Another week, another smug, alarmist anti-online gambling editorial, this time from the Christian Science Monitor:
Fresh from fixing Wall Street’s casinolike ways in high finance, Congress begins work Tuesday on a bill to overturn a 2006 law banning Internet gambling in the US. The measure is being rushed through the House Financial Services Committee on a promise that it would create 30,000 jobs and billions in tax revenue.
via Bill to legalize Internet gambling: No dice – CSMonitor.com.
I dare you to click through and read the whole thing–it’s short and really all over the place. Let me point out a few of what I believe are misconceptions or exaggerations
1. “a promise that it would create 30,000 jobs and billions in tax revenue”
I’ve said before that most of the projections I’ve seen seem to be to be way too optimistic. I’d really like to see the math behind these numbers, because to me it doesn’t make sense.
2. “Any parent who’s puzzled or despaired over their child’s trancelike playing of video games during the past 20 years can readily see why Internet gambling operators are drooling over the chance…”
In other words, adults shouldn’t be allowed to choose whether to gamble online or not, because children are incapable of not playing video games. So does that mean we’re all children when it comes to gambling, or just gambling on computers?
3. “It’s ‘click the mouse, lose your house.’”
Great, Professor Kindt came up with a rhyming catch-phrase to go up there with “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” But does this make sense? Is it inevitable that everyone who gambles online will lose their house? A few thousand online poker players would say no.
Here’s the general problem with the editorial: it assumes that the worst will definitely happen. It doesn’t take much thought to reduce this to the absurdity that it is. Over a hundred people will probably lose their lives in auto accidents across the United States today (source here). Does that mean we should all stop driving? Someone returning to the United States from abroad will smuggle drugs into the country today–should we close our borders and ban all travel to prevent this? Again, most people would say no. In short, you can’t make rules for society that assume that the worst will always happen. Otherwise, you’ll end up with the most repressive regime the world has ever known.
Now, that’s not to say that the editorial doesn’t made some good points. Which leads toP:
4. I have no idea how the government could squeeze $42 billion in tax revenue out of online gaming. Right now, Americans only gamble about $90 billion a year. Let’s say that online gaming increases the total national wager by 10%, or $9 billion. What do you think the tax rate should be? Even if it was 50%, you’d only be getting $4.5 billion a year, which is a lot of money for most of us, but not much where the federal budget is concerned; I’d guess that much of that would be split with the states as well.
5. We also should take a serious look at state versus federal regulation of gambling. I’m not sure a federal solution would ultimately be in the best interests of any of us, from taxpayers to gamblers to the industry. Interstate horse-race simulcasting provides one model of states cooperating to split gambling revenues, and this approach should be given more consideration.
It’s possible, however, to debate the merits and mechanics of expanding legal gambling without resorting to “click your mouse, lose your house” reductionism and blatant scare-mongering.
When I hear debaters resort to the “look what could happen to the children” argument-tactic I usually figure their position is going to be a propagandish one.
I’m not for or against online gambling. It makes no difference to me if people win or lose in the privacy of their own house. As long as they don’t wake me up while they’re doing it (with moans or screams).
Some of them might actually “use their mouse and win a house” (or enough money to buy one).
The only actual thought I give this matter is about if or how it will change the way people come to Vegas to gamble.
Half of me lives in the past…and I’d like to see all gaming limited to just Las Vegas and Lake Tahoe. It’s not a practical thought, but I wonder how much different Vegas would be today if it was the only state that had legalized gambling.
Would it be 5 times bigger and better?
Have other sources of gaming taken anything away from LV or have they (perhaps) helped boost the entire Gaming Industry?
I don’t know (or actually want to know). I just think it was cool that Vegas once held a (near) monopoly on gambling.
If the CSM “wants me to care…then forego the scare”. Scare tactics are propaganda tools. I’d rather hear a well-thought-out debate. Really. If someone had a good argument to make against on-line gaming (that didn’t involve resorting to propagandating) I’d listen with wide-open ears.
BTW:
This article appears in CSM’s on-line magazine that has this headline on the cover:
“Tech Becomes Us: The Peril and Promise of Living Life Plugged In”
The cover-article is called:
“Are iPads, Smartphones, and the Mobile Web Rewiring the Way We Think?” (and is linked from that web address above).
============
At least in this article they point out the pros & cons, benefits and downsides of the subject under discussion in a full and fair way.
============
Two (pro and con) quotes from the article show the range of thought that good journalism requires:
“However important it is to connect quickly with others and exchange messages, there is also a crucial role for Solitary Thought in our intellectual lives.”
————
It’s indisputable that the Internet has made us smarter…. The range of things you can explore in a day is just fantastic compared to 20 years ago,”
‘ a professor of psychology at Harvard, points out that one kind of deep thinking – scientific research – is flourishing today as the Internet allows unprecedented levels of collaboration and cooperation. “Discoveries are multiplying like fruit flies, and progress is dizzying,”
The use of a well turned phrase may be entertaining and certainly memorable, but unless it is truly representative of a valid argument it availeth little. Click a mouse, lose a house is representative of a small segment of the population and is likely applicable to those who already have trouble with impulse control or a reward deficiency syndrome. Its a cutesy phrase but hardly a reasonable summary of the entire argument. Then again, slogans are usually addressed to the unreasoning mob rather than to those who have a discriminating intellect and who act with deliberation.
The link above, to my ‘WV blog’, shows last week’s ‘Inside Business’ 5 minute video about the lifting of the NFL’s advertising ban against Las Vegas advertising. It shows an interview with a well-known professor that visitors to this ‘Die Is Cast blog’ might recognize.
I just read this in an article on the internet called “Strapped states find virtue in vice”. Here’s an excerpt:
For fiscal 2011, 38 states project combined budget shortfalls of $89 billion, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a bipartisan policy research group. Thirty-one states expect budget gaps totaling $73.5 billion in 2012. As a result, says Todd Haggerty, an analyst at the group, lawmakers are “trying anything and everything in order to bring their budgets into balance.”
Gambling, alcohol, cigarettes and strip clubs = Higher taxes
>Gambling, alcohol, cigarettes and strip clubs = Higher taxes
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
As long as the connection is not a clear one and the higher taxes are not immediate the legislators and the public will grasp at any straw as long as its packaged properly by some lobbyist or speechwriter.