10 ms·

It's always been a problem. Religions and governments have historically banned or heavily regulated gambling, going back at least as far as Ancient Rome, Ancien

It's always been a problem. Religions and governments have historically banned or heavily regulated gambling, going back at least as far as Ancient Rome, Ancient China, and Ancient Egypt. The modern problem, perhaps, is that now we have new forms of gambling (crypto! day trading! spread betting apps!) which are perhaps not as obvious, are not as visible in society, and fall outside of existing regulations?

vanderZwan 5y ago
The growing wealth inequality probably also produces more desperate people willing to risk it
- usrusr 5y ago
  It's not just desperation, wealth disparity has also contributed to the erosion of any value that used to be given to where the money comes from. The spectrum from speculation to gambling used be be linked to a certain kind of stigma (more so for straight up honest gambling, but also for speculation), these days it's more like "hard-earned? you got no-one to blame but yourself!" And how could it not erode? It's difficult to take pride in your hard-earned cash when it's all coming from a stack of advertising media fueled by advertising media, as if all the way down.
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    Do you believe there’s more wealth inequality in America today compared to medieval Europe or ancient Egypt?
    - mgamache 5y ago
      Between the very top and bottom? Yes. https://voxeu.org/article/europe-s-rich-1300 https://voxeu.org/article/europe-s-rich-1300
      - Consultant32452 5y ago
        Do you believe the pareto distribution of resources/wealth has changed, or that the over-all growth in total wealth maintaining a similar pareto distribution results in the chart you posted?
        mgamache 5y ago
        I think that resources in stable system (for example peacetime) tend to be increasingly horded by successful competitors. When rent seeking from those at the top becomes too expensive there is sometimes a reset that is usually violent. Sometimes the reset (war or plague for example) can be from external sources, but is still violent.
        Consultant32452 5y ago
        This is how I would put it. Do you agree? Pareto distribution is the norm, marked by brief transitional periods during which the people at the top of the pareto distribution change. These transition periods correlate strongly with wide-scale disasters such as war or plague.
    - hnbad 5y ago
      Medieval peasants weren't told their place in life is a matter of personal responsibility (within reason), they were told the hereditary social hierarchy is divine will and can't be overcome. "Trading" is the ultimate example for the opposite, since it promises to directly translate "skill" into wealth. Wealth inequality is an important factor but expecting everything to boil down to one simple factor is overly simplistic.
      - skinnymuch 5y ago
        > Medieval peasants weren't told their place in life is a matter of personal responsibility I assume wealth inequality is worse today than Ancient Egypt, but regardless of how it is, this point is key.
      - amelius 5y ago
        > "Trading" is the ultimate example for the opposite, since it promises to directly translate "skill" into wealth. Tell that to the sweatshop worker who made your jeans. Or to those poor restaurant owners who now have to pay a 30% fee to the likes of Uber eats to maintain a steady income. (If it's up to Apple, developers are next!)
        usrusr 5y ago
        These days all of them have their perception permanently saturated with the lie that they had all the opportunity and just didn't take it. No surprise many are eager to jump at imagined opportunities whenever they arise. Gambling, speculation, falling victim to some "get rich by becoming a get rich mentor" mentors and so on. Some poor industrial age miner with no better case scenario than becoming a respected poor miner would have been far more resilient (and surely many fell victim to similar schemes nonetheless)
        Consultant32452 5y ago
        Who believes they had all the opportunity and just didn't take it? The zeitgeist appears to be there's no opportunity and it's someone else's fault.
    - pjc50 5y ago
      What does that have to do with anything? People are only realistically able to compare with what they know during their lifetimes, and we're a very technologically and socially different society. Perhaps it might be more appropriate to compare 19th-century England or Tsarist Russia? Or, if we're going to restrict to what people actually know, the boomer childhood era? (although if you're going to the Tudor era, maybe consider the legal restrictions on conspicuous consumption: https://bluffkinghal.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/sumptuary-laws-under-henry-viii/ https://bluffkinghal.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/sumptuary-laws... )
      - Consultant32452 5y ago
        Why are you participating in a subthread about desperation and wealth inequality's influence on gambling and its reach back in history to at least Ancient Egypt? Maybe this topic doesn't interest you.
    - jodrellblank 5y ago
