> One of its major faults is one must roll the die and do whatever you land on says.

Monopoly was based on “The Landord’s Game” and was never meant to teach economic decision making.

It was meant to promote Georgism and demonstrate the power of landlords, for which that “fault” is a feature.

Except it doesn't actually do that, because the game has all kinds of rules to prevent the functioning of the market.

What rules prevent the functioning of the market? You mean how it just baked the results of market forces into the rents?

Markets are fundamentally about choice and trade offs. Monopoly is about runaway power dynamics created through random chance and force (you have to pay rent, you can’t choose not too).

Please tell me which part of the real economy means you don't HAVE to pay rent

The market isn't in landing on the properties, it's about buying them, trading them and improving them.

Can you expand on that?

1. you cannot increase the supply of property, or build something bigger than a hotel

2. rents are rules. You cannot be creative with rents. I.e. rent control

3. there are no predictable expenses to owning property

4. the only business you can engage in is property

5. there is no supply & demand at work

6. what properties you acquire is completely random

7. the outcome of the game is controlled by a roll of the dice. There is a strategy to Monopoly, but it is very simple, and soon everyone learns it and that ceases to be a choice

8. Not being able to collect rents on mortgaged properties is quite unlike any actual business

9. No interest is paid on debt

The biggest divergence from an actual marketplace is it is designed to be zero-sum. Markets are not zero-sum.

When I was a kid I played “business simulation” games.

You win by taking out lots of debt and getting lucky. Pretty much like real life.

You forgot the part of putting that money to work in a way that returns exceed the cost of debt service.

But if all players work together and vow to not buy any property, they will just keep accumulating money (the odd card aside) and eventually bankrupt the bank.

(I'm aware you can't technically bankrupt the bank but you get the idea).

Sounds boring to me.

> It's actual purpose is to inflate the money

... during economic crisis... to stabilize the money supply.

No, it's to inflate the money whenever the government needs to spend it. Which is what it has done continuously since its inception. The same has happened in every other country that switched to fiat money.

Monetary policy isn't fiscal policy. Perhaps monetary policy is preventing politicians from facing the consequences of bad fiscal policy, but the alternative is suggesting accelerationism. It's not countries that relied on gold never overspent themselves to ruin.