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

301–310 of 479 posts

Re: Addiction Markets

#301

Post by mlrtime »

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?

Serious question, is everything black/white to you?

Extreme example: I don't have individual liberty to murder or take things that aren't mine. So I'm ok with giving up at least 1 or 2 individual liberties. How many is enough, and who decides?

Or do we all just decide and that is the point of voting, not sure what you're trying to say.

Re: Addiction Markets

#302

Post by kiba »

mattmaroon wrote: post #218
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…

No to both. You probably understand it but it’s not that amazing. States don’t tax corporations much (it’s often fairly easy to move your company to the next state over if taxes are lower) the federal government does. They tax things like sales, homes, gambling and other vices, etc.

Good idea to impose piguouvian taxes, not a good idea to impose sale taxes as that's regressive.

Property tax's a mixed bag since it taxes both land and building when ideally you only want to tax land.

States that impose income taxes are choosing not to imposes taxes elsewhere like land, which is the ideal tax. Income taxes have negative consequences since you're taxing economic activity.

Re: Addiction Markets

#303

Post by LadyCailin »

kgwgk wrote: post #259
photon_garden wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway does a great job of this with the government-owned alcohol monopoly. The stores are always just a little bit out of the way, with slightly inconvenient hours. You can still get a beer if you want, but it takes a little bit of doing.

> You can still get a beer if you want, but it takes a little bit of doing. It takes a little bit of money but you can get a beer at the supermarket.

Or the bar.

Re: Addiction Markets

#304

Post by mlrtime »

a123b456c wrote: post #169
rufus_foreman wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

> If you want restrictions on gambling, on advertising it, on participating in it, on making money from it, you want to restrict individual liberty. No. An organization's liberty to advertise is not individual liberty. Let individuals gamble. Do not let organizations advertise gambling services. Organizational liberty is not individual liberty.

Devils advocate:

You're restricting my liberty to consume those advertisements. I want to see them and you are restricting them.

Re: Addiction Markets

#305

Post by mlrtime »

skippyboxedhero wrote: post #57
Hasz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great video. The convergence between traditional stock market finance and casino gambling is going to seriously scar a generation.

Who do you think was buying options 30 years ago? Institutional demand, particularly for non-OTC options, was zero. Countries which have legalized gambling tend not to have large options markets. There is no convergence. They have always been the same thing. The difference is that you can provide a venue where harm is reduced or one where harm is maximised.

100% agree, ban it all and it goes underground or shifts somewhere else.

See prostitution.

Re: Addiction Markets

#306

Post by hamasho »

mlrtime wrote: post #296
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.

I'm fairly pro-market, but I agree with this. I think people should do what they want if they don't harm themselves or others. Advertising these things are different... I don't have a problem with people smoking or drinking, but I agree we shouldn't allow advertising. However, they should be able to advertise in adult only outlets. ex: Does Playboy still have Cigarette and Liqour advertisements?

  > I'm fairly pro-market, but I agree with this. I think people should do what they want if they don't harm themselves or others.
Is this still pro-market though? I have the same opinion and I often labeled as "anti-market" when I call regulations for gambling, social media, AI, etc.

Re: Addiction Markets

#307

Post by mlrtime »

csomar wrote: post #239
malfist wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They are roughly the same thing packaged differently. Both can be used to lock-in the price at a certain premium.

They are both derivatives but using a farmer as an example is 100% futures.

For commodities, the Futures demand delivery of the underlying. Options are settles in cash.

Re: Addiction Markets

#308

Post by mnky9800n »

nicce wrote: post #103
mnky9800n wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to really enjoy magic. Then at some point I couldn’t keep up with the constructed meta. So I switched to drafting. But now it seems like everything is so gamified that playing the game isn’t enough anymore. Now you need to play all the time both in the shop and on mtg arena and it’s like designed to keep you hooked. I hate it. I really just can’t be bothered to play anymore. It’s no longer fun it’s just a grin…

> It’s no longer fun it’s just a grind. Like most new games these days. I play only old games or few special ones like Baldur’s Gate anymore.

Yes I’ve been playing a lot of civ4 and sim city 2000. It’s so much more enjoyable because it’s simply about playing a game where complex simulations put together interesting problems to solve. As opposed to figuring out how to unlock the next whatever skin, weapon, armor, card set, fake money gems, other fake money coins, etc.

Edit: btw if anyone is looking for a civ4 game hit me up

Re: Addiction Markets

#309

Post by kiba »

Epa095 wrote: post #289
parineum wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 do on the other hand hold a significant portion of the wealth. Unfortunately wealth tax is complicated, both because actually measuring the wealth for tax purposes can be hard, and the rich can (and will) just move away from any sufficiently effecient tax scheme. So upper middle class ends up paying the bill.

It's easy to tax certain assets, such as land. LVT is actually the ideal tax in many ways, since a LVT is undodgable. Actually it doesn't matter whose name is on the title.

Sufficiently high LVT will deter speculation, leading to collapse in land price and encouraging efficient usage of land and drastically affecting our political landscape.

Re: Addiction Markets

#310

Post by soVeryTired »

kurtis_reed wrote: post #285
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…

Not losing bets, all bets

In one sense, winning bets. If you lose, you lose: your money is gone either way. If you win, the fact that the probabilities sum to about 1.05 means you win less than you would have in a fair game. The state just takes a cut of that extra 0.05.
Post reply on HN