Bettors are using death threats to try to get The Times of Israel's military correspondent to change his report on a missile impact in central Israel. This is his alarming account
Prohibition on vices never works, it just sends the money to criminal organizations that kill people instead of capitalist companies that kill less people.
The solution is to have it be state run, remove the profit motive, and send any money gained from it to education and social services.
Not sure if you read the article but it looks like organized crime is threatening to kill people on the “above board” platforms as well.
I also am against turning the state into the purveyor of gambling as it creates perverse incentive for the state to prioritize predating on problem gamblers and poor people in order to raise tax revenues. Money is fungible and as soon as the lottery becomes a funding vehicle for education it becomes the funding vehicle and you shift more of the burden off of the rich paying taxes and more on the poor to fund it.
I’m all for the state staying out of regulating vices but also the state shouldn’t be the one providing it to the populace.
Gambling is a moral issue, the prevalence of which is showing the degradation of the values of our society due to late stage capitalism. Unregulated capitalism places no value on values and only value in capital.
it creates perverse incentive for the state to prioritize predating on problem gamblers and poor people in order to raise tax revenues
Yeah but that incentive exists for any organization running gambling. It’s just that the mob/companies will pursue that motive more ruthlessly because:
The state is more accountable to the public and public opinion than a company. A company is only accountable to its shareholders who will almost always tell it to pursue profits at all costs. The state, at least in a democratic system, is accountable to the people. People can vote out a city council pushing gambling to increase revenue, they can’t vote out the board of draft kings.
The state bears some of the cost of addiction so they have some incentive to not let it get out of hand. A destitute gambler is more likely to use social services, to commit crime, abuse their family etc. which the state has to pay for in some way. Also there’s lost sales tax revenue if they can’t buy anything else and they’re more likely to stop paying property tax or get their home foreclosed, sold for a lower price lowering the assessed value and the property tax you can charge. All of these costs are completely externalized for companies / the mob so they can, and usually do, ignore them.
Also the money can go to actually good causes as opposed to the pocket of the draft king’s CEO or the mob boss. You can even theoretically set a cap for revenue, say the state can only make $10 million off of gambling, and the rest is proportionally refunded to the gamblers, you’d never see that in a for-profit enterprise like a company or the mob.
I don’t care about the gambling, my issue is with the advertising. They are enticing people, mostly young men, with visions of excitement and LOTS of money. They don’t show any ads of a guy losing the rent money, and having to break the news to his wife.
I don’t mind vices being legal, but I strongly object to them being marketed. Cigarettes are banned in most media, and liquor is heavily controlled. I wouldn’t mind if all marketing for all vices were prohibited.
Not saying it’s the best situation but if the choice is between the mob running it, capitalist corporations running it, and the state running it, I’d pick the state.
The state has an incentive to decrease problem gambling. Even if you ignore any democratic pressures from the people who don’t like gambling being pushed, the state also has to bear the cost of addicts with social services so it’s monetarily incentivized to reduce problem gambling.
Gambling addiction has one of the highest suicide rates out of any addiction, so I’m pretty sure the capitalist gambling companies right now cause more death than illegal organizations could.
Remove the profit motive from “the house” side. The house is taking a cut of every bet as profit, which encourages them to advertise and increase their market and market share to get more money. Which in the end means them trying to push gambling on those with a problem because they make them the most money.
If it’s run by the state it’s not beholden to share holders who want as much profit as possible, social costs be damned. The state is at least nominally beholden to the people in a democratic system and the people generally don’t want gambling advertising to be pushed on gambling addicts.
No it can work just fine if the state doesn’t become captured by those criminal profit seeking elements and we properly provide for people along the way
Prohibition on vices never works, it just sends the money to criminal organizations that kill people instead of capitalist companies that kill less people.
The solution is to have it be state run, remove the profit motive, and send any money gained from it to education and social services.
Not sure if you read the article but it looks like organized crime is threatening to kill people on the “above board” platforms as well.
I also am against turning the state into the purveyor of gambling as it creates perverse incentive for the state to prioritize predating on problem gamblers and poor people in order to raise tax revenues. Money is fungible and as soon as the lottery becomes a funding vehicle for education it becomes the funding vehicle and you shift more of the burden off of the rich paying taxes and more on the poor to fund it.
I’m all for the state staying out of regulating vices but also the state shouldn’t be the one providing it to the populace.
Gambling is a moral issue, the prevalence of which is showing the degradation of the values of our society due to late stage capitalism. Unregulated capitalism places no value on values and only value in capital.
Yeah but that incentive exists for any organization running gambling. It’s just that the mob/companies will pursue that motive more ruthlessly because:
The state is more accountable to the public and public opinion than a company. A company is only accountable to its shareholders who will almost always tell it to pursue profits at all costs. The state, at least in a democratic system, is accountable to the people. People can vote out a city council pushing gambling to increase revenue, they can’t vote out the board of draft kings.
The state bears some of the cost of addiction so they have some incentive to not let it get out of hand. A destitute gambler is more likely to use social services, to commit crime, abuse their family etc. which the state has to pay for in some way. Also there’s lost sales tax revenue if they can’t buy anything else and they’re more likely to stop paying property tax or get their home foreclosed, sold for a lower price lowering the assessed value and the property tax you can charge. All of these costs are completely externalized for companies / the mob so they can, and usually do, ignore them.
Also the money can go to actually good causes as opposed to the pocket of the draft king’s CEO or the mob boss. You can even theoretically set a cap for revenue, say the state can only make $10 million off of gambling, and the rest is proportionally refunded to the gamblers, you’d never see that in a for-profit enterprise like a company or the mob.
I don’t care about the gambling, my issue is with the advertising. They are enticing people, mostly young men, with visions of excitement and LOTS of money. They don’t show any ads of a guy losing the rent money, and having to break the news to his wife.
I don’t mind vices being legal, but I strongly object to them being marketed. Cigarettes are banned in most media, and liquor is heavily controlled. I wouldn’t mind if all marketing for all vices were prohibited.
Oohh yeah, let the state run the “gambling on genocide” and “gambling on child murder”, that sounds awesome!
Not saying it’s the best situation but if the choice is between the mob running it, capitalist corporations running it, and the state running it, I’d pick the state.
The state has an incentive to decrease problem gambling. Even if you ignore any democratic pressures from the people who don’t like gambling being pushed, the state also has to bear the cost of addicts with social services so it’s monetarily incentivized to reduce problem gambling.
Gambling addiction has one of the highest suicide rates out of any addiction, so I’m pretty sure the capitalist gambling companies right now cause more death than illegal organizations could.
most are actually struggling tmk, as the stock market (the largest casino around) is more accessible than ever.
Removing the profit motive of gambling is exactly prohibition, what???
Remove the profit motive from “the house” side. The house is taking a cut of every bet as profit, which encourages them to advertise and increase their market and market share to get more money. Which in the end means them trying to push gambling on those with a problem because they make them the most money.
If it’s run by the state it’s not beholden to share holders who want as much profit as possible, social costs be damned. The state is at least nominally beholden to the people in a democratic system and the people generally don’t want gambling advertising to be pushed on gambling addicts.
…just make the advertising illegal
No it can work just fine if the state doesn’t become captured by those criminal profit seeking elements and we properly provide for people along the way
Not buying it