3 ms·
The sum is negative, really. If you take $1000 from a few gambling addicts? You spend your own time and effort doing that - while the negative impact of that l
by ACCount37 10mo ago
The sum is negative, really.
If you take $1000 from a few gambling addicts? You spend your own time and effort doing that - while the negative impact of that loss on their livelihood is likely to be larger than positive impact of your gain on your livelihood.
It's why gambling is usually regulated so heavily. Some people must have thought that sports-flavored gambling is going to be different - or were financially incentivized to think so. Turns out it isn't.
- ChrisMarshallNY 10mo ago> while the negative impact of that loss on their livelihood is likely to be larger than positive impact of your gain on your livelihood. What's your point? /s Negative things happening to other people is "0," as long as you are getting something from it. In some cases, it may actually be "good," if you don't like the people suffering negative consequences. This is not a trait that only applies to gambling. Almost every corporation on Earth takes the same attitude. That's why unregulated capitalism is very bad.
- master_crab 10mo agoNot parent but I think the point they’re making is that there is no productive value from gambling (regulated or not). Unlike, say, plane manufacturing which provides a positive good to society and also benefits from heavy regulation.
- ChrisMarshallNY 10mo agoIt was a joke. Sorry. I keep forgetting sarcasm doesn't translate.