Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Addiction Markets

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 479 posts

Re: Addiction Markets

#171

Post by onionisafruit »

Humorist2290 wrote: post #118

But if you want to outlaw this harmful activity [licensed gambling], you have to find a way to replace 6.4% of Maryland’s budget, which is slightly less than the entire amount the state brings in from corporate taxes. A fraction of the proceeds of losing bets from a fraction of Maryland's citizens contributes almost the same to state services -- EMS, education, road maintenance, etc -- than the total corporate taxes…

This part seems disingenuous. The article is primarily about sports betting, and the author reports that the amount that a much larger category brings in amounts for 6.4% of Maryland’s budget. Without close reading it leaves the reader with the impression that sports betting is responsible for 6.4% of the budget.

Re: Addiction Markets

#173

Post by mberning »

skippyboxedhero wrote: post #54
mberning wrote: post #26

I don’t have an overly paternalistic view of the government. I’m rather libertarian in that regard. But is it too much to ask that we place some guardrails on things that are know to have trouble with? Smoking, drinking, gambling, etc. I certainly feel that people should be able to do it if they really want to, but making it super accessible and highly advertised seems like a bad idea.

There are guardrails. Gambling is legalised to introduce guardrails so that regulated providers can exist and provide a product that stops people using offshore. Neither accessibility or advertising impacts rates of addiction. It is a real addiction. Does a lack of advertising stop heroin use? Behave.

If advertising didn’t work to drive consumption no business would ever spend a dime on it. When your product has addictive qualities advertising absolutely increases the number of people that get hooked. This is something that was well understood in the past, for example the huge curtailment in cigarette advertising.

Re: Addiction Markets

#174

Post by SoftTalker »

fairmind wrote: post #48
squigz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Large-scale societal change requires generations of work, indeed. That may be disheartening, but it is the way it is, and we should continue to work toward those changes.

Anti-Smoking, especially in teenagers, seems to have been successful.

Only if you don't count weed.

Re: Addiction Markets

#175

Post by virtue3 »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #165
rockskon wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gambling vs advertising gambling are two different things. Equating them as exactly the same doesn't serve your argument justice even if you do have a point with respect to the OP's "have their cake and eat it too" rhetorical flourish.

If you want to restrict advertising on gambling you want to restrict individual liberty. I want to restrict individual liberty. Do you want to restrict advertising on gambling?

Advertising isn’t “individual liberty” — it’s paid psychological manipulation.

Banning gambling ads isn’t banning gambling. It’s just stopping corporations from pushing addictive behavior on people who didn’t consent to see it.

We banned cigarette ads for the same reason — harm and addiction.

Limiting corporate ad power protects individual liberty. I can choose to gamble if I want, but I shouldn’t have to fight off brainwashing every time I watch a game.

Re: Addiction Markets

#176

Post by derektank »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #159
shipman05 wrote: post #142

It feels like banning advertising for gambling would be a sweet spot between harm reduction and maintaining individual liberty. Sports gambling ads have ruined sports media. State lottery ads are even worse. The government should not spend money to encourage its own citizens to partake in harmful activities.

>> It feels like banning advertising for gambling would be a sweet spot between harm reduction and maintaining individual liberty No. If you want restrictions on gambling, on advertising it, on participating in it, on making money from it, you want to restrict individual liberty. I want to restrict individual liberty, I have voted against gambling when it has come up for a vote in my state over and over. You want to…

As with many things, the degree matters. It is both an imposition on your liberty to require identification when boarding an airplane and an imposition on your liberty to ban everyone from flying altogether. But one clearly restricts your liberty more than another. I think when choosing between different solutions to a problem, choosing the one that limits your freedom the least is a reasonable rule of thumb.

Re: Addiction Markets

#177

Post by steve_adams_86 »

strken wrote: post #131
asdff wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like it only became rampant in recent years. As a 90s kid no one cared about the card packs. We all assumed they'd be junk cards and a waste of $7 or whatever. No, the move for card people back then was to wait for the card show and just buy the cards you actually want from a card dealer. The thing is now people are marketing the pack opening. You have social media accounts of them pulling cards from packs and…

In the early to mid 2000s we used to do MTG booster drafts at the local game shop. Maybe the experience was different for different people.

I knew a guy back then who would blow hundreds every couple of weeks on booster packs. It was surreal to watch. MTG was everything to him. This was around 2002—2004.

Re: Addiction Markets

#178

Post by steveBK123 »

malfist wrote: post #84
hollerith wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Options markets help farmers and miners decide how much to invest in future production. Ditto the consumer of a commodity faced with an investment decision where the success of the investment depends on continued access to the commodity.

Are you thinking of the futures market? That's different than options

Options can be thought of as a form of insurance, so they have a useful purpose.

In the simplest case you might hold a stock and a put to limit your downside for a set period of time.

Re: Addiction Markets

#179

Post by belkinpower »

asdff wrote: post #96
belkinpower wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Pokémon card mania in particular is deeply weird to me. I play Magic at a local card shop a few times a month and it’s always full of people playing Magic, D&D, or various board games. I don’t think I’ve seen a single person playing the Pokémon card game. So who’s buying the valuable singles? What’s keeping the market afloat? It’s bizarre.

People in their 30s and 40s. It is the same thing with boomers and comic books. What was once in mass circulation in your childhood is now out of print and commanding real value among your nostalgic peers.

Sure, that explains vintage cards. I’m more confused about the demand for new ones.

Re: Addiction Markets

#180

Post by markdown »

robotnikman wrote: post #89
neaden wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also because the NBA is going through a gambling scandal with players being involved with the mafia.

This is the first time I heard of this, I decided to look up some of the news stories behind it. Maybe I'm nieve, but I thought the Sicilian Mafia died out decades a

They never said it was Sicilian Mafia.
Post reply on HN