4 ms·
> But if they aren't blocking something they should be because of the business connections involved, that's corruption pure and simple. Well, first off, corrup
by vinceguidry 11y ago
> But if they aren't blocking something they should be because of the business connections involved, that's corruption pure and simple.
Well, first off, corruption involves people and not industries. I highly doubt that the two firms dominating the industry are themselves politically connected. Government officials protecting an industry is categorically not corruption, protecting individual firms and giving them a leg up over other firms in the same industry categorically is.
Propping up an industry is called subsidization and it's part and parcel of how modern governments manage the economy.
Second, whether they should be blocking it or not is not a settled question. Gambling is weird, it can't really be called good or bad, like any vice, in moderation it's fine for people. And it's arguable whether fantasy football is actually gambling. Also we lost the ability to regulate real gambling when the big online poker companies fled the country and set up shop overseas. Seems like there would be nothing keeping this niche from doing that either.
- Silhouette 11y agoMy point was that if you have public officials making decisions about whether or not to enforce regulations that would potentially cost businesses money because the investors are campaign contributors, as not-so-subtly implied by the quotation from your previous post, then that is clearly corrupt. Those officials should be responsible to the people they represent, not to whichever big businesses give them the most money at election time. I'm not offering any opinion on whether the government in any particular place should take steps to protect any particular industry here.