The secret economics inside the new Planet Money board game

Move over Monopoly, there’s a new economics-themed game in town!

Last year, Planet Money partnered with the company Exploding Kittens to create a board game. We’ve been documenting the whole thing in a podcast series.

Well, that game is now on the shelves of various stores. It’s called Sell Me A Sasquatch.

This being Planet Money‘s game, Sell Me A Sasquatch is, of course, inspired by economics. But it is designed to be played by everyone (ages 10 and up) — not just econ nerds.

But if you are an econ nerd — or are econ-nerd curious — today’s newsletter is for you. This is your field guide to the economic ideas that inspired the game, along with some of the references, Easter eggs, and inside jokes we snuck in along the way.

The economic ideas behind Sell Me A Sasquatch

First of all, the entire game of Sell Me A Sasquatch is loosely inspired by a famous economics paper, “The Market for Lemons,” which was published in 1970 by George Akerlof. Akerlof later won the Nobel Prize in economics largely for this revolutionary work. (George, if you are reading this, please get in touch. We’d love to play the game with you!)

The paper uses the market for used cars to show why good information is critical for a healthy marketplace. In particular, it explores what can happen when sellers know much more than buyers — a situation economists call “asymmetric information.”

Imagine you’re shopping for a used car. Some are fantastic. Others are total lemons (an old-timey way of saying a piece of junk). The problem Akerlof shines a spotlight on is that buyers will have a hard time telling which is which. Because buyers can’t reliably tell the gems from the lemons, they’re reluctant to pay top dollar for any used car. It’s too risky, so they demand a markdown.

But that creates a new problem. Owners of the great used cars think, “Wait a second. I know my car is worth more than that!” And so, they become reluctant to sell at the price buyers are willing to pay. Owners of lemons, meanwhile, are thrilled to sell at that price.

Before long, lemons make up a bigger and bigger share of the market. As the average quality of cars for sale falls, buyers demand even more substantial markdowns. That convinces even more owners of high-quality cars to keep their cars rather than sell them.

In short, the lemons drive the good used cars out of the market — a process economists call “adverse selection.” Left unchecked, it can become a vicious cycle that causes an entire market to unravel. This phenomenon has been found in many different markets, from dating apps to health insurance.

Sell Me A Sasquatch is loosely built around these same basic ideas. We partnered with a game company famous for making hits and getting games picked up in big retail. So, they made some design changes to, let’s say, increase the fun. Instead of used cars, you’re wheeling and dealing creatures and cryptids. Players take turns as a buyer and try to evaluate deals from everyone else. But, they only ever get partial information, like a used car buyer in the Market for Lemons. Over time, as players bluff, bargain, and make increasingly dubious trades, trust starts to erode, more and more adverse selection happens — and the game descends into a kind of joyful chaos.

What we love about this game is that you can stumble on it in a store, pick it up for the playful art or the Exploding Kittens reputation, play it with your family or friends, and never realize you’ve just played out the same dynamics that can bring down an entire market. But if you know, you know — and the game takes on an added richness.

Sell Me A Sasquatch Easter Eggs

But that’s just the foundation of the game. We also couldn’t resist sneaking economics into all sorts of other places.

As you play Sell Me A Sasquatch, you’ll collect cards featuring all sorts of cryptids and creatures. We wanted some of them to have an economics twist, and we asked Planet Money listeners for ideas. They delivered. We got more than 1,600 submissions! Here are a few of our favorites:

The Laffer

This curved, laughing hyena is a reference to the Laffer Curve, a famous — and controversial — economic theory named after economist Arthur Laffer. The basic idea is that tax rates can become so high that they discourage people from working, investing, or earning taxable income, ultimately reducing the amount of tax revenue the government collects.

Imagine that tax rates are 0%. In that case, the government collects nothing. Now imagine that tax rates are 100%, so every dollar you earn goes to the government. Many people would probably work or invest much less (or find creative ways to avoid paying taxes), and the government would, in turn, collect less revenue.

The Laffer Curve suggests that there’s a sort of magical tax rate in between these two extremes that maximizes tax revenue.

The controversial part is figuring out where that sweet spot actually is. Arthur Laffer and other supply-side economists have long suggested that tax rates have sometimes been high enough that cutting them could actually increase government revenue. But many other economists have been skeptical that recent U.S. tax rates have been high enough for that to be true, arguing that tax cuts generally reduce government revenue, even if they may encourage some additional economic activity.

Scabby

Scabby is a reference to a classic Planet Money episode about labor strikes. It’s named after Scabby the Rat — a large, inflatable rat that’s become a common sight on picket lines across the United States. (A scab is a union term for a worker who crosses a picket line). Unions often inflate Scabby outside businesses they’re protesting to draw attention to labor disputes. Listen to this episode for more.

The BullBear

A bull market is when the stock market is rising. A bear market is when it’s falling. Bulls tend to be, well, bullish that the stock market will do well. They’re optimistic. Bears are the opposite.

Planet Money listener Christina suggested: “Combine them into one creature, I dare you,” she wrote.

Well, we did, creating this monstrosity of a creature — who, we presume, is of two minds about whether the stock market will go up or down. Surprisingly relatable, honestly.

The Veblen

This ostentatious — some might say, conspicuous — peacock is named after the economist Thorstein Veblen, who coined the term “conspicuous consumption” in his 1899 book The Theory of the Leisure Class.

The basic idea is that people sometimes buy fancy things not just because they’re useful, but because they’re a way of showing off wealth or status.

Think of a luxury sports car, a designer handbag, or a watch that costs more than a house. Part of what you’re paying for is the message it sends to other people. Take the idea one step further and you get a truly rare economic creature: a Veblen good. As we covered in an old listener questions episode, this is when demand for the good actually goes UP as the price goes up. When making it more expensive makes people want it more.

Which brings us back to the peacock and its enormous, colorful tail that isn’t especially practical. It’s basically nature’s version of a flashy status symbol. The more feathers, the more appealing. Add a few bejeweled accessories, and it’s the perfect mascot for Veblen’s famous ideas.

Listen to our forthcoming episode

There’s plenty more in the game. We’ll be continuing our Planet Money board game series on August 21 (if all goes according to plan). Follow the podcast to make sure you don’t miss it. We’ll use the game to go inside the process of how stores choose what products you get to buy.

Thank you to folks who’ve spotted the game out there in the world already. If you do find it, and you are in a position to host a board game night with some friends, point out some of these Easter eggs to them and let us know how it went. We know the nerdery isn’t for everyone, but we trust you know who will appreciate it.

Ekjhalak Hindi

The secret economics inside the new Planet Money board game

The economic ideas behind Sell Me A Sasquatch

Leave a Comment Cancel reply