3 ms·

> some of this money will make it into hands of other people, but most of this is just removing value from society. I'm not an economist, but... surely near-as

by zazen 8y ago

> some of this money will make it into hands of other people, but most of this is just removing value from society. I'm not an economist, but... surely near-as-anything 100% of this money is going to other people? Some tiny fraction is paid to the electricity company to keep the lights on at the casino, and some tiny faction of that is the cost of the fuel that is literally burned for that purpose. I think basically the same goes for the various luxury consumables the casinos are comping to these guests. The actual cost of the base raw materials that are consumed is going to be tiny (relative to the huge sums being gambled, anyway). Sure it would be better if these gamblers gave their money to science/charities instead. If you think you know how to convince them to do so, then go for it.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
The money is being moved between people who don't need it, so they can keep score in a game that only they are playing. Definitions of value in this economy are tautologous. What has monetary value? Anything that can make more money - the quicker the better. It's actually rather stupid.
idrios 8y ago
A number of people made a similar comment to yours and that the money isn't lost, it just changes hands. The response that most people are giving is that it's an example of the broken window fallacy. With gambling, though, there's nothing being broken but the money is still stagnant and it's frustrating for poor folk to watch. If you treat the 0.1% as a single entity, then the transfer of money between those who are extremely wealthy--while nothing is being produced for it--is equivalent to no economic activity happening (effectively the same as a father and daughter handing a million-dollar bill back and forth). The electricity and consumables you mention -- you're right that those are the most broken-windowy of all the expenses, but I'd say the real loss is that the money effectively doesn't move at all. There are billions of dollars changing hands, but the money gets stuck in a small, closed system that it doesn't seem to come out of. If the rich people who make money from casinos were the type of people to donate to science/charity, then gambling would be an unusual and convoluted way of paying for that science or public well-being. Since they're actually more likely the type of people to hold on to their money or invest in things that only benefit themselves, then giving them more money absolutely is just removing value from society.

by zazen 8y ago

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

The money is being moved between people who don't need it, so they can keep score in a game that only they are playing. Definitions of value in this economy are tautologous. What has monetary value? Anything that can make more money - the quicker the better. It's actually rather stupid.

idrios 8y ago

A number of people made a similar comment to yours and that the money isn't lost, it just changes hands. The response that most people are giving is that it's an example of the broken window fallacy. With gambling, though, there's nothing being broken but the money is still stagnant and it's frustrating for poor folk to watch. If you treat the 0.1% as a single entity, then the transfer of money between those who are extremely wealthy--while nothing is being produced for it--is equivalent to no economic activity happening (effectively the same as a father and daughter handing a million-dollar bill back and forth). The electricity and consumables you mention -- you're right that those are the most broken-windowy of all the expenses, but I'd say the real loss is that the money effectively doesn't move at all. There are billions of dollars changing hands, but the money gets stuck in a small, closed system that it doesn't seem to come out of. If the rich people who make money from casinos were the type of people to donate to science/charity, then gambling would be an unusual and convoluted way of paying for that science or public well-being. Since they're actually more likely the type of people to hold on to their money or invest in things that only benefit themselves, then giving them more money absolutely is just removing value from society.