Effects of Gambling on Economy

[J.R.]

Many contend GDP = Money supply times velocity.

[J.R.]

Please don't open this pandora's box, I have been down this road before, and this one is quite persistent.

[adios]

Hi AA,

First of all in a free market system, consummers are presumed to act in their rational self interest. Second of all in a free market system, both parties in an economic transaction are presumed to benefit. The casino owners benefit by making money and the gamblers overall gain excitement and fun from their gambling. Casino owners pay taxes too. Do they sell lottery tickets in Colorado?

adios

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi AndrewP,
Hate to say it, but your societal brainwashing is showing. Surprising for a poker player. But then a lot of folks in here sound like you. AndyFox comes to mind at once.

I guess you could call the gambling industry entertainment. The industry does. In fact they call it "Gaming".

I think Benny Binion said, "The only real *gambling* game is poker." But not sure there.

Yes I do lump Hollywood, and especially Pro Sports in this category as well. Come on, what's the intrinsic value of Tiger Woods holing a putt vrs. what a surgeon does? About nothing far as I can see. The PGA tour is just an engineered spectacle to cause money to change hands. Not to worry, if I could be a celeb, I would be. They have life by the a$$ compared to the working classes.

I have read "The Millionaire Next Door". Though that group is well off, that's not who I mean by Richie Riches. I mean the Jupiter Island, Wall Street, Donald Trump, Hollywood Celeb types. They can move in and out of marraiges at will because they can afford to.

However, if there divorce rate is less... it just proves out that money helps to make relationships more interesting, now doesn't it? All that "money doesn't matter" stuff is just pattently false up to a point. (E.g. money ultimately wouldn't make up for spousal abuse. However, I did hear one woman say... "well he doesn't treat me too well... but he is an osteopathic surgeon". So don't ever sit there and believe Wealth does not equal greater Social and Behavioral Freedom. Because *it does*.

Ah that old business model thing. Profit, etc.

What we should do is build an economic system where everyone can live as the rich do, and let no one be another's "master"...er ah... "boss" or "slave"...er ah... "employee".

About the tax thing. The problem is... the rich have the money to hire people to know the tax breaks.

Seems to me the system should be so straight forward that I don't need a specialist to find my tax breaks. How about a flat tax? Sound good to me.

But then the Tax Biz is another one of those profit making games perpetrated by those who benefit from it.

Sorry to "burst your bubble"... but you are supporting the status quo... which absolutely, inarguably has been tilted toward the Richie Riches from at least the time of he Founding Fathers.

"We can't have a true Democracy because the poor would vote all the money out of the Treasury"... Remember that quote.

Gotta keep them stupid masses under control, right? "Tyranny of the Masses" and all that, you know.

Now let's get back to how "profit" is a rip off for the buyer.

So how does profit lead to problems? Well actually it's the "profit motive".

As Machiavelli pointed out... the need to provision is such that we never know how much is enough... so we do so endlessly. When two folks doing the same colide... War. Perhaps this is what's called Greed. And perhaps it's biologically ordained.

Reduced to modern terms this is chasing profit. Which is codified as money.

We all believe we have a right to a "net profit". In other words we are entitled to more than put into something when we sell it.

But let's reduce that back to barter. That's the equivalient of saying "Hey I'll give you 1 loaf of bread for 1.5 loaves of bread."

Essentially it's absurd.

So you say... "But I'm a bread wholesaler... I have to profit."

The other guy says "Yeah Right".

So going back to money... The "fair price" for something is *exactly the cost to bring it to market". Any excess beyond that is a ripoff to the buyer. (The idea of fair price is essentially embodied in the Black-Scholes concept for option pricing. It essentially seeks to establish the price for an option where neither buyer nor seller profits over the long run. So the game in Options trading is to make the *other guy* overpay for his side of the trade... and thus "make a profit".)

But since "Everyone has to profit" we get into a never ending cycle of trying to create "growth" along with numbers games like "inflation".

But think about it... When the whole world is selling as much as it can to everyone possible... where do we grow to next? Do we sell stuff to the green men on Mars? Do we continue to burnt the planet out?

I think you can see where that leads.

Consider this.
I believe there are three basics states for groups of people to be in. Only two of which will everyone not be attacking each other. Further, that profit is a kindling factor.

1. Overarching Survival Threat to Everyone
2. Machiavellian Society (The world as it is now.
3. Everyone has more than enough and thier own space.

Let me illustrate with a thought experiment...

Imagine a row boat... it's leaking... the nearest island is on the horizion... and there are 3 Arabs and 3 Jews in it. It's surrounded by hungry sharks. No one survives unless everyon rows and everyone bails water.

Do you think anyone will care who's a Jew and who's an Arab??? No way. Everyone pulls together. So this is state 1.

Now they successfully row to the island.

Imagine there are two possible islands scenarios they happen on.

Scenario 1. The island is only big enough to support 4 of the 6 people. How do you think they will decide who dies? Simple the Jews will side with Jew, the Arab will side with Arab and fighting will ensue.... Survival of the Fitest... the ends justifies the means. Rising and falling... literally in this case, living or dieing depends on skill and force.

