3 ms·
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 encour
by 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 agoThen replace insider dealing by day traders. Same point. You can even argue that of most food.
- vkou 3y agoFinancial 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 agoI'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.