Holy Rollers
Quote: AcesAndEightsYou're saying the first person is on better moral ground (given your worldview), simply because he is "creating" value in the world? That's...that's something, right there.
I'm saying the software developer is on better economic ground. Moral worth is a horse of a different color.
Quote: EvenBobSure it hurts someone. It hurts the people who can't
afford to live there. The truly honorable thing is to
not make a profit for yourself at all, and sell it for
face value. What he did is not wonderful and honorable,
its called capitalism.
If you think a man building a house and selling it to another man hurts every other person in the world who cannot afford the house, I don't think believe I have the time or the inclination to explain the way the world works to you. It seems like you are more interested in disagreeing with me than espousing any sort of coherent philosophy.
Quote: bigfoot66It seems like you are more interested in disagreeing with me than espousing any sort of coherent philosophy.
Not at all. I simply don't understand how a man
who pans for gold for a living is creating anything.
Can you please explain what he's creating that an
AP isn't?
Quote: bigfoot66The act of finding a gold nugget is very productive. Burried under mud in the stream, the gold is worth exactly Zero. But taken from the ground, polished and processed into a necklace.
The guy who found it created nothing in
finding it. He traded it for money. An AP creates
nothing, but trades his skill for money. There is
no difference. The AP creates value with his skill,
just like the gold miner creates value with his
skill.
I don't see whats so hard to understand about this.
Quote: bigfoot66The gold is worthless in the ground where nobody knows it even exists. It is precious and valuable when it is brought from the ground and turned into, say, a ring.
You can't go that far down the line if you
don't let me go there. You say I can't count
the charity the AP donates to, therefore you
can't count the ring made when the miner
sells the gold.
Both the miner and the AP create nothing, but
they both create value thats worth money with
their skill. There is no difference between the
two.
Quote: WizardI'm saying the software developer is on better economic ground. Moral worth is a horse of a different color.Quote: AcesAndEightsYou're saying the first person is on better moral ground (given your worldview), simply because he is "creating" value in the world? That's...that's something, right there.
You lost me somewhere along the way then. From the very beginning of this thread:
Quote: WizardThe way I judge a soul, no matter what faith, is what did they give to society minus what they consumed from it. I look at the Holy Rollers and see consumption only. I also never said that Christians had to make a career of their faith. Any job where they are contributing to society and doing it well is all I can ask. Waiting tables is a perfectly respectable occupation.
You did not specifically say anything about morality, but when you used the world "soul" I kinda went that direction, rather than the "economic" direction.
Quote: WizardHow about this...
Quote: 2 Corinthians 13:1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
That is a good pull! I don't remember that verse from my studies. As I no longer call myself a Christian, I won't debate whether or not this verse actually has the meaning you ascribed to it...I think it's debatable, but I don't really care.
"..you’re creating value when you can see tangible positive changes in the world.."
So an AP does create value if he donates to
charity and see's positive changes in the
world due to his skill. No two ways around it.
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2008/12/how-to-create-real-value/
Quote: EvenBobThe guy who found it created nothing in
finding it. He traded it for money. An AP creates
nothing, but trades his skill for money. There is
no difference. The AP creates value with his skill,
just like the gold miner creates value with his
skill.
I don't see whats so hard to understand about this.
Bob I think you have to get out of your mind the idea that creation means actually making something that didn't exist before, only God can do that. Bigfoot is talking about creating in the sense of making something that has no value into something that has value. Since the AP is dealing with money, which has value for the casino and then when the AP takes it from the casino it still has the exact same value, nothing is created or nothing is made to have more value than before it just changes hands from casino to player. Therefore one could argue that nothing has been added to or contributed to soceity or the economy. It just shuffled exisiting and already valuable money around.
p.s. On a totally unrelated side note I just heard a cool fact - there are so many ways to order a deck of cards that there has not been a completely identical order of cards after a shuffle ever. Every time they shuffle up it is something brand new and never seen before, pretty cool huh?
Quote: EvenBobYou can't go that far down the line if you
don't let me go there. You say I can't count
the charity the AP donates to, therefore you
can't count the ring made when the miner
sells the gold.
Both the miner and the AP create nothing, but
they both create value thats worth money with
their skill. There is no difference between the
two.
The miner creates value. How can the jeweler make a ring if no one ever pulls the gold out of the ground?