      There's surely more visible wealth inequality. A peasant villager would never visit the Royal Court, and if they did visit the local manor or landlord they would find one family with fine clothes and plenty of food who also went to Church on Sunday and suffered toothache and pissed in a pot under the bed at night. They would never have an endless Instagram feed of fashion model people with jetset lifestyles, building on decades of TV shows like "Lifestyles of the rich and famous" or "Keeping up with the Kardashians". Consider how much you have heard about a Hollywood star or Jeff Bezos compared with how much you have heard of Hugh Grosvenor, the world's richest person under 30. Before TV, before newspapers, before most people could read, you'd never have heard of either of them. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_Westminster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_We... )
      - acdha 5y ago
        There’s another key difference: say you were a peasant who did happen to live near, maybe even worked for the king, so you knew exactly what you were missing out on. Nobody told you that was a life option: quite the opposite, god had put you in your station and you’d be slapped down hard if you tried to change that. Your baseline for comparison was far closer: maybe apprenticing or marrying a child into a skilled trade, ending up in one of the coveted relatively stable service positions, etc. but nobody expected you to ascend too high.
    - wayoutthere 5y ago
      Dude the wealthy today have their own personal space programs while the labor class can barely afford food and medicine. We have more wealth inequality than we ever have.
      - Consultant32452 5y ago
        At what point in history do you believe resource/wealth distribution began to follow the pareto distribution model?
        wayoutthere 5y ago
        Easy; the colonial era (so right around 1500). Movement of wealth before then was limited by zero-sum resource conflict and patriarchal inheritance of the nobility. But the new world opened up a way for noble second and third sons (who were trained and had the resources) to build their own fortunes if only they can be ruthless enough in seizing them.
        Consultant32452 5y ago
        What are your thoughts on the wealth distribution in Babylon between Hammurabi and his subjects? His reign was around 1700 BCE.
      - Jensson 5y ago
        Estimates says a Pyramid took half a million man years to build. Assume modern wage of $50k a year, that would sum up wealth of a single pyramid to $25 billion if we translate those hours to modern wage hours. So by that rough estimate wealth inequality between top and average seems about the same back then compared to now. Jeff Bezos might be worth more than half a million man years, but not 10 times more. Also the Pharaohs owned more than the Pyramids so the estimate underestimates their wealth.
        wayoutthere 5y ago
        So you’re saying the situation where the pharaohs used slave labor to build the pyramids is analogous to the time we’re living in? On that we can agree.
- flooow 5y ago
  This has to be a key factor. Your average 20-something has terrible life-prospects. If they have a little political nous they will correctly deduce that their parent's generation stole their wealth and wellbeing (through a house price bubble, destruction of pensions, wages growing slower than inflation, climate crisis round the corner, student debt coupled with credential inflation, national debt, privatization, knee-capping of unions, a ruinously expensive military-industrial complex, etc etc). Could you blame them for thinking that anyone who works for a living is a mug, paying for the lifestyle of kleptocratic boomers? Cryptocurrencies provide an emancipatory (and entirely false) narrative. Why not gamble, and try to defeat the system?
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    Those 20-somethings are strong proponents of at least half the things that are screwing them over. The biggest thing robbing people of generational wealth is Social Security that takes 7% of your earnings for your entire life and when you die you have nothing to give to your children. One of the largest contributors to wage stagnation is immigration policy. Previously a path to higher wages was higher education. Except those Universities (and big business partners) bring in immigrants to perform their high skilled labor and call them "graduate students" to crush middle class wage growth. Another path to wage growth was previously to start your own small business. Try having a discussion with a group of 20-somethings that with very little money they could buy a pressure washer or other relatively inexpensive equipment and start a small business making $40/hr+. You'll be barraged with responses about how it's crazy because not every person in the country can get a job doing the thing I happened to give an example of, or how starting a business is really hard, or insurance, or licensing requirements in the state that they support. You're absolutely right that the Boomers have fucked their kids and grandkids. But those grandkids, already in a hole, are shoveling down as fast as they can.
lm28469 5y ago
We now have forms of gambling in videos games for the last 5-10 years, a good way to teach kids from the beginning, that probably doesn't help either

