnesota, where officials from Parker Brothers oversaw the interment. [3]

After forty minutes of play, the game at Table 25 had stalled—or, depending on your view, was going along just fine, because no one had a monopoly and no one could raise rents. So Billy paid rent to Eric, who paid about the same rent to Doug, who paid to Billy, who paid to Trevis, who paid to Eric, who made a bad roll and briefly went to jail. Then Doug Herold landed on his third lucrative green property, allowing him to form a monopoly. He had enough cash on hand to build several houses, and one after another the players fell afoul of his outrageous rent hikes. Billy and Trevis handed over several properties in lieu of cash, giving Doug three monopolies. “You see,” he said, turning to me, “I don’t have to deal with these knuckleheads anymore.” There was no further need for trading, no need for the dynamism of the marketplace. He had done the work, built the houses, invested in the properties. Now he did no work, took no risks, made no investments. And yet wealth moved inexorably in his direction. When after ninety minutes time was called, Doug oversaw five monopolies and a wad of $10,293 in cash, more than half the money in the Monopoly bank. He was declared not only the victor at Table 25, but the all-around winner of the U.S. Steel tournament for the second year in a row.

I’d invited Richard Biddle to the tournament, and as Doug had started his run Biddle wandered off to watch the other tables. Every so often I could see him peering over the shoulders of the players, a pinched look on his face. He did not like what had become of Lizzie Magie’s invention. “My brother taught me how to play Monopoly when I was five,” he had told me. “It was pivotal in helping me understand the importance of lying, cheating, and stealing.” I’d asked him to bring along his reproduction of The Landlord’s Game, which he carried in a backpack. Earlier in the evening he had gingerly taken it out to share with whomever he could waylay. “This is the real Monopoly,” Biddle would tell the players, before attempting a sort of CliffsNotes explanation of what Lizzie Magie had in mind. The players nodded politely, their smiles freezing into nervous masks. “That’s very nice, thank you so much,” they said, and then they walked away.


[1] University of Missouri–Kansas City economics professor Michael Hudson has noted that property tax today functions in exactly the opposite fashion from George’s proposed single tax. The Federal Reserve Board is responsible for assessing the total market value of real estate in the United States, Hudson says, yet it routinely produces “nonsensical undervaluations of land.” In fact, the FRB mostly ignores land itself; instead, it considers buildings and capital improvements as the chief markers of value, basing its calculations on the historical cost of original construction and the replacement cost of structures. Land value is an afterthought. The amateur in the real estate marketplace need not read Henry George to know this flies in the face of common sense, the mantra being “location, location, location,” not “replacement cost, replacement cost, replacement cost.” Hudson has conducted some of the few authoritative analyses of the FRB’s sleight of hand, the tax losses that result, and how it benefits the finance, insurance, and real estate sectors, which together have lobbied the FRB to maintain its approach.   [2] Curtis also didn’t think much of Arden’s Georgist experiment, saying it had degenerated into something of a failure. The leaseholders, he told me, had learned to game the system by electing land assessors who based their assessments on the town’s budget needs rather than the land’s real market value, and so they avoided paying taxes at appropriate rates. “To be frank,” he said, “the people in Arden today don’t give a damn about Henry George.”   [3] Anspach twice appealed the decision, and in 1982 a California appellate court ruled in his favor, concluding that Parker Brothers had in fact committed fraud in the Darrow patent, and was thus under threat of losing its trademark. General Mills Fun Group appealed to the Supreme Court in 1982, backed by amicus briefs from nearly every major American industry group, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Trademark Association, the Bar Association of the District of Columbia, and the Committee on Trademarks of the Bar of the City of New York. The Court declined to hear the appeal. Anspach was nearly bankrupted, his house thrice mortgaged, his game business on the edge of ruin, his distributors unwilling to work with him because of a ten-year legal cloud. He was free, however, to continue selling Anti-Monopoly. In the past four years, he has sold 454,000 copies in European markets. Domestic sales, he says, have been comparatively small because Hasbro has used “its monopoly power to monopolize the Monopoly market” in the United States.

One thought on “This was published in HARPERS Magazine in October 2012 about the “Landlord’s Game” versus “Monopoly”:

stuartbramhallEdit

I loved playing Monopoly as a child. And the article is right. Learning to play monopoly educated me at an early age to the evils of monopoly capitalism.