There are plenty of people who create value without creating 'stuff'. Taxi drivers, bartenders....aren't these things you did? How about airline pilot, teacher, manager, Grocery store clerk, salesman. How about Air Traffic controller? They don't create anything, they just move big metal tubes around in the sky. They don't create anything.
Quote: FrGambleand then when the AP takes it from the casino it still has the exact same value, nothing is created or nothing is made to have more value than before it just changes hands from casino to player. Therefore one could argue that nothing has been added to or contributed to soceity or the economy.
Then the same is true of the guy who mines for
gold nuggets in the stream. The gold has no added
value just because he found it. He has created nothing.
When he trades it for money he still has created nothing.
Value is added to society or the world when he does
something charitable with the money. Just like the AP.
Quote: FrGamblep.s. On a totally unrelated side note I just heard a cool fact - there are so many ways to order a deck of cards that there has not been a completely identical order of cards after a shuffle ever. Every time they shuffle up it is something brand new and never seen before, pretty cool huh?
And entirely wrong. There are 52! ways to order a deck, and Persi Diaconis has demonstrated that executing 8 perfect shuffles in a row returns a deck to its pre-shuffled state:
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/oct/featmath
Quote: FrGambleBigfoot is talking about creating in the sense of making something that has no value into something that has value. Since the AP is dealing with money, which has value for the casino and then when the AP takes it from the casino it still has the exact same value, nothing is created or nothing is made to have more value than before it just changes hands from casino to player. Therefore one could argue that nothing has been added to or contributed to soceity or the economy. It just shuffled exisiting and already valuable money around.
Exactly. Do a thought experiment where all the 'stuff' people in the whole world own is put into a pile. You create value by adding to the pile, to be sure. You also create value by improving something in the pile. Repainting an old car. Turning lemons into lemonade. turning paper into books. etc.
Quote: bigfoot66The miner creates value. How can the jeweler make a ring if no one ever pulls the gold out of the ground?
.
You can't do that if you won't let me do that.
You can't speculate on what happens to the
gold, when you do you lose sight of the point.
The miner doesn't create a ring, he just sells
the gold for cash. He has created nothing.
Quote: MathExtremistAnd entirely wrong. There are 52! ways to order a deck, and Persi Diaconis has demonstrated that executing 8 perfect shuffles in a row returns a deck to its pre-shuffled state:
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/oct/featmath
Darn V-sauce, I'll never listen to them again.
Four Facts
Quote: bigfoot66You also create value by improving something in the pile. Repainting an old car. Turning lemons into lemonade. turning paper into books. etc.
Contributing to a charity with AP money, buying a car
for a homeless person with AP money, this is also
creating value. When you can see positive results,
you've created value with your AP skills.
Quote: EvenBobYou can't do that if you won't let me do that.
You can't speculate on what happens to the
gold, when you do you lose sight of the point.
The miner doesn't create a ring, he just sells
the gold for cash. He has created nothing.
Fine Bob. I should have given this up a long time ago but I think I finally have proof to offer that you are wrong. Let's speculate here, Which would cost more, an ounce of gold in a ziplock bag, or the mineral rights to mine 1 ounce of gold from a piece of land?
Quote: EvenBobContributing to a charity with AP money, buying a car
for a homeless person with AP money, this is also
creating value. When you can see positive results,
you've created value with your AP skills.
Gifts do not create value, they transfer value from the giver to the recipient.
Edit: Bob I respectfully recomend a basic economics course if you are having trouble with this, the stuff I am saying is not really controversial in the world of economics, it is pretty basic stuff.
Quote: bigfoot66Which would cost more, an ounce of gold in a ziplock bag, or the mineral rights to mine 1 ounce of gold from a piece of land?
If you own the land the mineral rights cost nothing.
Thinking that every job has to have an instant creation of
value without a middleman is just an incorrect view of
the world. You wouldn't say a gold miners job is
worthless just because he creates no value. Some jobs
have a middleman in between the job and the created
value. For the miner its the refinery, for an AP its the
casino.
Quote: AcesAndEightsYou did not specifically say anything about morality, but when you used the world "soul" I kinda went that direction, rather than the "economic" direction.
You are right to challenge me on that. I should have said "one way I judge a soul." There are many other factors to consider. I owe you 20 push ups.
Quote: EvenBobThe gold has no added value just because he found it.
