Why State-sponsored gambling should be rejected
I found a Minnesota Conservative organization "The American Experiment" with a paper against gambling expansion Minnesota:
http://www.amexp.org/Special%20Reports/GamblingInMinnesota.pdf
I only read through quickly so far, but overall I have no argument.
I see my "top talking point" against state sponsored gambling (of any form) is that income from gambling has a corrupting influence on government. It pretends it is free income. It pretends people would gamble anyway to the same degree without the new investment. It pretends companies that specialize in building casinos will not gain further influence for future expansion. It pretends there are no significant social costs to gambling.
I don't think I've ever purchased a lottery ticket. I have purchased one pull-tab from a friend working at a bar selling them - didn't win. I also went to a casino downtown Duluth, and cycled $5-$10 of coins through them (initial coins in, winnings out) - don't remember how much I lost, probably about half. It didn't seem very exciting to me, except as a test if I could predict my losses - are "averages" real?
I can't see the attraction to casinos, but I can see my own addictive bahavior when I'm unhappy or stressed and I wouldn't particularly trust myself in a casino if I had such an addiction.
I think I'm just a financial conservative - I like "sure bets" over gambling for profit, even if I think the odds are in my favor. I appreciate the saying "Never pick a fair fight", and I can imagine anyone who truly thinks casinos offer them any sort of "balanced odds" for winning.
So anyway, I can't well judge WHY people would gamble. I accept it is in human nature to "play" and there is a thrill and tension in the uncertainty - like a baseball game results. I accept people WILL ALWAYS gamble on sports, on card games with cards, and that money losses will come about. I just think some sort of gambling is easier than others - small scale gambling is easier - and organized gambling is something very different.
It is just hard for me to imagine earning my living by gambling. I mean "being the house" - a job at a casino, or investing in one. Certainly Indian casinos sprung up so fast because others were willing to invest money in debt for them. I don't know any details, but if I were part of a casino my first priority would be to pay off debt. My second priority would be to invest in long-term resources that can meet the needs of the tribe. My third priority would be to invest profits in PRODUCTIVE employment. At every step I'd EXPECT next year all income could be lost - for any sort of reason. I'd live in a state of CONTINUAL FEAR of this dependence.
The first step is a NO BRAINER. The second step is less clear. Ideally long term investments SAVE money in the long term - however WRONG investments might INCREASE long term costs.
I can think similarly about any "windfall", like discovering oil. New income encourages "development" and well-being encourages expanding population, consumption and infrastucture which might not be sustainable later when the income is gone.
One thing I missed in my 3 steps is "sharing the wealth". A "windfall" looks big for a small group, but if divided among the wider population becomes something less significant. Indian tribes would surely "LIKE" to share their wealth with wider tribes, but with great internal needs (and debt) its easy to want to delay sharing until "we've taken care of our own first". Then slowly expectations and ambitions rise with new wealth so there's never "spare wealth" to share. The only principled response to windfalls to share right away.
If the Minnesota State Government found itself sharing a casino with some northern tribes, what SHOULD we DO with this "unearned income"?
Maybe gambling income is "sustainable", maybe not, but in the short term it encourages EXPANDING government spending, expanding expectations.
SURE, if Minnesota is POOR, perhaps you can justify short term investments in gambling, but where does it end? When do we have ENOUGH that we don't need it? I can't imagine that point ever being met - if not already!
I wonder if there's some sort of parallel in nature? The closest I can come would be parasites - organisms that feed off others. Well all of life ultimately does this. Humanity as much as any animal.
I just can't have an "open minded" debate on gambling. I 100% support state control over "organized gambling". I 100% reject running government on gambling profits. The only exceptions are short term desparation, and under that exception, I'm 100% sure there are better options.
Ugh!
http://www.amexp.org/Special%20Reports/GamblingInMinnesota.pdf
I only read through quickly so far, but overall I have no argument.
I see my "top talking point" against state sponsored gambling (of any form) is that income from gambling has a corrupting influence on government. It pretends it is free income. It pretends people would gamble anyway to the same degree without the new investment. It pretends companies that specialize in building casinos will not gain further influence for future expansion. It pretends there are no significant social costs to gambling.
I don't think I've ever purchased a lottery ticket. I have purchased one pull-tab from a friend working at a bar selling them - didn't win. I also went to a casino downtown Duluth, and cycled $5-$10 of coins through them (initial coins in, winnings out) - don't remember how much I lost, probably about half. It didn't seem very exciting to me, except as a test if I could predict my losses - are "averages" real?
I can't see the attraction to casinos, but I can see my own addictive bahavior when I'm unhappy or stressed and I wouldn't particularly trust myself in a casino if I had such an addiction.
I think I'm just a financial conservative - I like "sure bets" over gambling for profit, even if I think the odds are in my favor. I appreciate the saying "Never pick a fair fight", and I can imagine anyone who truly thinks casinos offer them any sort of "balanced odds" for winning.
So anyway, I can't well judge WHY people would gamble. I accept it is in human nature to "play" and there is a thrill and tension in the uncertainty - like a baseball game results. I accept people WILL ALWAYS gamble on sports, on card games with cards, and that money losses will come about. I just think some sort of gambling is easier than others - small scale gambling is easier - and organized gambling is something very different.
It is just hard for me to imagine earning my living by gambling. I mean "being the house" - a job at a casino, or investing in one. Certainly Indian casinos sprung up so fast because others were willing to invest money in debt for them. I don't know any details, but if I were part of a casino my first priority would be to pay off debt. My second priority would be to invest in long-term resources that can meet the needs of the tribe. My third priority would be to invest profits in PRODUCTIVE employment. At every step I'd EXPECT next year all income could be lost - for any sort of reason. I'd live in a state of CONTINUAL FEAR of this dependence.
The first step is a NO BRAINER. The second step is less clear. Ideally long term investments SAVE money in the long term - however WRONG investments might INCREASE long term costs.
I can think similarly about any "windfall", like discovering oil. New income encourages "development" and well-being encourages expanding population, consumption and infrastucture which might not be sustainable later when the income is gone.
One thing I missed in my 3 steps is "sharing the wealth". A "windfall" looks big for a small group, but if divided among the wider population becomes something less significant. Indian tribes would surely "LIKE" to share their wealth with wider tribes, but with great internal needs (and debt) its easy to want to delay sharing until "we've taken care of our own first". Then slowly expectations and ambitions rise with new wealth so there's never "spare wealth" to share. The only principled response to windfalls to share right away.
If the Minnesota State Government found itself sharing a casino with some northern tribes, what SHOULD we DO with this "unearned income"?
Maybe gambling income is "sustainable", maybe not, but in the short term it encourages EXPANDING government spending, expanding expectations.
SURE, if Minnesota is POOR, perhaps you can justify short term investments in gambling, but where does it end? When do we have ENOUGH that we don't need it? I can't imagine that point ever being met - if not already!
I wonder if there's some sort of parallel in nature? The closest I can come would be parasites - organisms that feed off others. Well all of life ultimately does this. Humanity as much as any animal.
I just can't have an "open minded" debate on gambling. I 100% support state control over "organized gambling". I 100% reject running government on gambling profits. The only exceptions are short term desparation, and under that exception, I'm 100% sure there are better options.
Ugh!
posted by Ares Olympus at 10:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home