Effects of Gambling on Economy

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
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. It is more likely that the one who argues irrationally is the one that is brainwashed.

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. Who ever said that sports aren't entertainment? Whats your point?

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*. You take claim to wealth as being the enabler of both divorce and longevity of marriage. Sorry, you cant have it both ways.

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. If a true flat tax sounds good to you, then you are promoting the destruction of the middle class...actually not a surprise that you would like that, so maybe you do understand why. The largest single tax break there is goes to the middle class, and you don't need a lawyer to claim it. The mortgage interest deduction disproportionately favors the middle class, far outweighing all other tax breaks combined. In turn housing drives a huge portion of the economy, and represents the greatest single depository of individual wealth. A flat tax without a mortgage tax deduction would increase the burden on the middle class and reduce it for the wealthy. It would cause foreclosures and plummeting housing prices as the increase in carrying costs drive the middle class toward bankruptcy. If I have to explain how that ripples through the entire economy than you are even more clueless than you appear.

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. So, who says the status quo isnt the closest thing to "perfect" as is currently feasible? Just because its there doesnt make it wrong.

"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. There are so many incorrect statements and non sequiters above that its not worth responding to each one. The essential problem with all of it is that you incorrectly define "fair price" to suit your incorrect cost/benefit analysis. "Fair price" is what someone is willing to pay for something, period. The excess of that price over the simple cost of inputs, which is your definition of "profit" does not correctly reflect the exchange...it is not 1 1/2 loaves for 1 loaf. When a party is willing to pay more than the cost of inputs it is because they themselves do not have the education, expertise, technology, time or some other resource to produce that product themselves from the same inputs. "Profit" is the compensation for investment, whether it is a surgeons investment in his education, or General Motors investment in robotics. There can never be "unfair" profit unless a monopoly exists for an indispensible product or service, or there is regulation to artificially support prices.

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? If you feel like a mouse in a wheel that is your fault for not finding the way off it. It is a voluntary state of being that can be remedied by prudent investment.

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. That can only be a temporary state. At some point consumption will outstrip natures ability to replenish the party supplies. At that point cultivation/production becomes necessary, and it is the enterprising and ambitious that will dominate. As they invest their time and resources a market will be established leading to some economic structure. Capitalism has proven to be the most capable and fair structure.

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. your military/political analysis is even more naive than you economic analysis, if thats possible.

Ultimately life is a material process and thus resource allocation is the name of the game. One of the few correct things youve said

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? what more? how about facts for rhetoric, and logic instead of whining?

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



[/ QUOTE ]

[harboral]

Got to disagree with your idea - statement - that "doctors and lawyers don't gamble". Sorry - my experience in casino operations tells me that you are dead wrong. Trust me, they gamble. As for your statement that the middle class does not gamble as much as the lower or upper class, I don't have any statistics in front of me, but in Nevada there is a substantial amount of money spent by those with a family income of $40k to $80K - a lot of money used for "entertainment - recreational gaming".

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Only if you believe

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

is a number smaller than "wealthy".


[/ QUOTE ]

Completely irrelevant calculation. The value of a "dollar" would not remain constant before and after the leveling transaction. It would be profoundly altered.

[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not defending anybody. I am simply facing reality, even when it seems unpleasant.

[CrisBrown]

Hi eastbay,

Would you at least concede that someone who is performing a job which society deems "essential" ought to be able to live on the income from that job?

Classic example: your grocery checkout clerk. You insist that there be one, as do I. We both want to be able to pay for our food and get on with our lives. If there's only one clerk on duty and a line that stretches back to the meat department, we're both going to be grumbling that they ought to do something about this. So we both consider that clerk to be performing an essential function in society.

But a grocery checkout clerk can't support him/herself, and certainly not a family, on the income from that job. So we insist that someone do that job -- we deem that job to be "essential" -- but we're only willing to pay a sub-living wage for that job.

That's not saying everyone should be paid the same. It's simply saying that anyone who contributes something society deems "essential" ought to be able to afford the essentials of life....

Cris

[Diplomat]

One argument that often comes up in these debates, but what I think is missing here, is the potential damage that gambling can have on the society that it exists within. Although not always true, some have argued that the introduction of a casino into a given community can be connected with a rise in particular types of illegal activities, such as prostitution and drug use.