It does. An undiscovered gold nugget is worth nothing. The moment it is found it gains value, and the total wealth is increased by about the same amount it would take to mine the same amount of gold.
Quote: EvenBobSo you think charitable gifts don't create value?
Gifts of money don't, but gifts of time do. You are just moving resources from your own pocket to that of the charity. I'm not saying it is a bad thing to give to charity, just that it doesn't increase the total wealth of the world.
Quote: bigfoot66Gifts do not create value.
So you think charitable gifts don't create value?
Here's the definition of creating value again:
"..you’re creating value when you can see tangible positive changes in the world.."
You can't see positive tangible changes when you
give to your charity? I'd get a different charity, then.
Quote: EvenBobIf you own the land the mineral rights cost nothing.
Answer my question. Which one costs more TO BUY.
Quote: bigfoot66Gifts do not create value, they transfer value from the giver to the recipient.
Wait a minute, you're talking about two kinds
of value here. The intrinsic value of an object
and creating value are two entirely different
things.
You can indeed transfer the intrinsic value of
a car to a poor person, and in doing so 'create
value' in their lives.
Quote: bigfoot66Answer my question. Which one costs more TO BUY.
Where? What are the prices in OR and WA and AK,
I don't know. I don't mine gold.
Quote: EvenBobWhere? What are the prices in OR and WA and AK,
I don't know. I don't mine gold.
I'm gonna bow out here as I am not doing a good job explaining this to you and you don't seem to want to work with me on the examples I am using. Cheers!!
Edit: Suffice to say there are two ways to make one's self wealthier. He can make someone else worse off (for example, theft, welfare mooching, AP, etc), or he can make someone else better off (for example, trade). The second way is more honorable than the first.
What you have to understand about state violence is that money itself is only a representation of the distribution of government force. When you come to fully understand that, eternally swimming in blood doesn't seem so bad.
the rich and giving to the poor? The poor say yes, the
rich not so much..
Quote: Wizard
Gifts of money don't, but gifts of time do. You are just moving resources from your own pocket to that of the charity. I'm not saying it is a bad thing to give to charity, just that it doesn't increase the total wealth of the world.
Just home from putting in some time at the tables. While it was a successful day in the way that I measure such things, EV generated, my bankroll is smaller than it was this morning, so I don't feel too good about that. So I read through this thread which not surprisingly has grown by 4 pages since I departed this morning and now feel even worse, as I come to realize that I am just a leach on society, so that brightens my spirits. lol I say, 'not surprisingly', because I have seen this discussion before. It always fuels the same arguments on both sides. I see no sense in my participating in the discussion. It's just going in circle.
I will say, I find it surprising and disappointing that a man that runs such a site as this and who much of his adult life has revolved around playing games of chance to the best possible outcome, saw fit to cast judgement to folks that pursue this very activity as a livelihood. That seems odd to me. Like being an avid bicycle rider, running a bicycle related members based website and then criticizing bike riders. ???
I do have a couple thoughts after reading these pages that don't make a lot of sense to me. 1.) as I mentioned, I donate part of a day each week doing laundry at a homeless shelter. I wash, dry, fold, several hundred sets of sheets and towels. I feel like I am able to do this BECAUSE, I have an 'occupation' where my hours are flexible. My question concerns wizards comment that I quoted above. How is it that donating 'time' as I do in this instance is more acceptable than donating money?? I don't get that one.
The second thing is that I donate roughly 20% of my income at the end of the year, divided among 5 of my personal favorite charities. I haven't met anyone from this site that I am aware of, and frankly don't expect to, so I don't say this trying to impress anyone. I do this for me as much as anything. But here's what I don't understand. To read this thread, I am a bad person, because of how I make my money, using what little brains god saw fit to give me in a completely legal way. BUT, the guy working the cashier at the fast food store, who takes his paycheck each Friday and blows half on illegal drugs and the other half on a hooker, is somehow, by virtue of this discussion a better person than me, contributing more to society. I am having a hard time wrapping myself around that one.
Quote: EvenBobWas Robin Hood creating value by stealing from
the rich and giving to the poor? The say yes, the
rich not so much..
...
...
...do I even need to say it?! Just look at what you just wrote!
Quote: kewljI will say, I find it surprising and disappointing that a man that runs such a site as this and who much of his adult life has revolved around playing games of chance to the best possible outcome, saw fit to cast judgement to folks that pursue this very activity as a livelihood. That seems odd to me. Like being an avid bicycle rider, running a bicycle related members based website and then criticizing bike riders. ???
