4 ms·

I don't understand. There's obviously a market for it. Can't folks decide that the price is too high? Are we really willing to accept that agents aren't rationa

I don't understand. There's obviously a market for it. Can't folks decide that the price is too high? Are we really willing to accept that agents aren't rational? Wouldn't that have severe implications for other markets?

anon291 3y ago
Agents are not rational. That's why we have substantial oversight of many markets. Like it or hate it... That's what we got.
sarchertech 3y ago
> Are we really willing to accept that agents aren't rational? Wouldn't that have severe implications for other markets? Is this a serious question? Of course we are—gambling has historically been regulated or outright illegal in cultures the world over.
- woooooo 3y ago
  I'm assuming it's satire, but just in case, there's a whole body of economics built around recognizing market participant irrationality and trying to cope with it given Econ 101 assumptions.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    I'm curious, what are they? I sense there's something for me to learn here.
    - gruez 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics
contravariant 3y ago
If you don't accept that people are irrational at this point then you're not being very rational yourself. And indeed any market that relies on people acting rationally suffers the same problem, even if people keep insisting otherwise.
xbar 3y ago
How does addiction operate in other markets?
SonicScrub 3y ago
There is absolutely no reason to be unregulated free-market absolutists about addictive behaviors, other than blind ideology. Regulations on gambling and gambling advertisements have been around for a long time because we know that people do not act rationally when it comes to this activity. This is not dissimilar to how legalized drugs like tobacco are treated. The question for society to answer is "is the social costs of gambling addiction (which don't remain localized to the gambler themself) worth what we gain from unrestricted advertising?". I personally would say "hell no". Likewise with drugs, let's not eliminate legal methods. That just forces it underground. But that doesn't mean it should be promoted, or plastered all over billboards, arenas, and stadiums.
fardo 3y ago
> Can't folks decide that the price is too high? If you look at drug addicts as a group, the answer is often a direct and emphatic “no, they can’t” - the drug alters the way they perform that price calculus such that many of them will spend their last dollar, go deeply in debt, and do terrible things to continually chase a high. Drug policy has had many failures in the US, but there does seem to be a correct nugget of recognition that “some drugs seem to be fundamentally destructive to those that get addicted, and to the broader society that has to deal with the consequences of those who are addicted”. Gambling in many people seems to have the same effect on altering price calculus in a way similar to addictive drugs, which at leasts motivates a reasonable discussion whether benefits of allowing it exceed the harms it causes those individuals and society.
- cf1241290841 3y ago
  >If you look at drug addicts as a group, What makes you think you arent just looking at the extremly visible dysfunction subgroup? How many cocaine consuming banksters do you know and what does that say about the completeness of your perspective? I think there is a good argument to be made that you are over generalizing from a stereotype.
  - xboxnolifes 3y ago
    So, you agree there is a subgroup of people that stop being rational agents in the presence of drugs?
    - cf1241290841 3y ago
      I think there are subgroups of people that get caught up in certain routines they then have a hard time exiting. Drugs increase that risk but even here different people are vulnerable to different things. A good friend of mine told me with a straight face that his doctor explained to him that his BMI is in the "you are eating yourself to death" region. He told me this over refilling his glass of coca cola. At the same time the bankster i know is still in the process of winning both capitalism and hedonism. I think it is likely more about how you manage your own weaknesses. One of them wont do this till he needs judicial/medical intervention. edit: Never tried cocaine or heroin btw and had a rather easy time loosing weight. But i am very confident about the outcome of those two people. One has given up while the other knows he cant trust himself with this stuff, has planed and is acting accordingly and is able to grind through very unpleasant stuff.
cf1241290841 3y ago
That simplification seems counterproductive. There is obviously a spectrum of rationality that gets compromised by addiction. Be it heroin, alcohol, sugar or gambling. There was a social engineering talk a while back that i cant find anyone where some sysadmin explained that just informing users they wanted to do something stupid was far more beneficial then just blocking their attempts. Most of these addiction industries are profitable through addicts, the amount of cheap hard liquor bought by non-addicts is neglect able. Maybe just communicating with these people is far more sensible then banning something that people can also consume reasonably. Maybe somebody that spend his last 3 months rent on gambling wants to talk about how to not do that. While the notice on every visit is quite annoying. Even if you cant let go of the demand for judicial intrusion altogether, maybe start with something like a one week detox after x months of behavior typical for an addict that lost control. It would likely get a lot of people over the diet hump they have been battling for years and sobering up long enough to reevaluate your life choices might not be the worst thing to do.

