Professional Poker Players Are So Worthless To Society................

[300CE24]

I have been reading most of the posts in this thread, and I think the topic in question is an interesting one indeed. In fact I have asked myself many times if I would be morally comfortable being a poker pro. (My conclusion have always been that I would have to contribute to charity and/or do some volunteer charity work myself, but that is beside the point).

Now, I would like to restrict my further disussion somewhat. Say that I was an unknown pro, I was never on TV or in any other media and I was making tons of money in cash games only. Do I then contribute to society? Most of the posts answer this based on whether or not I contribute to economical growth of the economy in which I operate. The answers are typically "yes, cos any movement of $ is contributing to growth" or "no, cos a mere movement of $ doesn't contribute to growth".

My point here is: does contributing to economical growth contribute to society? My answer would be: no, not necessarily. Economical growth has given the western world extreme wealth and extreme environmental challenges. The economies are based on exploitation of the environment, hence the environmental challenges. The economical system (as inevitable by its nature) has resulted in fewer and fewer and bigger and bigger businesses. In economical theory, the success of the economical system is among other things based on an assumption that it should take slim to no cash to start up a business. IOW if you have the idea and the will to fight you should be able to make it. The system contradicts itself here, as we all know that if not controlled by goverments, it will inevitable end up with monopoly. We also know that unless we are talking about a hole new field of business (like www a few years ago), it takes a tremendous amount of cash to start up a brand new buiness (say you had a great idea to a new car - would u be able to take it to production? well....no) So where am I goin here? To sum up: say I was the CEO of Ford Motor Company. I would then contribute to the following: 1) The material wealth of society, which individuals do not necessarily need to a further exent than what we have today 2) The pollution of the environment (which in the end will kill all wealth) 3) the impossibility of the man next door with an idea for a better car to ever realize his idea.

Now is this contributing to society?

Ok, over to poker. I will not suggest that a poker pro contributes to society, but I will say that he or she far less than a lot of people do the opposite. The pro doesn't contribute to the total wealth of the society, which again means that he doesn't exploit the environment doin his business. He also keeps up an independent subeconomy, in which the start up requirements is slim to none. If u have $1, u can make it happen. Now, the link to the primary economy is that $ earned on poker can be spent in the primary economy merely to pruchase what you need to live, or they can be utilised to overcome the independance of investors to make a business happen in the primary economy. In simple words, poker can give people a choice in a world where the only possibility would be to work for a corporate business which definately does not contribute to society.

FWIW

I'm gettin ready to be flamed..

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
My point here is: does contributing to economical growth contribute to society? My answer would be: no, not necessarily. Economical growth has given the western world extreme wealth and extreme environmental challenges. The economies are based on exploitation of the environment, hence the environmental challenges.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The economy is based upon efficient allocation of scarce resources. In a technical sense, you are correct, but you're obviously using the word "exploitation" in its predudical sense, and it is NOT necessary to destroy the environment in order to create economic growth. In fact, if private ownership is unfettered, the environment will be more protected, not less, since private owners have an interest in preserving the value of their property.

[ QUOTE ]
The economical system (as inevitable by its nature) has resulted in fewer and fewer and bigger and bigger businesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe this at all. There *are* more mega-corps, but there are also a LOT more small businesses than ever before.

[ QUOTE ]
In economical theory, the success of the economical system is among other things based on an assumption that it should take slim to no cash to start up a business. IOW if you have the idea and the will to fight you should be able to make it. The system contradicts itself here, as we all know that if not controlled by goverments, it will inevitable end up with monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, a monopoly in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Further, government creates more monopolies than it prevents. That's indisputable. Most monopolies that come into their own in the marketplace are sustained by government-imposed barriers to entry.

[ QUOTE ]
We also know that unless we are talking about a hole new field of business (like www a few years ago), it takes a tremendous amount of cash to start up a brand new buiness (say you had a great idea to a new car - would u be able to take it to production? well....no)

[/ QUOTE ]

The main barrier to starting a new car company is government regulation. Crash test requirements, emission controls, etc. This is true of many mature industries. On the other hand, those industries don't really require as much innovation as new industries, either, so the great thinkers with great ideas funnel them into new areas.

[ QUOTE ]
To sum up: say I was the CEO of Ford Motor Company. I would then contribute to the following: 1) The material wealth of society, which individuals do not necessarily need to a further exent than what we have today

[/ QUOTE ]

THis is just plain wrong. We need more wealth. Tell those in the third world that there is enough wealth in the world. Tell those dying of cancer, AIDS, etc. that we don't need any more than we have now.

[ QUOTE ]
2) The pollution of the environment (which in the end will kill all wealth)

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, pollution is not a given by-product of economic growth. This is static, backwards thinking. Pollution levels have and continue to go down as economic growth continues.

[ QUOTE ]
3) the impossibility of the man next door with an idea for a better car to ever realize his idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of this is due to artificial barriers to entry that large companies convince the government to errect. Take it up with your elected officials that are supposedly looking out for you.


Until someone can come up with a *quatifiable* criteria of what "benefits society" better than economic growth generated, this is a pointless debate. Poker players clearly do NOT generate economic growth. Moral judgements are a completely seperate issue. Economic growth clearly DOES benefit society, as economic growth is precisely what enables "society" to develop more efficient farming, better distribution methods, better medical techniques, etc.