I think you're oversimplifying my position. I see AP at the same time both a noble intellectual exercise, while at the same time being a drag on the economy. In other words, I see both good and bad in it. This all came about when I called out Ben and Colin for it. As Christians, I expect them to be entirely good, and thus saw the conflict between AP and their religion.
Quote:I do have a couple thoughts after reading these pages that don't make a lot of sense to me. 1.) as I mentioned, I donate part of a day each week doing laundry at a homeless shelter. I wash, dry, fold, several hundred sets of sheets and towels. I feel like I am able to do this BECAUSE, I have an 'occupation' where my hours are flexible. My question concerns wizards comment that I quoted above. How is it that donating 'time' as I do in this instance is more acceptable than donating money?? I don't get that one.
To clarify my point, the total wealth (in goods and services) of the planet is increased by donating time, but not by money. Donating money just redistributes wealth. However, it is a noble thing to give to those less fortunate that yourself. As I said before, in my opinion, your personal economic value is what you create less what you consume. Donating some of your wealth decreases what you consume, and thus increases your economic value. So, giving time and money are both good things.
Quote:BUT, the guy working the cashier at the fast food store, who takes his paycheck each Friday and blows half on illegal drugs and the other half on a hooker, is somehow, by virtue of this discussion a better person than me, contributing more to society. I am having a hard time wrapping myself around that one.
There is more to life than just economic value. I would say the cashier in your example is costing society in other ways. He will probably send up on SSI and cost society in terms of disability and free health care for decades. Adding wealth to illegal businesses probably won't be good for society either, in terms of increased crime to name just one way.
Sorry if I sounded too judgmental. That was not my intent, and I probably could have chosen my words better.
Quote: 24Bingo...
...
...do I even need to say it?! Just look at what you just wrote!
I fixed it, I was cooking dinner when I wrote it.
How does AP activity fit in our sacred free enterprise system? Does it stand alone as the only non-criminal livelihood that is not a fairly traded good or service? The problem is that the casino is providing the money, but they are not willingly buying a good or service from the AP. However the AP is not stealing the money either. Capitalism should not tolerate this. A casino should plug this hole by changing the rules to defeat APs and allow their core customers to play. The casino that does this successfully would have a competitive advantage, and other casinos would have to follow suit. Why has this not happened? Do casinos consciously tolerate APs because they profit more from unskilled prospective APs than they lose from real APs? Maybe APs do add value in some complex way.
Quote: JimRockfordWhat the Wizard and Bigfoot are espousing is capitalism as an inherently virtuous system.
How does AP activity fit in our sacred free enterprise system? Does it stand alone as the only non-criminal livelihood that is not a fairly traded good or service? The problem is that the casino is providing the money, but they are not willingly buying a good or service from the AP. However the AP is not stealing the money either. Capitalism should not tolerate this. A casino should plug this hole by changing the rules to defeat APs and allow their core customers to play. The casino that does this successfully would have a competitive advantage, and other casinos would have to follow suit. Why has this not happened? Do casinos consciously tolerate APs because they profit more from unskilled prospective APs than they lose from real APs? Maybe APs do add value in some complex way.
Indeed, I do espouse capitalism as an inherently virtuous system. However, it should also be kept in check with a fine balance of government regulation.
Quote:Capitalism should not tolerate (AP). A casino should plug this hole by changing the rules to defeat APs and allow their core customers to play.
Indeed, they should, and they try. However, gambling is often a complicated act. AP's are skilled at finding frequently made errors on the part of casino and exploiting them. I see APs as the strongest of gamblers who are best to taking advantage of this casino inefficiency. So, there is a certain social Darwinism I find admirable about AP. Then again, as I've said many times, when I look at it on a micro-level, of just a solo AP, I don't see any economic value there.
To Bob, if you don't see the difference between catching a fish and taking someone else's fish, then I don't think we're even in the same ballpark on the topic to have a discussion on this issue.
Quote: WizardIndeed, I do espouse capitalism as an inherently virtuous system. However, it should also be kept in check with a fine balance of government regulation.
Indeed, they should, and they try. However, gambling is often a complicated act. AP's are skilled at finding frequently made errors on the part of casino and exploiting them.
