What's the story on ________?

[Griff]

I'm assuming we're all sick and damn tired of the constant drum beat for Hillary and Jeb. How did O'Malley look in Maryland as Governor? Any other names we should track? Is there a moderate Republican out there? Does Greg Ballard have his shit together?

[glatt]

I'm down on casinos. I think they hurt economies overall. They funnel money from gambling addicts and the middle class away to the 1%, and the government gets some taxes along the way. They don't produce anything. It's simply a money transfer. I'm pretty sure O'Malley was Governor of Maryland when they legalized casinos. That's all I know about him, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe if he became president, he would try to solve the nation's problems with casinos.

[BigV]

re: casinos "... don't produce anything"

are you similarly down on other entertainment venues? theaters? sports teams/venues? what about service based businesses? they don't "produce" anything, but they're popular.

I'm not down on casinos, though I agree with you in that they're money funnels channeling money away from the community to some larger entity with a minor amount of frictional/operational loss (wages, etc) along the way. When I gamble in a casino, I consider it part of my entertainment expenses. I go to have some fun, eat, see the sights or a show, get out, etc. The money spent gambling is the price of the excitement of the possibility, however remote, that I might win big!!! (tm).

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

I'm down on casinos. I think they hurt economies overall. They funnel money from gambling addicts and the middle class away to the 1%, and the government gets some taxes along the way.

Lottery tickets are how government taxes the mathemtaically challenged. These less educated people love to pay those higher taxes. Could you ask for a better scam?

[Lamplighter]

re: casinos "... don't produce anything"

In Oregon, we have the "State Lottery" with video machines in bars, etc.
The Native American tribes also have casino's, some on tribal land.

For Oregon's lottery, a significant % goes to support the State's contribution to local schools,
and developing public lands (parks, fish habitats, etc.)
But, it is also a free ride for local politicians to make travel junkets all over the world,
...ostensibly to generate tourist dollars.

One public relations bullet point for the tribal casino's is the $ is being used to provide health care,
both medial and mental health, to Native Americans, both on and off of the reservations.
I believe is this one of best examples of historical irony
... take $ from the white man and improve the well being of individual tribal members.
But I have not seen anything about who else gets other shares of this pie.

So, in both of these forms of gambling, there are some uses of the $ which are good,
and some not so good; and there is a product or service at the end.

For myself, I guess I do still have that paternalistic prejudice that gambling,
especially State-sponsored, takes $ out of the pockets, of lower income people...
those who are not gambling for entertainment, but instead are
hoping to change their lives by "winning big".

[glatt]

Originally Posted by BigV

re: casinos "... don't produce anything"

are you similarly down on other entertainment venues?

No I'm not. Hollywood produces movies. Theaters produce shows. And so on. You don't get many theater addicts. You don't have cash machines in theaters so theatergoers can drain their accounts to see more shows.

I get what you are saying. It's possible for a person with a lot of self control to go into a casino and lose only a set amount of money, but not everyone is able to do that. Calling a casino entertainment is a marketing ploy to disguise what they really are.

The fact that casinos are normally situated so they can attract as many out of state patrons as possible says it all. If they were healthy for the economy, they would be placed in local areas so they could generate wealth for the local economy. You want to take money from the person who lives somewhere else, because that shifts the cost of casinos onto someone else while you retain the profits.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I see, you're down on chocolate because some people can't control themselves and get fat.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

So, in both of these forms of gambling, there are some uses of the $ which are good, and some not so good; and there is a product or service at the end.

None of that is good if discussing in terms of economics. One banker and a slight tax increase would accomplish same for less labor and more productively. Fact that so many people are employeed doing an unproductive job means, overall, the economy has less jobs.

This concept is extremely difficult for the many educated by sound bytes and open loop concepts. First, economics is a closed loop system. Which means "A results in B" is often a lie. A results in a completely different B when A results in B results in C results in D results in E results in A.


Second, if gambling was not a job destroyer, then we would also increase jobs by removing all computers from telephone switching centers. Replacing those computers with operators. According to popular myths, that also increases jobs.

Replacing computers with people would result in more jobs in a telco. And massive job losses elsewhere thoughout the economy. Any job that is not being done with less people every year means less jobs in the economy - if thinking in terms of a closed loop system.

Same applies to casinos. People doing something that is replaced by a simple tax system means jobs losses overall and in other industries. That reality is wrong only if using soudbyte reasoning. And in thinking in terms of 'open loop' systems.

Third, some actually think casinos are entertainment. Visit a casino. Why are so many people frowning? Why are they not having fun as in TV commercials? Because it is not entertainment. The mathematically ignorant are rationalizing profits from gambling in unproductive activities. Just another reason why gambling is an economic job destroyer.

We want government to run such operations (ie lottery) so that government profits from the scam rather than a mafia type organization.

Jobs, wealth, new markets, increased standards of living, a healthier and better educated public, etc ... none of the items that create a better nation and economy are found in gambling. Gambling is permitted because there will always be adults who are still children - who demand the distraction and harm that comes from such activities. Children actually think they will prosper in a game designed to create losers. This downside of a free society hopes that others might learn and therefore prosper from mistakes and addictions.

[Lamplighter]

None of that is good if discussing in terms of economics.
One banker and a slight tax increase would accomplish same
for less labor and more productively. <snip>

Tell that to the Native American Health Clinics, or at least look
at the history of US or State tax $ going to the Reservations.
Beyond that, I probably agree with you.

My anaology for economics is a water-balloon.
... squeeze it here and it pops out over there.

[glatt]

Sorry. I didn't mean to derail this thread.

O'Malley seemed to be OK otherwise. But that's just based on what filtered across the border in the news.

[sexobon]

I'm going with the candidate who campaigns on normalizing relations with Cuba and emptying out Guantanamo so I can open a casino there.

[Griff]

I think I saw that movie.

NYS did a gambling siting competition over the last couple years. Strangely the organizations that bought the most politicians got the casinos. New York is a political cesspool comparable to Toad's old backyard. If someone suggests Andrew Cuomo on this thread...

[Lamplighter]

The Dems have a very handsome, well spoken fella in the Senate representing Connecticut, Chris Murphy

He's been on tv most lately talking about the pro's and con's of Obama's diplomacy with Iran.

I'm impressed...

[Griff]

Obama finally got back on track. It's good to see.

[Griff]

What about old Warren Buffet? I guess his personal financial situation would preclude a run, but he sometimes understands reality.