vanderZwan 5y ago

The growing wealth inequality probably also produces more desperate people willing to risk it

usrusr 5y ago
It's not just desperation, wealth disparity has also contributed to the erosion of any value that used to be given to where the money comes from. The spectrum from speculation to gambling used be be linked to a certain kind of stigma (more so for straight up honest gambling, but also for speculation), these days it's more like "hard-earned? you got no-one to blame but yourself!" And how could it not erode? It's difficult to take pride in your hard-earned cash when it's all coming from a stack of advertising media fueled by advertising media, as if all the way down.
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  Do you believe there’s more wealth inequality in America today compared to medieval Europe or ancient Egypt?
  - mgamache 5y ago
    Between the very top and bottom? Yes. https://voxeu.org/article/europe-s-rich-1300 https://voxeu.org/article/europe-s-rich-1300
    - Consultant32452 5y ago
      Do you believe the pareto distribution of resources/wealth has changed, or that the over-all growth in total wealth maintaining a similar pareto distribution results in the chart you posted?
      - mgamache 5y ago
        I think that resources in stable system (for example peacetime) tend to be increasingly horded by successful competitors. When rent seeking from those at the top becomes too expensive there is sometimes a reset that is usually violent. Sometimes the reset (war or plague for example) can be from external sources, but is still violent.
        Consultant32452 5y ago
        This is how I would put it. Do you agree? Pareto distribution is the norm, marked by brief transitional periods during which the people at the top of the pareto distribution change. These transition periods correlate strongly with wide-scale disasters such as war or plague.
  - hnbad 5y ago
    Medieval peasants weren't told their place in life is a matter of personal responsibility (within reason), they were told the hereditary social hierarchy is divine will and can't be overcome. "Trading" is the ultimate example for the opposite, since it promises to directly translate "skill" into wealth. Wealth inequality is an important factor but expecting everything to boil down to one simple factor is overly simplistic.
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      > Medieval peasants weren't told their place in life is a matter of personal responsibility I assume wealth inequality is worse today than Ancient Egypt, but regardless of how it is, this point is key.
    - amelius 5y ago
      > "Trading" is the ultimate example for the opposite, since it promises to directly translate "skill" into wealth. Tell that to the sweatshop worker who made your jeans. Or to those poor restaurant owners who now have to pay a 30% fee to the likes of Uber eats to maintain a steady income. (If it's up to Apple, developers are next!)
      - usrusr 5y ago
        These days all of them have their perception permanently saturated with the lie that they had all the opportunity and just didn't take it. No surprise many are eager to jump at imagined opportunities whenever they arise. Gambling, speculation, falling victim to some "get rich by becoming a get rich mentor" mentors and so on. Some poor industrial age miner with no better case scenario than becoming a respected poor miner would have been far more resilient (and surely many fell victim to similar schemes nonetheless)
        Consultant32452 5y ago
        Who believes they had all the opportunity and just didn't take it? The zeitgeist appears to be there's no opportunity and it's someone else's fault.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    What does that have to do with anything? People are only realistically able to compare with what they know during their lifetimes, and we're a very technologically and socially different society. Perhaps it might be more appropriate to compare 19th-century England or Tsarist Russia? Or, if we're going to restrict to what people actually know, the boomer childhood era? (although if you're going to the Tudor era, maybe consider the legal restrictions on conspicuous consumption: https://bluffkinghal.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/sumptuary-laws-under-henry-viii/ https://bluffkinghal.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/sumptuary-laws... )
    - Consultant32452 5y ago
      Why are you participating in a subthread about desperation and wealth inequality's influence on gambling and its reach back in history to at least Ancient Egypt? Maybe this topic doesn't interest you.
  - jodrellblank 5y ago