Do they try? It seems to me that CSMs would shut down card counters completely and offer no disadvantage to recreational players. Why don't you see more of them?
Quote: JimRockfordDo they try? It seems to me that CSMs would shut down card counters
It would shut em down cold. It would also get
rid of all the high rolling semi pro players. And
we know how much the casino makes off of
them.
Quote: JimRockfordDo they try? It seems to me that CSMs would shut down card counters completely and offer no disadvantage to recreational players. Why don't you see more of them?
For one thing, card counters make up a small slice of all advantage play damage. Second, many recreational players, especially at the higher end, don't like CSMs and won't play them.
Quote: Wizard
To clarify my point, the total wealth (in goods and services) of the planet is increased by donating time, but not by money. Donating money just redistributes wealth. However, it is a noble thing to give to those less fortunate that yourself. As I said before, in my opinion, your personal economic value is what you create less what you consume. Donating some of your wealth decreases what you consume, and thus increases your economic value. So, giving time and money are both good things.
I disagree with this.
Equally with the Robin Hood scenario, you can't just look at $500 = $500, but you must ask the question, "What is the $500 doing?" You have some guy that has a spare $500 sitting in his checking account, been there for a year, dormant, losing value, not getting invested, not getting spent. In the RH example you have a Duke with some gold stuffed in one of his treasure chests. What happens? It gets donated or stolen and it goes to the poor, what do the poor do? Spend it!
Base goods! I love base goods! We're talking about foodstuff and blankets and clothes and things of that nature. Moving the money, moving the Economy. An influx of $500 to the manufacturing sector, the agricultural sector, the transportation sector (the food has to get there) and the retail/services sector. The money is spread out and the current value of the money is maximized by spending it. It keeps the economy moving, keeps people employed in low-level jobs which then gives them money to spend (and even if they aren't paying Fed/State income) they're going to be paying the FICA taxes and sales taxes, where applicable. Married couple, business is good at the Convenience Store, owner decides to hire someone and put in a few less hours. Wife gets a part-time job, they upgrade one of the vehicles! BOOM! Commissions to a middle-income tier car salesman, getting spent, production out of the auto manufacturing industry, more jobs, more transportation (car has to be transported to the dealership) more tax revenues!
They're going to take a vacation. BOOM! Transportation sector, gas costs, service industry, hospitality industry, and all that pretty tax revenue!
Keep the money moving! Where is it going to move the fastest? The people who lack base goods will move it the fastest, and when the market for base goods is maximized, then we're going to start having disposable income for industries such as hospitality and new autos.
I could go on...
I now believe the biggest threat comes from those electronic video style blackjack games. I see more and more of these games being installed. Last week at M resort, I was watching them install electronic, video Craps and Roulette games by Azure. The kind that have 6-8 stations. That same day I stopped by South Point, where I hadn't been for a while and notice the same Craps and Roulette 6-8 station games there, along with along with a electronic video version of the big wheel, similar to Treasure Island. Ironically, I didn't see Blackjack at either place, although Azure does make a 6 station blackjack video game, similar to the more popular 5 station set up by another manufacturer. Even El Cortez has an Azure video game. I forget if it is craps or roulette. Each time I notice another video style electronic game, I grow a little more nervous. It is only a matter of time before you see many BJ style games as well. First at low limits, and then..... :(
Quote: WizardYou are right to challenge me on that. I should have said "one way I judge a soul." There are many other factors to consider. I owe you 20 push ups.Quote: AcesAndEightsYou did not specifically say anything about morality, but when you used the world "soul" I kinda went that direction, rather than the "economic" direction.
Okay then, I'm a little more understanding of your position now. I will collect this debt at my earliest convenience.
Quote: WizardI see AP at the same time both a noble intellectual exercise, while at the same time being a drag on the economy. .
Quote: evenbobWhere is the drag on the economy? If he buys a new
car and a condo in Vegas, how is that a drag on the
economy? If he buys groceries and see's movies and
shops for clothes, that would seem good for the
economy. Its only bad if he spends the money out of
the country entirely.
Still waiting for the Wiz to weigh in on this.
And where do door to door salesmen fit into
this picture? Trying to get people to but things
they don't want, what value are they creating?
