6 ms·

Do you have a source for the net economic loss being higher?

by echoangle 2y ago

spencerflem 2y ago
It's absolutely true and not hard to look up
- giantg2 2y ago
  Then can you share a link? I've seen stuff about negative economic effects of compulsive gambling, but never anything at the aggregate level including the non-problem gamblers. It seems really odd any country would allow gambling if the aggregate effect is negative and so well known. Politicians always talk about the economic benefits (beyond just taxes), but they've also been known to lie.
  - skippyboxedhero 2y ago
    The negative effects are generally low. Some types of gambling are close to zero harm (i.e. bingo, some kinds of machines, and sports betting), and the rate of addiction in most studies is under 0.5-1%. The same people who will say that gambling should be illegal are the same people who believe that you should be allowed to take any amount of psychoactive drugs that are addictive for almost everyone and leave a double-digit proportion of users with mental illness (as is apparent to anyone who has compared the US with other countries, the number of mentally ill people is staggering). In particular, the US was the largest gambling market before...when it was illegal. The reason why it is legal is harm reduction. In addition, if you look at some markets where it is not only legal but significant government intervention in activity of gambling companies you find harm because it causes people to go back to illegal casinos. All of this stuff has been proven over and over again across the world. But the reality is that people do not like other people doing things they don't do themselves. That is it. And, for some reason, no-one had an issue when large donors to both US political parties were able to pass laws to make competition in gambling illegal. Massive political corruption that people who talk about morals had no issue with whatsoever...again, because it isn't about morals, it is about other people doing something they don't like and them wanting to stop them doing it. Gambling is definitely one of the weird ones because it is only in countries like the US and China where gambling has a terrible rep...because it has been illegal and a great source of revenue for organised crime. In places like the UK, people gamble, they have fun, and just get on with their lives (again, it is so strange that the US has this attitude...drugs, morbid obesity...no, it is people betting on the Kentucky Derby that need to be brought to heel...of course, not the homeless person smoking crack, it is the guy betting $20 on the SuperBowl, he just can't control himself, the animal). Finally, something that the Guardian never mention is that the only people gambling addiction treatment in the UK up to about three years ago was...gambling companies. NHS wouldn't fund it at all. I think people assume that the government will regulate correctly, that the government will create a better solution...nowhere is this more apparently wrong than in gambling sector (and one big issue in the UK has been increasing growth of the unregulated sector due to the significant rise in the cost of getting a licence due to the skyrocketing budget/staffing in the Gambling Commission...it is more important for them to keep budgets growing, keep the pay rises than reduce harm...who could have forseen this?).
    - giantg2 2y ago
      This doesn't seem to have anything to do with my comment. I was asking for the data where the grandparent was saying the economic effect is net negative.
      - skippyboxedhero 2y ago
        And as I explained in my post, there is substantial evidence that the effect (including the economic) is positive. The reason why the other information is included is because if you are arguing from fact, you do not understand this topic. None of the arguments are fact-based (when someone says they made a decision based on data, it does not mean it is objective).
- echoangle 2y ago
  Can you find a link for me if it’s not hard? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63bc25b4d3bf7f262c5ad31f/The-economic-cost-of-gambling-related-harm-in-England_evidence-update-2023.pdf#page6 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63bc25b4d3bf7... This looks fairly official and cites 1.05 to 1.77 billion £ in societal cost on page 6. That’s less than 14 billion £.
  - beejiu 2y ago
    Even if you accept those figures (and the report itself says they are underestimates), in what other industry do we allow 10% of your topline revenue to directly result in suicide and depression?
    - giantg2 2y ago
      Alcohol? Probably others.
    - echoangle 2y ago
      Not suicide and depression but the tobacco industry is probably similar. I wouldn’t go as far as claiming 10% but sugar is probably not very healthy for society either. And I’m not even saying that gambling is fine or should be supported, I was just sceptical of the claim that the damages exceed the income.
      - Retric 2y ago
        I think a more compelling argument is damages exceed the profit even if they don’t exceed the gross revenue. It’s one of those things where yes people are forking over 14 billion per year, but that’s because they have 14 billion which would otherwise be spent on something else. Even just VAT on 14 billion gets close to the total tax revenue from UK gambling especially when you include other economic losses. So where’s the benefit?
  - spencerflem 2y ago
    That links not bad, though like beiju said, it does mention "Looking from a wider societal perspective, there are a range of costs that have not, or have only been partially quantified here (such as crime, education, cultural harms, impacts on relationships and wider impacts on the families of gamblers). For these reasons, we believe the figures of £412.9 million and £635 to £1,355.5 million to be an underestimate of the true scale of the total economic burden associated with harmful gambling."