This is state 2. Machiavelianism. Funny how "The Prince" was written as an interim solution... but everyone thinks its the long term manual for life!!! This is modern life.
Everyone trying to take a bite out of each other's financial a$$. Markets... trading... Profit... blah blah blah. The richy riches have us all running like mice in wheels... so *they* can live the good life. What about the other 99%??? Why do we put up with it anyway?

Scenario 2. The Island is big enough to support 20 people! There's more than enough space or everyone to have thier own corner... everyone is figuratively rich in coconuts and oranges....

So what happens. They get together in the middle of the Island and party every so often. Everyone is fat and happy.... Everyone can live like the rich.

This is state 3... and what we should be shooting for.

So the big problem is... How do we create State 3 for everyone.

Capitalism can't do it. Communism can't either.

Seems we need an entirely new way to manage the planet.

But to build such a world... many existing powerful people would have to be toppled. Think they're going to let you? Think thier brainwashed soldiers are going to let you?

Like the line in apocalypse now... "You are a clerk sent by shopkeepers to collect the bill". In essence the military is the strong right arm of the rich!

But "what?" you say? Well... think about it. The president is commander in chief. The money elects the president.... See???

And they don't pay much for those soldiers do they? Some recieve food stamps. See... it's cheeper to motivate with ideas like "patriotism", "Jehaad", "70 virgins when you get to heaven","The jewish homeland" and other such concepts.

Ultimately life is a material process and thus resource allocation is the name of the game.

How elect to do that will determine the outcome of things.

Whenever there's a group that thinks it's getting the short end of the stick, it may be willing to have a revolution.

Except perhaps the working class in the USA. Seems we've been brainwashed to accept the dictates of our economic elite pretty much. Oh we hem and haw a little... but we still went into Iraq at Bush's say so didn't we... and he's both a third generation politician... and Oilman!

What more need to be said?

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
Sincerely,
AA

[The Dude]

AA, Thanks for explaining your thoughts. You did clarify a couple of misunderstandings (who you meant by Richie Riches, for example), but for the most part I still disagree. But that's okay. That's democracy. I'm glad you shared.

Best Wishes,
Drew

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
What we should do is build an economic system where everyone can live as the rich do, and let no one be another's "master"...er ah... "boss" or "slave"...er ah... "employee".
[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
Sincerely,
AA



[/ QUOTE ]

Except that this is a fundamental contradiction. If everyone is "rich," who is going to deliver your pizza? And if you can't get a pizza delivered, you're not very rich, are you?

Poverty is a requirement for the existence of wealth, by any reasonable defintion of the terms.

[AmericanAirlines]

Only if you believe

(net worth of the world) divided by (number of people)

is a number smaller than "wealthy".

Most problems of this sort could be solved by technology or done without.

However, if only the rich can own the currently wealthy can own the technology, or a profit must be extracted from it, we'll never get there because that will cause the accumulation that causes a lopsided distribution of "wealth" or perhaps the materials wealth represents.

I mean seriously, what says anyone owns anything? Only one's ability to defend that ownership.

As stated earlier, since the leaders are often also in control of militaries, that means the worker bees are sh!t outta luck.

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Again I find people in here defending the upper echelon. Guess there must be more upper echelon folks in here than I think, or more folks who just don't feel like they are the grist for the mill of those folks.

Sincerely,
AA

[AmericanAirlines]

"That's Democracy"

I feel compelled to point out we're not a Democracy. We're a republic.

I think you mean "That's free speech".

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Sincerely,
AA

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Adios,
They sell lottery tickets in Colorado and have casinos as well.

Interesting legal twist to it though. No +EV Video Poker or other games are allowed. "Presumably" because the gov't doesn't want to lose the potential tax revenues. So much for Gov't being on the little guy's side on that one.

Your mistake is all those "presumes".

Ok let's say I presume as you do, that market prices reflect market wisdom. And the market price represents all that is known at that point in time. A common statement about securities markets (which I think has been shown to be false as of late... Enron etc.)

Every time I say, "The presence of blacks causes property values to drop" Andyfox says... "Oh that's not the blacks fault... that's the fault of people like you! (meaning me)"

So which is it? The all knowing market is correct? Blacks make an area less desirable? Or is market economics wrong?

Sincerely,
AA

P.S. I tend to think everyone in this forum should see game with -EV's as not something to engage in. So why would anyone in here see casinos that spread such games as an economic positive rather than a cash siphon?

Casinos that spead poker on the other hand serve the same role as the NYSE. Providing a place to engage in the activity where some oversight and structure are in place. Granted I think the NYSE is -EV for a lot of people and thus more like a casino that doesn't spread +EV games.

But, in the end I'd not play "back room" poker. To much chance of problems IMHO.

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[DanS]

[ QUOTE ]

Except that this is a fundamental contradiction. If everyone is "rich," who is going to deliver your pizza? And if you can't get a pizza delivered, you're not very rich, are you?

Poverty is a requirement for the existence of wealth, by any reasonable defintion of the terms.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're on the right track here. I'm not sure poverty, however it may be defined, is a condition for wealth to exist. It's certainly possible, uhh, theoretically, that everyone could have a *reasonable* standard of living, with some having more than others. I think what it comes down to the fact that there's a scarcity of *any* good, which is a fundamental priniciple of economics.

And if you live in the East Bay, who the hell wants pizza delivered? I'd rather go pick up a pie from Zachary's or LoCoco's anyway. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Dan