Quote: JimRockford
How does AP activity fit in our sacred free enterprise system? Does it stand alone as the only non-criminal livelihood that is not a fairly traded good or service? The problem is that the casino is providing the money, but they are not willingly buying a good or service from the AP. However the AP is not stealing the money either. Capitalism should not tolerate this. A casino should plug this hole by changing the rules to defeat APs and allow their core customers to play. The casino that does this successfully would have a competitive advantage, and other casinos would have to follow suit. Why has this not happened? Do casinos consciously tolerate APs because they profit more from unskilled prospective APs than they lose from real APs? Maybe APs do add value in some complex way.
The only goal of capital is to increase itself. Casinos do what they need to do to maximize revenues, not necessarily what fits an idealized notion of fairness or righteousness. If maximizing revenue means tolerating a certain level of AP activity, that is absolutely the right call. There are lots of other analogies in business. For example, many companies have patents which are being infringed, but they don't sue because the infringers aren't making any money so there won't be any damages. Tolerating those infringers, while upsetting, is the right move.
And there are plenty of livelihoods, the majority of which are perfectly legal, with no good or service traded. Collectively, they're known as "scams."
Quote: Mission146I disagree with this.
Equally with the Robin Hood scenario, you can't just look at $500 = $500, but you must ask the question, "What is the $500 doing?" You have some guy that has a spare $500 sitting in his checking account, been there for a year, dormant, losing value, not getting invested, not getting spent. In the RH example you have a Duke with some gold stuffed in one of his treasure chests. What happens? It gets donated or stolen and it goes to the poor, what do the poor do? Spend it!
Base goods! I love base goods! We're talking about foodstuff and blankets and clothes and things of that nature. Moving the money, moving the Economy. An influx of $500 to the manufacturing sector, the agricultural sector, the transportation sector (the food has to get there) and the retail/services sector. The money is spread out and the current value of the money is maximized by spending it. It keeps the economy moving, keeps people employed in low-level jobs which then gives them money to spend (and even if they aren't paying Fed/State income) they're going to be paying the FICA taxes and sales taxes, where applicable. Married couple, business is good at the Convenience Store, owner decides to hire someone and put in a few less hours. Wife gets a part-time job, they upgrade one of the vehicles! BOOM! Commissions to a middle-income tier car salesman, getting spent, production out of the auto manufacturing industry, more jobs, more transportation (car has to be transported to the dealership) more tax revenues!
They're going to take a vacation. BOOM! Transportation sector, gas costs, service industry, hospitality industry, and all that pretty tax revenue!
Keep the money moving! Where is it going to move the fastest? The people who lack base goods will move it the fastest, and when the market for base goods is maximized, then we're going to start having disposable income for industries such as hospitality and new autos.
I could go on...
There are a number of major economic fallacies here but I will not address them all. Modern economies are horribly complex so we have to oversimplify to convey economic concepts, so keep that in mind. That said however, savings is better than consumption for the economy. We must delay consumption in order to That $500 sitting in the bank account is not, in fact, collecting dust, it is actually being invested (often in construction projects) by the bank. But consider this, if we all consumed 100% of what we produced and never saved, there would not be any capital to build machines, factories, stores, etc. So savings is actually a good thing, it allows resources to be spent on long term projects rather than what you call base goods.
The economic ideas that you are espousing here are a form of what Bastiat called 'the broken window fallacy'. Don't worry, you are in good company, Paul Krugman is a nobel prize recipient and he is regularly saying the same things.
Quote: bigfoot66That said however, savings is better than consumption for the economy.
I thought there was a formula that said GDP = Money Supply × Velocity of Money.
Wouldn't velocity of money be directly related to spending? Clearly some amount of savings is good on a personal basis, but doesn't over-saving result in a stagnant economy, as in Japan? Then again, we can clearly see in Europe that the savers (northern Europe) are having to rescue the spenders (southern Europe).
Quote: kewljJust home from putting in some time at the tables. While it was a successful day in the way that I measure such things, EV generated, my bankroll is smaller than it was this morning, so I don't feel too good about that. So I read through this thread which not surprisingly has grown by 4 pages since I departed this morning and now feel even worse, as I come to realize that I am just a leach on society, so that brightens my spirits. lol I say, 'not surprisingly', because I have seen this discussion before. It always fuels the same arguments on both sides. I see no sense in my participating in the discussion. It's just going in circle.
