State promoted gambling
Governor Pawlenty continues to promote a deal with 2-3 northern Minnesota Native American tribes for a join gambling deal somewhere near the Twin Cities Metro area.
I feel overwhelmingly against this or anything like it. I don't know the chances of success.
I see the first argument in support is that it'll help tribes that have not been able to benefit by the casino expansions. The second supporting argument is that the state made a bad deal which unfairly gave indian tribes a monopoly on casino gambling. The third supporting argument is that the state is short on funds and that the new agreement will allow taxes to flow to state government.
I don't know how "saturated" the casino market is. However it is clear that a metro area casino would most surely take business from other near by casinos - Mystic Lakes, Hinckley, Turtle Lake. THUS, it can be judged as an act of economic "revenge" against the success of the tribes that control these without direct taxed profits to the state.
On the other side, it seems clear that the successful tribal casinos ought to be promoting their own revenue sharing with other tribes that are not benefiting. In this case the Governor's actions perhaps will strengthen the bargaining power of the poorer tribes for market access.
On the second argument - monopoly power for tribes. I consider this an asset because expansion is limited. I don't see anyone claiming the tribes are abusing their power, at least on the service side. The only thing people don't like is that it is unfair - that nontribal businesses can't participate. Again, since I don't see gambling as an honorable source of income, at least for a wealthy state that can do better, and so I accept it only because it benefits the economic disadvantaged reservations.
The third argument is countered above. In addition many conservatives argue that wealth exists in our state from income tax. Income tax allows the government to be accountable to the people, since they feel the effects of the taxes. In contrast gambling income is a hidden tax - considered "free money" without considering financial costs from having them. Free money makes the government less accountable because not everyone is directly affected.
All religious organizations are against lotteries and casinos - against promotion of "get rich quick" values.
I can accept gambling as "Entertainment", but it is a sign of corruption to me to require "high stakes" to be entertained. If people really like pulling a lever for a line of fruit, why not make "play" payoffs, keeping costs comparable to other entertainment - $50/night/person or less? Why no set limitations on how much people can lose in a night?
It could be done but it is not, because such decisions "don't make money" for the casinos. THUS they benefit by customers with the least self control.
My rules might be:
1. Lottery - Biggest odds for winning: 1000:1, and return 500:1.
2. Slot machines - Use tokens, limit purchase of tokens to $100/person/day.
How many people would buy a $1 lottery ticket for a chance to win $500? I don't know.
How many people lose more than $100/night in slot machines? I don't know.
I try to imagine the "thrill" of such games. I know just a little of the thrill of gambling.
Listening to a Twins Game for me is a form of gambling, even if my wagers are all in my head. Since I'm generally a pessimist, I get my reward from an unhoped home run, or a strike out of an opponent with the bases loaded. Sometimes I even believe in the Twinkies - that they can succeed - they've done it in the past, and heck, they might even be the top collective talent in the league.
Anticipation, imagination, decision, tension, release. Hmmmm... sounds like a familiar sequence somewhere else...
I gamble when I glance at my watch in relation to a coming bus, and still take an extra risky minute to finish an email before rushing out the door. Will the bus be early? Can I still make it?
It would be interesting to look at the psychology of gambling. It's called "Gaming" because it is a game. Money is the traditional reward, but not necessarily.
I generally think all of life is a game, and we make the rules, we set the goals, rewards and decide when we win. We don't need Pavlov's dinner bell to learn to drool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov
I accept that gambling is better controlled than not, but I dislike making it too easy for people.
I feel overwhelmingly against this or anything like it. I don't know the chances of success.
I see the first argument in support is that it'll help tribes that have not been able to benefit by the casino expansions. The second supporting argument is that the state made a bad deal which unfairly gave indian tribes a monopoly on casino gambling. The third supporting argument is that the state is short on funds and that the new agreement will allow taxes to flow to state government.
I don't know how "saturated" the casino market is. However it is clear that a metro area casino would most surely take business from other near by casinos - Mystic Lakes, Hinckley, Turtle Lake. THUS, it can be judged as an act of economic "revenge" against the success of the tribes that control these without direct taxed profits to the state.
On the other side, it seems clear that the successful tribal casinos ought to be promoting their own revenue sharing with other tribes that are not benefiting. In this case the Governor's actions perhaps will strengthen the bargaining power of the poorer tribes for market access.
On the second argument - monopoly power for tribes. I consider this an asset because expansion is limited. I don't see anyone claiming the tribes are abusing their power, at least on the service side. The only thing people don't like is that it is unfair - that nontribal businesses can't participate. Again, since I don't see gambling as an honorable source of income, at least for a wealthy state that can do better, and so I accept it only because it benefits the economic disadvantaged reservations.
The third argument is countered above. In addition many conservatives argue that wealth exists in our state from income tax. Income tax allows the government to be accountable to the people, since they feel the effects of the taxes. In contrast gambling income is a hidden tax - considered "free money" without considering financial costs from having them. Free money makes the government less accountable because not everyone is directly affected.
All religious organizations are against lotteries and casinos - against promotion of "get rich quick" values.
I can accept gambling as "Entertainment", but it is a sign of corruption to me to require "high stakes" to be entertained. If people really like pulling a lever for a line of fruit, why not make "play" payoffs, keeping costs comparable to other entertainment - $50/night/person or less? Why no set limitations on how much people can lose in a night?
It could be done but it is not, because such decisions "don't make money" for the casinos. THUS they benefit by customers with the least self control.
My rules might be:
1. Lottery - Biggest odds for winning: 1000:1, and return 500:1.
2. Slot machines - Use tokens, limit purchase of tokens to $100/person/day.
How many people would buy a $1 lottery ticket for a chance to win $500? I don't know.
How many people lose more than $100/night in slot machines? I don't know.
I try to imagine the "thrill" of such games. I know just a little of the thrill of gambling.
Listening to a Twins Game for me is a form of gambling, even if my wagers are all in my head. Since I'm generally a pessimist, I get my reward from an unhoped home run, or a strike out of an opponent with the bases loaded. Sometimes I even believe in the Twinkies - that they can succeed - they've done it in the past, and heck, they might even be the top collective talent in the league.
Anticipation, imagination, decision, tension, release. Hmmmm... sounds like a familiar sequence somewhere else...
I gamble when I glance at my watch in relation to a coming bus, and still take an extra risky minute to finish an email before rushing out the door. Will the bus be early? Can I still make it?
It would be interesting to look at the psychology of gambling. It's called "Gaming" because it is a game. Money is the traditional reward, but not necessarily.
I generally think all of life is a game, and we make the rules, we set the goals, rewards and decide when we win. We don't need Pavlov's dinner bell to learn to drool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov
I accept that gambling is better controlled than not, but I dislike making it too easy for people.
posted by Ares Olympus at 1:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home