51–60 of 164 posts
Except for stocks, bonds, options, futures, and forex. Wall St is the only authorized online gambling establishment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A better formatted way to read it for better readability: https://gist.github.com/jeremyaboyd/6012e7c0d80138f366064d69...
Except you potentially changed the meaning. The question is about "on any sporting event or contest" Is that "on any sporting event or sporting contest" or "on any sporting event or other contest"
I might not be correct, but lists of two don't seem to have commas in at least this US Law.
Except for stocks, bonds, options, futures, and forex. Wall St is the only authorized online gambling establishment.
I've been thinking of running a periodic contest in my MMO game. The one who can camp out for at least a minimum time span, the furthest out in space will win a prize. (Space, in the as-yet unimplemented design, would get deadlier by the square of distance from home base at coordinate 0,0) Prize entrants have to pay something like $1 and completely eschew non-cosmetic in-game purchases. How would the law distinguish…
Except for stocks, bonds, options, futures, and forex. Wall St is the only authorized online gambling establishment.
While there is some amount of speculation, it represents a small portion of the entire financial space. If you sincerely hold this view, you should take a closer look at the purpose of financial instruments and markets.
There is a sister post that in trying to argue against this only seems to support the point. "a house that always wins"; as has been echoed on HN ad infinitum, _don't stock pick_, (Edit; child is correct, this is more about day trading, but the broader advice probably still holds to some extent) because if you do, you're the dumb money handing it over to the HFT firms. So even if the intent is not for wallstreet to be a gambling house, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and benefits from regulatory capture like a duck...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those offshore sites are scams. The scam is they take your money but if you ever win big you will never see it payed out (deposited in a real bank account belonging to you). You will then become one that post on forums on how you can't get your money out, until they finally close shop and run once enough people have been scammed.
That's already illegal regardless.
Except for stocks, bonds, options, futures, and forex. Wall St is the only authorized online gambling establishment.
Also online, state-sponsored lotteries. I'd consider lotteries (in general, not just online) more significant in terms of taking wealth away from people who can least afford it, and for no inherent legitimate purpose. (Lotteries fund education, but there are better ways to do that.)
Even that is debatable. In just about every state, when they added a lottery "that funds eduction", they reduced the state contribution to the education budget by exactly the amount that was being added by the lottery. So while technically yes it goes to education, in reality it does not.
Except for stocks, bonds, options, futures, and forex. Wall St is the only authorized online gambling establishment.
Also online, state-sponsored lotteries. I'd consider lotteries (in general, not just online) more significant in terms of taking wealth away from people who can least afford it, and for no inherent legitimate purpose. (Lotteries fund education, but there are better ways to do that.)
Except for stocks, bonds, options, futures, and forex. Wall St is the only authorized online gambling establishment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While there is some amount of speculation, it represents a small portion of the entire financial space. If you sincerely hold this view, you should take a closer look at the purpose of financial instruments and markets.
I do not believe this counters the OP's point. While the core purpose of financial markets may be beneficial vehicles like hedging and price discovery, the fact that the pragmatic outcome of the law is to leave wall street as one of the only outlets for "legalized betting" cannot be ignored. There is a sister post that in trying to argue against this only seems to support the point. "a house that always wins"; as has…
"Google announced that it was buying a private company called Nest, for instance, and the entirely unrelated stock of Nestor Inc. (ticker: NEST) was up 1,900 percent"