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

451–460 of 479 posts

Re: Addiction Markets

#451

Post by MSFT_Edging »

shadowgovt wrote: post #411
MSFT_Edging wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'd have to look for it. At the very least, the pilot program is happening there, and I've read on here it's a big scam to have sideloaded gambling apps take people's life savings.

Re: Addiction Markets

#452

Post by nicce »

mlrtime wrote: post #311
nicce wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

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

If you look the whole lifetime of the stock and all owners and their transactions, it is close to zero-sum. Company can get more wealth by selling which is the exception and your argument. But for average retail-trader it is zero-sum game.

Re: Addiction Markets

#453

Post by laterium »

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.

If we're talking trading, it means a short timeframe, let's say over a few days. The stock market doesn't really grow over a few days, it's basically zero sum. So every gain you make is balanced by someone else's loss. The issue is both the sellers and buyers are paying transaction costs and taxes, which makes it actually negative sum.

If person A waited a few days and the stock shot up, then it's basically gambling since no stock has 50% expected returns in a few days. These are the "random" fluctuations in the market. Another person made a similar bet and their stock went to $5 instead, losing money. Overall it's negative sum.

If person A waited a few years instead and their stock went up to $15, sure then it's different. But it's stock investing, not trading. They made a profit because they held stocks, not traded them. You also get dividends for holding stocks, not trading them.

You are only ever expected to make money from trading stocks since you kind of also have to hold the stocks for a bit. Stock traders accidentally invest and that's how they make any money at all compared to pure gamblers.

Note that I am talking about the vast majority of stock traders here but not the financial experts or algo trading firms that try to find inefficiencies and exploit them. They can actually help with price discovery and profit by making the markets more efficient. But even they're only making calculated bets at best much like good poker players. Most regular people have no chance.

Re: Addiction Markets

#454

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

jonahbenton wrote: post #423
0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Taxing the dopamine thing does not discourage the doing of the dopamine thing. Just penalizes the addict and worsens their position.

This meta-analysis apparently found that alcohol taxes were effective for reducing alcohol consumption:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3735171/

Why should gambling be different?

Re: Addiction Markets

#455

Post by indolering »

> “21% of sports bettors say they’ve verbally abused an athlete, either in person or online, after losing money on a bet.”

This is exactly what it felt like to work in crypto.

Re: Addiction Markets

#456

Post by indolering »

parthdesai wrote: post #406
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.

Should we also make sugar companies, coca cola/pepsi pay for people that become obese?

I would support taxes based on long term health effects. The sugar tax in Mexico had measurable impacts IIRC.

Re: Addiction Markets

#457

Post by [deleted] »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #424
hrimfaxi wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every other sin tax is levied on the consumer, unlike gambling taxes.

Huh? Cigarette and alcohol taxes are levied on the vendor in exactly the same way a gambling tax is. Make your own alcohol and drink it yourself, share some with your friends, and you'll never pay an alcohol tax.

[deleted]

Re: Addiction Markets

#458

Post by hrimfaxi »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #424
hrimfaxi wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every other sin tax is levied on the consumer, unlike gambling taxes.

Huh? Cigarette and alcohol taxes are levied on the vendor in exactly the same way a gambling tax is. Make your own alcohol and drink it yourself, share some with your friends, and you'll never pay an alcohol tax.

Cigarette and liquor taxes are levied on the purchaser, just like gas taxes. Gambling taxes are taxes on the gambling houses/platforms not excise taxes.

Re: Addiction Markets

#459

Post by musicale »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #275
musicale wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you lose (most people, most of the time), you don't have to pay tax on winnings because there aren't any. But gambling itself seems like sort of a regressive tax that preys upon those susceptible to gambling. Edit: at least with state lotteries the state gets most of the money so it is more like a tax; in the case of corporate sports betting the corporation takes the money and then pays a small corporate tax on…

There is a theory that talk of "those susceptibile" to gambling is in fact astroturfing by gambling corporations to make it seem like they're only damaging the weak willed. And you're not weak willed are you? So nothing to worry about. Bad things only happen to bad people.

Good point - random or unpredictable rewards are known to be compelling/addictive for rats, and the same trick seems to work on most humans as well.

Though as I understand it much of money in gambling is made from "whales" - players who lose lots of money and keep playing anyway. The same term is used for f2p game players who spend a lot of money on in-app purchases, often tokens for virtual slot machines for desirable in-game items.

Re: Addiction Markets

#460

Post by gnopgnip »

nekusar wrote: post #30

People are also leaving out stuff like Pokemon, Yu Gi Oh, and Magic The Gathering. All of them also introduce rarities (arbitrary exclusiveness), hidden cards in a pack, and extreme gambling gamification. The only non-gambling MtG packs are the preconstructed commander decks. All 100 cards are published. But the packs and boxes? Pure gambling, especially for the chase rare cards. And before anyone asks, yes, my usern…

There is a big difference with a physical product. It’s harder to get in over your head and go bankrupt
Post reply on HN