anon291 3y ago

Agents are not rational. That's why we have substantial oversight of many markets. Like it or hate it... That's what we got.

sarchertech 3y ago

> Are we really willing to accept that agents aren't rational? Wouldn't that have severe implications for other markets? Is this a serious question? Of course we are—gambling has historically been regulated or outright illegal in cultures the world over.

woooooo 3y ago
I'm assuming it's satire, but just in case, there's a whole body of economics built around recognizing market participant irrationality and trying to cope with it given Econ 101 assumptions.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  I'm curious, what are they? I sense there's something for me to learn here.
  - gruez 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics

contravariant 3y ago

If you don't accept that people are irrational at this point then you're not being very rational yourself. And indeed any market that relies on people acting rationally suffers the same problem, even if people keep insisting otherwise.

xbar 3y ago

How does addiction operate in other markets?

SonicScrub 3y ago

There is absolutely no reason to be unregulated free-market absolutists about addictive behaviors, other than blind ideology. Regulations on gambling and gambling advertisements have been around for a long time because we know that people do not act rationally when it comes to this activity. This is not dissimilar to how legalized drugs like tobacco are treated. The question for society to answer is "is the social costs of gambling addiction (which don't remain localized to the gambler themself) worth what we gain from unrestricted advertising?". I personally would say "hell no". Likewise with drugs, let's not eliminate legal methods. That just forces it underground. But that doesn't mean it should be promoted, or plastered all over billboards, arenas, and stadiums.

fardo 3y ago

> Can't folks decide that the price is too high? If you look at drug addicts as a group, the answer is often a direct and emphatic “no, they can’t” - the drug alters the way they perform that price calculus such that many of them will spend their last dollar, go deeply in debt, and do terrible things to continually chase a high. Drug policy has had many failures in the US, but there does seem to be a correct nugget of recognition that “some drugs seem to be fundamentally destructive to those that get addicted, and to the broader society that has to deal with the consequences of those who are addicted”. Gambling in many people seems to have the same effect on altering price calculus in a way similar to addictive drugs, which at leasts motivates a reasonable discussion whether benefits of allowing it exceed the harms it causes those individuals and society.

cf1241290841 3y ago
>If you look at drug addicts as a group, What makes you think you arent just looking at the extremly visible dysfunction subgroup? How many cocaine consuming banksters do you know and what does that say about the completeness of your perspective? I think there is a good argument to be made that you are over generalizing from a stereotype.
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  So, you agree there is a subgroup of people that stop being rational agents in the presence of drugs?
  - cf1241290841 3y ago
    I think there are subgroups of people that get caught up in certain routines they then have a hard time exiting. Drugs increase that risk but even here different people are vulnerable to different things. A good friend of mine told me with a straight face that his doctor explained to him that his BMI is in the "you are eating yourself to death" region. He told me this over refilling his glass of coca cola. At the same time the bankster i know is still in the process of winning both capitalism and hedonism. I think it is likely more about how you manage your own weaknesses. One of them wont do this till he needs judicial/medical intervention. edit: Never tried cocaine or heroin btw and had a rather easy time loosing weight. But i am very confident about the outcome of those two people. One has given up while the other knows he cant trust himself with this stuff, has planed and is acting accordingly and is able to grind through very unpleasant stuff.

cf1241290841 3y ago

That simplification seems counterproductive. There is obviously a spectrum of rationality that gets compromised by addiction. Be it heroin, alcohol, sugar or gambling. There was a social engineering talk a while back that i cant find anyone where some sysadmin explained that just informing users they wanted to do something stupid was far more beneficial then just blocking their attempts. Most of these addiction industries are profitable through addicts, the amount of cheap hard liquor bought by non-addicts is neglect able. Maybe just communicating with these people is far more sensible then banning something that people can also consume reasonably. Maybe somebody that spend his last 3 months rent on gambling wants to talk about how to not do that. While the notice on every visit is quite annoying. Even if you cant let go of the demand for judicial intrusion altogether, maybe start with something like a one week detox after x months of behavior typical for an addict that lost control. It would likely get a lot of people over the diet hump they have been battling for years and sobering up long enough to reevaluate your life choices might not be the worst thing to do.