If this is true, there may be a negative impact on the economy of a given community because of these side effects, even if the math about whether or not gambling disrupts a particular economy shows no disruption to that economy. Just a thought.

Oh, and about lawyers and doctors not gambling -- we most certianly do. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

-Diplomat

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi eastbay,

Would you at least concede that someone who is performing a job which society deems "essential" ought to be able to live on the income from that job?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, not necessarily.

[ QUOTE ]

Classic example: your grocery checkout clerk. You insist that there be one, as do I. We both want to be able to pay for our food and get on with our lives. If there's only one clerk on duty and a line that stretches back to the meat department, we're both going to be grumbling that they ought to do something about this. So we both consider that clerk to be performing an essential function in society.

But a grocery checkout clerk can't support him/herself, and certainly not a family, on the income from that job.


[/ QUOTE ]

All points granted. But if there are enough kids or partially supported people needing summer or part-time work to go around for grocery clerks, who cares that it doesn't support a family or function as a sustainable career? What's the negative societal consequence? I can't think of any.

[clovenhoof]

The economy (like us lawyers) is amoral. It does not distinguish between a sale of a $10 book, the placing of a $10 bet, or the purchase of a $10 rock of crack, except to the extent that the distribution of the underlying costs differs.

The introduction of casinos and other gambling establishments (as well as any other business that leads to big fluctuations in cash transfers) ALWAYS lead to a rise in activities such as prostitution and the sale of drugs, legal and illegal. But as far as the economy is concerned, that's a good thing. However what is good for the economy is often not good for society.

Consider a very extreme example: a casino owned by a conglomerate of sociopaths. (No, that's not the extreme part.) Let's say they adopt a policy of murdering a limited number of well-off middle-aged middle-managers in their sleep. The net effect would be a boon for the economy. The death of anybody results in the expenditure of money for burial, etc., that otherwise would have waited until the guy died at his expected age of 75 (or whatever it is). The death of somebody with assets results in a distribution of those assets, usually to people who need to spend at least some of the new wealth that previously was being hoarded. The premature (and unexpected) removal of an employee from the workplace requires the company to allocate resources to retraining and replacement with no corresponding output, which benefits the economy.

One might even go so far as to argue that things such as drunk driving and the elimination of any and all gun controls are really great for the economy, precisely because of their particular toll on society. As attractive as that may be to our politicians, however, I don't think we have much to worry about -- even THEY realize that killing the electorate has a negative EV at election time.

'hoof

[CrisBrown]

Hiya eastbay,

<<All points granted. But if there are enough kids or partially supported people needing summer or part-time work to go around for grocery clerks, who cares that it doesn't support a family or function as a sustainable career? What's the negative societal consequence? I can't think of any.>>

If there are enough "real" jobs in a community to provide an adequate pool of "pin money" employees (i.e.: those who don't need to support themselves and/or their families), I agree.

But if the "real" jobs dry up, there's a definite societal cost to having established essential jobs as "pin money" positions. You have families with no parent at home most of the time, as both mom and dad are working a couple of "pin money" jobs to make ends meet. "Pin money" jobs usually don't carry any benefits, so the family has no health insurance. You have a family that's one serious illness away from losing a car -- or a home! -- and possibly even ending up on welfare.

Again, I'm not suggesting that everyone should receive the same pay no matter what their contribution to society. I'm simply saying that people who devote 35-40 hours a week to a job which society considers "essential" ought to be able to afford the essentials of life: food, shelter, clothing, transportation (public or otherwise), and health care.

Cris

[Ace-Korea]

I guess you're right about Nevada. But what about in local casinos in forty-some other states? (I'm asking b/c I really have no idea...)

All I know is that the riches will gamble with thousands of dollars, if not more, whereas the middle class would not gamble with that kind of money. So the middle class might be the first in line in number of visitors, but if you count the amount of money spent, the upper class probably has it. Also, there are more people in the middle class than in the lower/upper classes, which should be taken into account. Still, I don't have any data for my reasonings, which is the reason I wanted other people's opinions on the matter. Perhaps someone could hire an economist for a comprehensive report? Lol.

[jgraeffe]

no, it's true -- everyone j-walks in atlantic city!