    There's surely more visible wealth inequality. A peasant villager would never visit the Royal Court, and if they did visit the local manor or landlord they would find one family with fine clothes and plenty of food who also went to Church on Sunday and suffered toothache and pissed in a pot under the bed at night. They would never have an endless Instagram feed of fashion model people with jetset lifestyles, building on decades of TV shows like "Lifestyles of the rich and famous" or "Keeping up with the Kardashians". Consider how much you have heard about a Hollywood star or Jeff Bezos compared with how much you have heard of Hugh Grosvenor, the world's richest person under 30. Before TV, before newspapers, before most people could read, you'd never have heard of either of them. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_Westminster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Grosvenor,_7th_Duke_of_We... )
    - acdha 5y ago
      There’s another key difference: say you were a peasant who did happen to live near, maybe even worked for the king, so you knew exactly what you were missing out on. Nobody told you that was a life option: quite the opposite, god had put you in your station and you’d be slapped down hard if you tried to change that. Your baseline for comparison was far closer: maybe apprenticing or marrying a child into a skilled trade, ending up in one of the coveted relatively stable service positions, etc. but nobody expected you to ascend too high.
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    Dude the wealthy today have their own personal space programs while the labor class can barely afford food and medicine. We have more wealth inequality than we ever have.
    - Consultant32452 5y ago
      At what point in history do you believe resource/wealth distribution began to follow the pareto distribution model?
      - wayoutthere 5y ago
        Easy; the colonial era (so right around 1500). Movement of wealth before then was limited by zero-sum resource conflict and patriarchal inheritance of the nobility. But the new world opened up a way for noble second and third sons (who were trained and had the resources) to build their own fortunes if only they can be ruthless enough in seizing them.
        Consultant32452 5y ago
        What are your thoughts on the wealth distribution in Babylon between Hammurabi and his subjects? His reign was around 1700 BCE.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      Estimates says a Pyramid took half a million man years to build. Assume modern wage of $50k a year, that would sum up wealth of a single pyramid to $25 billion if we translate those hours to modern wage hours. So by that rough estimate wealth inequality between top and average seems about the same back then compared to now. Jeff Bezos might be worth more than half a million man years, but not 10 times more. Also the Pharaohs owned more than the Pyramids so the estimate underestimates their wealth.
      - wayoutthere 5y ago
        So you’re saying the situation where the pharaohs used slave labor to build the pyramids is analogous to the time we’re living in? On that we can agree.
flooow 5y ago
This has to be a key factor. Your average 20-something has terrible life-prospects. If they have a little political nous they will correctly deduce that their parent's generation stole their wealth and wellbeing (through a house price bubble, destruction of pensions, wages growing slower than inflation, climate crisis round the corner, student debt coupled with credential inflation, national debt, privatization, knee-capping of unions, a ruinously expensive military-industrial complex, etc etc). Could you blame them for thinking that anyone who works for a living is a mug, paying for the lifestyle of kleptocratic boomers? Cryptocurrencies provide an emancipatory (and entirely false) narrative. Why not gamble, and try to defeat the system?
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  Those 20-somethings are strong proponents of at least half the things that are screwing them over. The biggest thing robbing people of generational wealth is Social Security that takes 7% of your earnings for your entire life and when you die you have nothing to give to your children. One of the largest contributors to wage stagnation is immigration policy. Previously a path to higher wages was higher education. Except those Universities (and big business partners) bring in immigrants to perform their high skilled labor and call them "graduate students" to crush middle class wage growth. Another path to wage growth was previously to start your own small business. Try having a discussion with a group of 20-somethings that with very little money they could buy a pressure washer or other relatively inexpensive equipment and start a small business making $40/hr+. You'll be barraged with responses about how it's crazy because not every person in the country can get a job doing the thing I happened to give an example of, or how starting a business is really hard, or insurance, or licensing requirements in the state that they support. You're absolutely right that the Boomers have fucked their kids and grandkids. But those grandkids, already in a hole, are shoveling down as fast as they can.

lm28469 5y ago

We now have forms of gambling in videos games for the last 5-10 years, a good way to teach kids from the beginning, that probably doesn't help either