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

411–420 of 479 posts

Re: Addiction Markets

#411

Post by shadowgovt »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #343
harha wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> no one is forced to do it This logic always bugs me because no one truly lives in a vacuum. People are flawed and generally need help from a community. A small community can't really fight back a well endowed company like gambling companies. The whole(stated) reason android is losing unsigned side loading is because grandmas in SEA are sideloading gambling apps. It's obvious to me that gambling is generally a vulne…

> The whole(stated) reason android is losing unsigned side loading is because grandmas in SEA are sideloading gambling apps.

Do you have more details on this? I hadn't heard this angle on the story before.

I'm mildly surprised this is a concern Google has to have.

Re: Addiction Markets

#412

Post by shadowgovt »

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #401
harha wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> no one is forced to do it Go tell that to joint bank accounts and family court.

What does this comment mean?

Re: Addiction Markets

#413

Post by dghlsakjg »

maxerickson wrote: post #370
ACCount37 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 w…

So this is sort of a gotcha question, but I don't mean it that way. Is it advertising when the announcer for a game talks about gambling? There's statements that obviously would be advertising, so the interesting thing is where and how to draw the line.

Not that hard at all. Is the message from the announcer paid for directly or is the casino a sponsor? Its an ad.

If an announcer just wants to talk about gambling, fine, I guess, but I really doubt that there are any announcers that would do much of that.

Re: Addiction Markets

#414

Post by JumpinJack_Cash »

What a bunch of fearful people in the comments.

Gambling , especially in person gambling such as poker is basically a toned down version of combat sports where you are socially allowed to take something from somebody else because the other person accepted the conditions by sitting at the table or entering the casino.

Much like a boxer accepts the risk when they enter the ring.

The same thing happens on your beloved stock market, you just don't see it.

Re: Addiction Markets

#415

Post by JumpinJack_Cash »

brettgriffin wrote: post #8

The problem isn't the 70M people who placed bets, its the ~25M with broken risk aversion. These are mostly men, and a very specific type of men. You can try to curtail their access to gambling but we're missing the underlying problem.

> > The problem is the ~25M with broken risk aversion.

Problem for you maybe. A life lived in fear is not worth living at all

Re: Addiction Markets

#416

Post by Saline9515 »

immibis wrote: post #398
idiotsecant wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't we tax the buildings? It seems like there's lots of real estate out there with relatively moderate land value but astronomical building value.

You can, but it's a tax on real wealth, which incentivizes a reduction in real wealth. More concretely it incentivizes fewer buildings because people want to pay less tax. If you want fewer buildings then fine. The amount of land is fixed. Taxation on land does not decrease land, but rather incentivizes efficient land use and decreasing land values (which improves efficiency of land use).

Most of the value of urban land comes from the public infrastructure and economic life around it, not from the promoter's actions which are very common. Besides a tax of land incentivizes usage (so wealth creation), rather than thesaurization.

Re: Addiction Markets

#417

Post by dghlsakjg »

mlrtime wrote: post #300
margalabargala wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The discussion is about banning the advertising of gambling, not gambling itself. There won't be a large grey market for advertisements.

Wanna bet? Try regulating that on the internet, or walk down a construction sight in Manhattan, there are illegal ads all over.

Easily solved.

If someone shows the regulator an ad for fanduel that shouldn't exist, they pull their permit to operate.

We have already seen that you can ban ads pretty effectively. I can't remember the last time I saw a cigarette ad, hell, where I live you can't even display them openly in stores, I can't even recall the last time I saw a cigarette logo.

I have yet to see any 'grey market' cigarette ads.

Re: Addiction Markets

#418

Post by Saline9515 »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #399
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…

I think this is a pretty good approach actually. Give people the freedom to gamble, but discourage it through taxes. It's best to tax things you want to discourage. So it's preferable to tax gambling rather than productive economic activity. Related concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigouvian_tax

Gambling is an addiction without physical substance, it is not clear if taxes reduce gambling.

Re: Addiction Markets

#419

Post by Balgair »

Den_VR wrote: post #393
Balgair wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, in my little part of the world if you go up to any sub 24 year old male and say: " What's the line?" you'll get the betting numbers for the 'largest' local team playing that day. It's a bit different today in particular though as we're in equinox season (when many major sports leagues play on the same day). So your local college football team is playing today, the world series game 7 is today, and there are N…

I don’t know this is new. May as well say sports have ruined a generation of men, for at least three generations. But my comment was admittedly more so addressed at the gender issue.

Ah, got yah

Re: Addiction Markets

#420

Post by jwiz »

shadowgovt wrote: post #412
BeFlatXIII wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no one is forced to do it Go tell that to joint bank accounts and family court.

What does this comment mean?

If spouse-a has gambling addiction and spends all of the family money, then spouse-b was effectively forced to gamble.
Post reply on HN