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

311–320 of 479 posts

Re: Addiction Markets

#311

Post by mlrtime »

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.

Because most people cannot define the difference between investing and gambling.

Also the stock market is NOT 0-sum. A buyer and seller can both "win".

Re: Addiction Markets

#312

Post by mlrtime »

maxilevi wrote: post #269
bfg_9k wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You changed the goal posts, the thread started with stock. Derivatives are completely different.

Re: Addiction Markets

#313

Post by mlrtime »

Ekaros wrote: post #248
dbpcut wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because at the end of the day you are buying an asset. Whether that asset stays valuable or not will change. Gambling is the chance to have nothing at the end.

With stocks there is real chance to have nothing at all at end too. Lot of companies have failed. And stock holders are last on the list to get returns in bankruptcy.

You are changing the definition, everything has a chance of losing value. There are some things that will never have value, or close to 0.

Re: Addiction Markets

#314

Post by mlrtime »

asdff wrote: post #98
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #71

On a somewhat related note, there seems to be a huge interest in vice policing on social media. Gambling, sex, drugs, these are some of humanity's oldest vices. Why has it become so popular on social media to highlight these, along with a narrative of social or cultural decline?

Standard bible thumping. You will notice that there is also an emphasis on traditional family values as well both in the media and in the positions of politicians.

Did you read the article?

Re: Addiction Markets

#315

Post by tomjen3 »

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.

May I suggest just requiring people to register what how much they want to gamble and then be locked into that. If you want to gamble for 100 usd per month, then you can't bet more than that. You should be able to set your own amount, but any changes should only be active from the next month.

This has minimum impact on personal liberty, and will almost eliminate problem gambling.

Re: Addiction Markets

#316

Post by mlrtime »

dns_snek wrote: post #251
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the centrist vs leftist distinction isn't particularly interesting for me in this instance because that's a discussion that feels more relevant at a political party level for me. In the US, the Democrats as a party are center-left. But the audience for these anti-vice takes seems to be "lefty" people. Both center-left folks and also leftists. I see plenty of folks on Bluesky who want a socialist revolution to…

> In the US, the Democrats as a party are center-left. The case of US Democrats is an example of how useless the 1-dimensional classification is. They can be very socially progressive which would seem to put them well into the "left-wing" territory, but economically they're in the right-wing territory. Economically speaking, a candidate like Sanders (considered to be too radical even by the Democrats and painted as a…

Ok great, now do other continents? I'm not sure what the obsession I often read is comparing politics with other Continents, not countries.

There are some EU laws that are more conservative and some that are less, proponents of policies often cherry-pick the ones that match their ideology leaving out others. Even worse is they ignore the problems that the policies they agree with are causing those countries, but ends-justify-means.

Re: Addiction Markets

#317

Post by 127 »

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…

It's very weird to me how some state entities think cannibalism will cure famine.

Re: Addiction Markets

#318

Post by ACCount37 »

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.

"Make it legal but very annoying" is an underrated policy option. And banning advertisement is the first resort in this line of regulation.

If there are no ads to tell you, you have to, first, be informed that sports gambling is a thing people do, then decide that it's a thing you want participate in, and then obtain information on how it's done. This adds friction. Friction reduces participation. But if you really want to gamble? You still can.

Re: Addiction Markets

#319

Post by harha »

TimByte wrote: post #280
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…

A state is funding essential public services not through productive economic activity, but by extracting money from people losing bets

Sounds like a win to me, you can leave more for productive activity to grow and attract more, there less incentive for illegal gambling, and no one is forced to do it.

If there’s a massive burden with addicts, you can still impose that the gambling industry pays more to offset.

Re: Addiction Markets

#320

Post by tsoukase »

Gambling, especially low cost continuous play, can be a symptom of latent mental disease, especially depression or simply low intelligence to conceive the fraud (the company always wins). These people need protection by banning ads for any gambling and provide support and guidance to uncover the scam.
Post reply on HN