Do you have a source for the net economic loss being higher?

spencerflem 2y ago

It's absolutely true and not hard to look up

giantg2 2y ago
Then can you share a link? I've seen stuff about negative economic effects of compulsive gambling, but never anything at the aggregate level including the non-problem gamblers. It seems really odd any country would allow gambling if the aggregate effect is negative and so well known. Politicians always talk about the economic benefits (beyond just taxes), but they've also been known to lie.
- skippyboxedhero 2y ago
  The negative effects are generally low. Some types of gambling are close to zero harm (i.e. bingo, some kinds of machines, and sports betting), and the rate of addiction in most studies is under 0.5-1%. The same people who will say that gambling should be illegal are the same people who believe that you should be allowed to take any amount of psychoactive drugs that are addictive for almost everyone and leave a double-digit proportion of users with mental illness (as is apparent to anyone who has compared the US with other countries, the number of mentally ill people is staggering). In particular, the US was the largest gambling market before...when it was illegal. The reason why it is legal is harm reduction. In addition, if you look at some markets where it is not only legal but significant government intervention in activity of gambling companies you find harm because it causes people to go back to illegal casinos. All of this stuff has been proven over and over again across the world. But the reality is that people do not like other people doing things they don't do themselves. That is it. And, for some reason, no-one had an issue when large donors to both US political parties were able to pass laws to make competition in gambling illegal. Massive political corruption that people who talk about morals had no issue with whatsoever...again, because it isn't about morals, it is about other people doing something they don't like and them wanting to stop them doing it. Gambling is definitely one of the weird ones because it is only in countries like the US and China where gambling has a terrible rep...because it has been illegal and a great source of revenue for organised crime. In places like the UK, people gamble, they have fun, and just get on with their lives (again, it is so strange that the US has this attitude...drugs, morbid obesity...no, it is people betting on the Kentucky Derby that need to be brought to heel...of course, not the homeless person smoking crack, it is the guy betting $20 on the SuperBowl, he just can't control himself, the animal). Finally, something that the Guardian never mention is that the only people gambling addiction treatment in the UK up to about three years ago was...gambling companies. NHS wouldn't fund it at all. I think people assume that the government will regulate correctly, that the government will create a better solution...nowhere is this more apparently wrong than in gambling sector (and one big issue in the UK has been increasing growth of the unregulated sector due to the significant rise in the cost of getting a licence due to the skyrocketing budget/staffing in the Gambling Commission...it is more important for them to keep budgets growing, keep the pay rises than reduce harm...who could have forseen this?).
  - giantg2 2y ago
    This doesn't seem to have anything to do with my comment. I was asking for the data where the grandparent was saying the economic effect is net negative.
    - skippyboxedhero 2y ago
      And as I explained in my post, there is substantial evidence that the effect (including the economic) is positive. The reason why the other information is included is because if you are arguing from fact, you do not understand this topic. None of the arguments are fact-based (when someone says they made a decision based on data, it does not mean it is objective).
echoangle 2y ago
Can you find a link for me if it’s not hard? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63bc25b4d3bf7f262c5ad31f/The-economic-cost-of-gambling-related-harm-in-England_evidence-update-2023.pdf#page6 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63bc25b4d3bf7... This looks fairly official and cites 1.05 to 1.77 billion £ in societal cost on page 6. That’s less than 14 billion £.
- beejiu 2y ago
  Even if you accept those figures (and the report itself says they are underestimates), in what other industry do we allow 10% of your topline revenue to directly result in suicide and depression?
  - giantg2 2y ago
    Alcohol? Probably others.
  - echoangle 2y ago
    Not suicide and depression but the tobacco industry is probably similar. I wouldn’t go as far as claiming 10% but sugar is probably not very healthy for society either. And I’m not even saying that gambling is fine or should be supported, I was just sceptical of the claim that the damages exceed the income.
    - Retric 2y ago
      I think a more compelling argument is damages exceed the profit even if they don’t exceed the gross revenue. It’s one of those things where yes people are forking over 14 billion per year, but that’s because they have 14 billion which would otherwise be spent on something else. Even just VAT on 14 billion gets close to the total tax revenue from UK gambling especially when you include other economic losses. So where’s the benefit?
- spencerflem 2y ago
  That links not bad, though like beiju said, it does mention "Looking from a wider societal perspective, there are a range of costs that have not, or have only been partially quantified here (such as crime, education, cultural harms, impacts on relationships and wider impacts on the families of gamblers). For these reasons, we believe the figures of £412.9 million and £635 to £1,355.5 million to be an underestimate of the true scale of the total economic burden associated with harmful gambling."