[JoshuaMayes]

Excellent post PVN. I agree with almost everything you have written.
Although this is tangential to the main point, I am curious about your claim that increased property rights will result in less environmental damage. Your argument rests on the premise that property owners want to maximize the value of their properties, so they will not take measures (like dumping toxic waste, I presume) that will hurt their properties' value. Although your argument is persuasive for certain types of pollutions, it does not account for pollution that does not lower the value of the owner's property. In other words, if I pump pollutants into the air as a byproduct of my factory's operations, I do not bear anywhere close to the full cost of the environmental damage I inflict, so I have no incentive not to pollute without governmental interference. Any thoughts?

[PokerProdigy]

[ QUOTE ]
They're not similar at all.

Actors and musicians perform a service, like barbers or flight attendants. You hire a barber because you want a haircut, and you go to the show because you want to be entertained.

Pro athletes are entertainers too. They get paid because people want to come and see them play.

If athletes made money by BETTING on the outcome of the game - instead of by entertaining spectators, they wouldn't be entertainers, they'd be gamblers - like poker players.

If you're a pro because people are paying to watch you play, you're an entertainer. Otherwise, you're not.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, what you're saying is that if pro athletes gambled on the outcome of the game then they wouldn't be providing a service? Because I think they still would be. In fact, if Lebron James and Dwayne Wade were playing one on one for $500,000 I bet plenty of people would be watching for "entertainment." Just like if Doyle Brunson and Amarillo Slim were playing heads up for $500,000 people would want to see it. And when I am talking about pro pokers being entertainers I am talking about the fact that people actually sit down with them and take part in their sport (NOT just the entertainment they provide on TV). Why do you think that many millionaires like to sit down with Ivey, Greenstein, etc...???? Because it is ENTERTAINING.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Although your argument is persuasive for certain types of pollutions, it does not account for pollution that does not lower the value of the owner's property. In other words, if I pump pollutants into the air as a byproduct of my factory's operations, I do not bear anywhere close to the full cost of the environmental damage I inflict, so I have no incentive not to pollute without governmental interference. Any thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, since there is no practical way to privatize the atmosphere, this seems like one of the (very) few areas government can collectivize the society's interests more efficiently than the market.

Let's look at the current way of dealing with air pollution. The danger is in over-regulation, of course. There are many that want to remove EVERY last bit of pollutant from the air (or water) no matter what the cost. They ignore the fact that many pollutants are not harmful at all below certain levels. They also are oblivious to the fact that the cost of removing pollutants does not scale linearly (i.e. removing the first 95% is easy, the next 4% much harder, the next 0.9% much, much harder still, and the last 0.1% almost impossible).

These situations (where one party (in this case society at large) derrives large benefits (i.e. cleaner air) from transactions they are not directly involved in) are referred to as "external benefit" situations.

There are some (Austrian economists) that argue that most (maybe all) such external benefit situations (e.g. military defense) can still be remedied by a truely free market (anachro-capitalism). Air pollution also can be remedied this way, primarily through sensible liability laws.

See Rothbard: Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution

The basic argument is this (from page 39):

[ QUOTE ]
We have established that everyone may do as he wishes provided he does not initiate an overt act of aggression against the person or property of anyone else. Anyone who initiates such aggression must be strictly liable for damages against the victim, even if the action is “reasonable” or accidental. Finally, such aggression may take the form of pollution of someone else's air, including his owned effective airspace, injury against his person, or a nuisance interfering with his possession or use of his land.

This is the case, provided that: (a) the polluter has not previously established a homestead easement; (b) while visible pollutants or noxious odors are per se aggression, in the case of invisible and insensible pollutants the plaintiff must prove actual harm; (c) the burden of proof of such aggression rests upon the plaintiff; (d) the plaintiff must prove strict causality from the actions of the defendant to the victimization of the plaintiff; (e) the plaintiff must prove such causality and aggression beyond a reasonable doubt; and (f) there is no vicarious liability, but only liability for those who actually commit the deed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thomas Sowell, who is right of center but nowhere near as right-wing (economically) as Rothbard and the other Austrians, talks about external benefits in his book Basic Economics, and the Austrians have some advice on how to improve upon his ideas:

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, Sowell suggests that a law requiring mud flaps on cars is justified, because: "Even if everyone agrees that the benefits of mud flaps greatly exceed their costs, there is no feasible way of buying those benefits in a free market, since you receive no benefits from the mud flaps you buy… but only from mud flaps that other people buy…" It does not seem to occur to Sowell that this problem arises only because roads are publicly owned, and that the owner of a private road could internalize this benefit by requiring mud flaps and advertising this fact. Likewise, Sowell seems to have no idea that standards (weights and measures, interoperability guidelines, and so on) can, and often have, been provided by privately organized networks.

[/ QUOTE ]


[cite]


Note also that Austrian economists will argue that "society" is an arbitrary, meaningless concept. You fight air pollution not based on the damage caused by collective "polluters" to "society" but based on the damage caused by individual polluters to other individuals. This line of thinking has obvious implications on the original topic of this thread.