I will say, I find it surprising and disappointing that a man that runs such a site as this and who much of his adult life has revolved around playing games of chance to the best possible outcome, saw fit to cast judgement to folks that pursue this very activity as a livelihood. That seems odd to me. Like being an avid bicycle rider, running a bicycle related members based website and then criticizing bike riders. ???
I do have a couple thoughts after reading these pages that don't make a lot of sense to me. 1.) as I mentioned, I donate part of a day each week doing laundry at a homeless shelter. I wash, dry, fold, several hundred sets of sheets and towels. I feel like I am able to do this BECAUSE, I have an 'occupation' where my hours are flexible. My question concerns wizards comment that I quoted above. How is it that donating 'time' as I do in this instance is more acceptable than donating money?? I don't get that one.
The second thing is that I donate roughly 20% of my income at the end of the year, divided among 5 of my personal favorite charities. I haven't met anyone from this site that I am aware of, and frankly don't expect to, so I don't say this trying to impress anyone. I do this for me as much as anything. But here's what I don't understand. To read this thread, I am a bad person, because of how I make my money, using what little brains god saw fit to give me in a completely legal way. BUT, the guy working the cashier at the fast food store, who takes his paycheck each Friday and blows half on illegal drugs and the other half on a hooker, is somehow, by virtue of this discussion a better person than me, contributing more to society. I am having a hard time wrapping myself around that one.
It's really a lot more simple than you are making it. Let's say you earn $100,000 a year and that there is a master iron worker who has been doing iron work in the renovations a casino is doing, and who makes approximately the same amount. At the end of the year, both you and the iron worker have $100,000 more than you did a year before and you both are now in the same position. But let's look at the other side of the coin. The casino has gained $100,000 worth of iron work from the other guy, and has gotten nothing from you.
The Wizard suggests that there is a moral problem here though he also hedged a bit. I tend to disagree, as I mentioned before in this thread gambling is morally nuetral for both the casino and the player. If you find a way to beat the game without violating the rules then god bless ya. Enjoy yourself, and may you get filthy rich. But it is not the same thing as getting filthy rich by making products or services people want to buy. At the end of his life, a titan like Bill Gates can say "I made wonderful computer software that revolutionized every corner of the business world and made it far more efficent". A lowly farm hand can say "I put food on the tables of thousands of families over the course of my life". These people have made the world a better place and enriched themselves in the process. At the end of his life, an AP cannot claim to have helped anyone else with his work. That's morally fine, but it is better, and more honorable, to do work that benefits others to earn a living.
Quote: WizardI thought there was a formula that said GDP = Money Supply × Velocity of Money.
That's the keynesian model of the economy which I completely reject. They throw gov't spending in the formula as well as investment if I remember correctly, It would be easy to look up. It's crazy, the model says that your GDP will increase directly for every additional dollar the gov't spends.
Quote: Wizard
Wouldn't velocity of money be directly related to spending? Clearly some amount of savings is good on a personal basis, but doesn't over-saving result in a stagnant economy, as in Japan? Then again, we can clearly see in Europe that the savers (northern Europe) are having to rescue the spenders (southern Europe).
It is complicated, like most things in economics. I would say that savings and spending are not opposites, saving and consumption are opposites. Saving, in the sense of stockpiling goods, is not necessarily great for the economy. It results in deadweight loss. Think about how much money Walmart has saved by doing the just in time inventory thing, this is a form of reduced savings in the sense that they are not stockpiling as many goods.
But personal savings allows for more resources to be used in long term investment, like a large car factory. If everyone wants to consume all the resources that they produce today, then the $150 million in resources needed to build the car factory is instead being used to make televisions, toys, furniture, clothing, etc. This is a project that was not even projected to pay for itself for, what, maybe 30 years or so? People need to be willing to delay consumption (save) of these these resources so that they can be diverted to making the factory. Eventually it pays off as the factory makes cars so much more efficently that, 30 years down the road, society has MORE total 'stuff' by building the factory versus buying toys, furniture, and clothing today.
In this analaysis, then, saving versus consuming is not a question of good or bad per say, but it reflects people's personal preferences. If people prefer to save today it means they want to consume less today and more tomorrow, so it makes sense that society should be investing in long term projects like factories, so that there will be more productive capacity later when people consume their savings. If people are not saving or even borrowing it means they need to consume now. Maybe there was a natural disaster and a large amount of repairs need to be done. This is no time to be working on the factories for the future, we need those resources to fix damaged roads, buildings, etc. now.
