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

261–270 of 479 posts

Re: Addiction Markets

#261

Post by vanderZwan »

FarmerPotato wrote: post #235
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…

Consider who your peers were then. Were they likely to get addicted? I know my circle was elite--doing the probability calculations, circulating card lists on Usenet, and joking that gambling was taxes on stupid people. Now as an adult, I see tweens with addictions to multiple things. Watch them beg to buy a Pokemon pack, open it, and lose interest. It's completely the dopamine expectation. And it takes years in reco…

Even if you aren't prone to gambling there are other factors that can apply. I never was into gambling, but I grew up in the Dutch countryside in the 90s, so trading with local players was my only option. I spent a ton of money on boosters as a teen without realizing it's all manufactured scarcity.

Re: Addiction Markets

#262

Post by kannanvijayan »

savanaly wrote: post #82
dwaltrip wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t think it’s ethically and morally questionable to frequent a business that knowingly harms the majority of its customers? I agree there’s a some sort of gray area here, but it feels awfully narrow… especially with the recent sports betting companies.

I feel like the goalposts have been shifted massively in this conversation. The original sentiment was "there's no way to responsibly gamble online", and that's all I was ever responding to.

I strongly doubt that the person you were responding to was asserting that "no person, at any time, in any circumstance, can ever gamble online without it being an irresponsible act".

But chances are that the original commenter was really using language in a more colloquial way, the way someone might say "the only responsible choice is not to use drugs". Someone saying that isn't making a statement that "no person ever, under any circumstance, can ever benefit from consuming any drug".

It's not an absolutist statement, but you are choosing to interpret it that way so that you can construct a response based on semantic pedantry.

Goalposts built around strawmen are almost designed to be shifted.

Re: Addiction Markets

#263

Post by watwut »

parineum wrote: post #223
laterium wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regressive taxes can be counterbalanced by redistributive policies. Sales taxes are regressive too for example and bring much much more revenue. The issue is sales taxes disincentivize consumption whereas gambling taxes disinventivize gambling.

> Sales taxes are regressive too for example and bring much much more revenue. That's because "tax the rich" is actually pretty bad tax policy because the rich really don't make a lot more income than the upper-middle to lower classes. If you look at countries with robust social safety nets, they don't get there by taxing the rich.

They dont get there by making rich untaxed, uncontrolably powerful and above the law either. Taxing the rich is a necessary component, just like the justice system that applies to rich too.

Re: Addiction Markets

#264

Post by wqaatwt »

parineum wrote: post #223
laterium wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regressive taxes can be counterbalanced by redistributive policies. Sales taxes are regressive too for example and bring much much more revenue. The issue is sales taxes disincentivize consumption whereas gambling taxes disinventivize gambling.

> Sales taxes are regressive too for example and bring much much more revenue. That's because "tax the rich" is actually pretty bad tax policy because the rich really don't make a lot more income than the upper-middle to lower classes. If you look at countries with robust social safety nets, they don't get there by taxing the rich.

That’s not the only reason. Well to an extent it is, because the rich are much better at optimizing taxes, however you can close the “loopholes” and such, then there are wealth taxes.

The problem is that the rich are ultra mobile, just like their capital, so unless you restrict that they’ll just move somewhere else where taxes are low.

So countries basically end up competing with each other by lowering taxes to attract them while destroying their middle classes..

Same more or less applies to companies

Re: Addiction Markets

#265

Post by watwut »

Ekaros wrote: post #241
ryanjshaw wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah the sweet spot is to make the gambling companies pay for the treatment and recovery of the people addicted to their products, up to whatever amount they gave the gambling company.

I wonder could this be expanded to other areas. Say you run a ski-resort. Any broken bones and other issues are fully on you. To unlimited liability, piercing any corporate setup. Could really work for any sports too. Food, tobacco, alcohol get more interesting... As there is bit harder time to assign blame of each meal. Maybe in those cases the claimants should be able to fully list everything they have ingested ove…

Ski resorts do not try to break legs of skiers on purpose. They already have enough incentives to remove danger.

Betting companies employ all the tricks to make you a gambler. The more you loose, the more they target you. And if the gambler atops playing they literally go put of their way to nake them relapse.

Re: Addiction Markets

#266

Post by watwut »

savanaly wrote: post #41
gcanyon wrote: post #16

This line from the ads always strikes me as darkly ironic: > if you need help making responsible choices, call… Like, the only “responsible” choice is not to gamble online. What do they even think we’re supposed to take away from that line of the commercial?

> the only “responsible” choice is not to gamble online I don't gamble at all in any form, but I still firmly disagree. Some people enjoy gambling in a way that never hurts them-- I've known countless friends and coworkers who talk about doing a bit of it in Vegas or what have you. You're saying every last one is a degenerate gambler somehow concealing it totally from me? They know they're not going net positive on t…

He is saying the reponsible reasonable choice is not to gamble. These people are making unreasonable choices.

It was you who brought "degenerate" into it, as if throwing an insult or not made difference in facts.

Also, yes, gamblers hide their addiction. That is normal for gambler and you wont know it. They can be likable people and calling them "degenerate" just makes seeking help harder.

Re: Addiction Markets

#267

Post by watwut »

nicce wrote: post #107
cal_dent wrote: post #28

There has recently been many looks at the epidemic in gambling. Wonder how all of the focus seem to happen at the same time Off the top of my head: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-10-31/great-bri... https://kyla.substack.com/p/gamblemerica-how-sports-betting-... https://www.ft.com/content/e80df917-2af7-4a37-b9af-55d23f941... https://www.dopaminemarkets.com/p/the-lottery-fication-of-ev... https://www.inve…

I find it odd that almost nobody ever refers stock trading as gambling. While for most persons it is nothing else.

Know your customer laws are gambling regulation in disguise.

Re: Addiction Markets

#268

Post by vanderZwan »

haritha-j wrote: post #258

I used to live in Sri Lanka and one of the most pervasive things I noticed when I moved to the west were all these gambling ads. There, it was widely accepted that gambling was harmful. Yes, you could do it, but you could never advertise it. I'm shocked that my 3rd world country has way better control over this than the west.

I think that's an unfair conclusion towards Sri Lanka, it's not like Western countries are inherently superior. Some things are further developed, some things were lost, and some things just reflect different values.

Re: Addiction Markets

#269

Post by maxilevi »

bfg_9k wrote: post #240
laterium wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is negative sum after transaction costs and taxes.

No, it's not. Person A buys stock 1, stock one goes from $10 to $15. Person A makes $5. Person B buys it at $15 and then it pays a $1 dividend, person B makes $1. It's not zero sum, everyone can win.

That only applies for industries that are growing. And most of the “gambling” happens in options markets which are perfectly zero sum before fees.

Re: Addiction Markets

#270

Post by ripped_britches »

This is a horribly written article littered with logical fallacies. Nearly every point is just a random fact about gambling that doesn’t add to the argument.

- fanduel owns networks. So what?

- gambling taxes = corporate taxes in MD. This is misleading as state level corporate are effectively $0

- 20% of Americans have placed a bet. So?

I have never done sports gambling myself but this article fails to convince that it’s a problem

Post reply on HN