3 ms·

That's a dumb argument. It's like arguing that financial markets should be banned because a couple of people did insider dealing (not that the guardian would fi

by cm2187 3y ago

That's a dumb argument. It's like arguing that financial markets should be banned because a couple of people did insider dealing (not that the guardian would find the argument absurd...).

ericmcer 3y ago
seriously, all of the sports betting, state lottos and other forms of gambling are like little ponds next to the vast ocean that is the financial markets. These little examples of people cheating in their small ways involve 1000X less money than what is moving around Wall St.
- usrusr 3y ago
  The difference is that financial markets, despite all the harm they do, also provide utility. That entire invisible hand resource allocation thing. Opinions might differ about the amount of value relative to the harm, but very few would consider it zero or negative. Sports betting and lotteries don't, all the downside without any upside.
- legitster 3y ago
  Before RobinHood though, it was hard to find "innocent" victims in the markets. Most fraud was between traders. Even if you were logging in via Schwab or eTrade to pick stocks and investments, you knew you were assuming some sort of risk. So I think it's at least a fair argument to say gambling is a different beast when it comes to consumers being naïve.
vkou 3y ago
That's not the thrust of the argument. It's just the opener. The thrust of the argument is that gambling is addictive, destructive, and we don't need to encourage more of it. Here's a radical idea: Ban all gambling advertisement. All of it. If people desperately want to gamble, they can find a bookkeeper. The optimal amount of legalized gambling in society is probably not zero, but the optimal amount of gambling advertisement probably is.
- cm2187 3y ago
  Then replace insider dealing by day traders. Same point. You can even argue that of most food.
  - vkou 3y ago
    Financial markets for their participants are at worst, a zero-sum game, and at best, a positive sum game. (Blah, blah, efficient allocation of capital, blah, blah, hedging, blah, blah, futures, blah, blah, interest rate swaps, and so on and so forth - they all serve a useful purpose. [1]) Gambling is a negative-sum game. We don't need more negative-sum games. --- [1] You can argue over whether those industries are too big, have too much fraud in them, etc, but it's completely disingenuous to say that the stock market's the same thing as betting on whether the quarterback of the Maple Leafs is going to stop three goals this week.
    - filoleg 3y ago
      > Gambling is a negative-sum game Depends on what kind of gambling we are talking about. Sports betting is pretty much zero sum.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "find a bookkeeper", but gambling should not be zero-friction. Gambling with a single click is pernicious and dangerous. Perhaps you don't have to ban online gambling, but there has to be significant friction like a cooling off period or something.

by cm2187 3y ago

That's a dumb argument. It's like arguing that financial markets should be banned because a couple of people did insider dealing (not that the guardian would find the argument absurd...).

ericmcer 3y ago

seriously, all of the sports betting, state lottos and other forms of gambling are like little ponds next to the vast ocean that is the financial markets. These little examples of people cheating in their small ways involve 1000X less money than what is moving around Wall St.

usrusr 3y ago
The difference is that financial markets, despite all the harm they do, also provide utility. That entire invisible hand resource allocation thing. Opinions might differ about the amount of value relative to the harm, but very few would consider it zero or negative. Sports betting and lotteries don't, all the downside without any upside.
legitster 3y ago
Before RobinHood though, it was hard to find "innocent" victims in the markets. Most fraud was between traders. Even if you were logging in via Schwab or eTrade to pick stocks and investments, you knew you were assuming some sort of risk. So I think it's at least a fair argument to say gambling is a different beast when it comes to consumers being naïve.

vkou 3y ago

That's not the thrust of the argument. It's just the opener. The thrust of the argument is that gambling is addictive, destructive, and we don't need to encourage more of it. Here's a radical idea: Ban all gambling advertisement. All of it. If people desperately want to gamble, they can find a bookkeeper. The optimal amount of legalized gambling in society is probably not zero, but the optimal amount of gambling advertisement probably is.

cm2187 3y ago
Then replace insider dealing by day traders. Same point. You can even argue that of most food.
- vkou 3y ago
  Financial markets for their participants are at worst, a zero-sum game, and at best, a positive sum game. (Blah, blah, efficient allocation of capital, blah, blah, hedging, blah, blah, futures, blah, blah, interest rate swaps, and so on and so forth - they all serve a useful purpose. [1]) Gambling is a negative-sum game. We don't need more negative-sum games. --- [1] You can argue over whether those industries are too big, have too much fraud in them, etc, but it's completely disingenuous to say that the stock market's the same thing as betting on whether the quarterback of the Maple Leafs is going to stop three goals this week.
  - filoleg 3y ago
    > Gambling is a negative-sum game Depends on what kind of gambling we are talking about. Sports betting is pretty much zero sum.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
bryanlarsen 3y ago
I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "find a bookkeeper", but gambling should not be zero-friction. Gambling with a single click is pernicious and dangerous. Perhaps you don't have to ban online gambling, but there has to be significant friction like a cooling off period or something.