Holy Rollers

Bigfoot, your two posts above were outstanding, thank you. I can't think of a single thing to add.

Quote: bigfoot66

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".

You lost me here bigfoot. Wonderful, really? I can't argue with the "revolutionized" part, but god damn I hate microsoft products.

Linux 4evr!

(This a troll. I am trolling. Sorry!)

Quote: bigfoot66

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.

1.) Modern Economies are compllex by design and pursuant to their own current and will-be failure. I'll tell you another thing that was complex, the housing bubble. Okay, maybe not the bubble itself, but the lending and investment (snicker) Economics that led up to the bubble.

2.) Limited savings is better than pure consumption for the Economy. I'll grant that, but hardly consider it, "Complex." I'm talking about striking a balance between Savings/Investment and consumption, but leaning more towards consumption. I will say this, though, a pure savings Economy (not $1.00 spent, ever) would be incredibly worse than a pure consumption (spend it as soon as possible) Economy. Given that there must be a balance, and we must lean one way or another, where do you think it should be?

3.) The checking account money, in and of itself, should theoretically NOT be invested by the bank. It is not their money. Problem #1, lending more than you actually have. What you do is you take the interest (money earned) and you take money tied up in multi-year CD's, money from service fees, the list goes on...and you invest that money. The bank should not invest money that can readily be liquified, or they are, quite simply, investing money they don't have. I remember that being a problem recently...when was that?

4.) Yes, I agree, there must be a balance. However, the purpose of savings and all of these projects should only be to, you guessed it, generate MORE and NEW base goods faster and more efficiently. There should be no other purpose for the money. The owner may save up for his project which will result in his company growing for the purpose of delivering MORE base goods and creating MORE jobs.

Besides, he's spending money in the process. Someone has to build it. Construction positions, less lay-offs, more base goods, more disposable income, more service, more vacations...etc. etc. etc.

It's not an abstraction, it's a plan. Plans are good, abstractions are worthless.

Quote: Wizard

Bigfoot, your two posts above were outstanding, thank you. I can't think of a single thing to add.

Thank you, you have positively referenced a few of my posts and I appreciate the kind words. Economics is an area I have a great deal of interest in.

I would still like the Wiz or anybody else to explain
what the Wiz meant when he said 'being an AP is
a drag on the economy.'

How so? In what way does being an AP make the
economy worse?

Quote: EvenBob

I would still like the Wiz or anybody else to explain
what the Wiz meant when he said 'being an AP is
a drag on the economy.'

How so? In what way does being an AP make the
economy worse?

I think people have just given up replying to you because you're never satisfied with the answer. So it's better to ignore you. You'll just find a different thread to argue in, or a different poster to argue with.

Quote: FarFromVegas

I think people have just given up replying to you because you're never satisfied with the answer.

Translation: Nobody can answer why AP's are
a drag on the economy, so just quit asking.

Just to be clear, dear, THEY are never satisfied
with my answers either, its a two way street.

Quote: EvenBob

Translation: Nobody can answer why AP's are
a drag on the economy, so just quit asking.

Just to be clear, dear, THEY are never satisfied
with my answers either, its a two way street.

I've rarely seen anyone ask you anything, dear--you just chime in. It's a free country, but don't be surprised when they exercise their freedom to ignore you!

Don't worry--I'm only hanging around long enough to see the results of the HBC, then I'll go back to my other forum until I want information for my next Vegas trip. Then there won't be anyone left to tell you the truth that is more important than the facts. :P

Quote: FarFromVegas

I've rarely seen anyone ask you anything, dear--you just chime in.

Is this your first forum? Nobody asks anybody what
they think, the whole point is to 'chime in'. What, we're
supposed to post a list every time of who can and can't
answer? That would go over well.

Quote: EvenBob

Is this your first forum? Nobody asks anybody what
they think, the whole point is to 'chime in'. What, we're
supposed to post a list every time of who can and can't
answer? That would go over well.

If you repeatedly ask someone what they think and they don't reply, you're supposed to get the hint and move on. They're just more polite than I am.

Quote: FarFromVegas

Don't worry--I'm only hanging around long enough to see the results of the HBC, then I'll go back to my other forum until I want information for my next Vegas trip. Then there won't be anyone left to tell you the truth that is more important than the facts. :P

You're not serious, are you? You're one of my favorite people here!

Quote: FarFromVegas

If you repeatedly ask someone what they think and they don't reply, you're supposed to get the hint and move on. They're just more polite than I am.

What does that have to do with 'chiming in' on a
thread unasked? Since when do you need permission
to make a comment?

Quote: Mission146

You're not serious, are you? You're one of my favorite people here!

I think I'll fit in very well on the new forum since most of my discussions tend to be only tangentially related to Vegas and gambling. I'll make sure to move in to the new neighborhood when the housing is complete! I just don't have casinos near me and don't get to Vegas often, so I find myself wandering around looking for a topic.

Here's a good question:

A player hits a jackpot on a slot for $1200. What
value has he created? Hasn't he just done the same
thing as an AP does when he wins $1200? A win
is a win is a win. Whats the difference?

Is he a drag on the economy too, like has been
claimed about AP's?

Quote: EvenBob

What does that have to do with 'chiming in' on a
thread unasked? Since when do you need permission
to make a comment?

You claimed people aren't satisfied with your answers. If nobody asked you anything, how do you know they're not satisfied with your answers?

I'm going to let you "win" this by having the last word because that's how you operate and we're way off tangent, and I'm going to finish cooking, then drop off a kid at baseball and go shopping, then come home and watch more baseball like a good American should (:P :P :P to Nareed!)

Weigh-in tomorrow!

Quote: EvenBob

I would still like the Wiz or anybody else to explain what the Wiz meant when he said 'being an AP is a drag on the economy.'

Bigfoot already did a better job trying to explain it to you than I ever could. I don't know what his educational background it, but I suspect at least an undergraduate degree in economics. I've given up already.

Quote: Wizard

Bigfoot already did a better job trying to explain it to you than I ever good. I don't know what his educational background it, but I suspect at least an undergraduate degree in economics. I've given up already.

I have too. Can we please get back on the topic?

Quote: Wizard

Bigfoot already did a better job trying to explain it to you than I ever good.

Hmm, I really don't remember him addressing
how AP's hurt the economy. We mostly discussed
creating value, which has nothing to do with money.

An economy is hurt by people who don't spend the
money they make. When they hang onto their old
cars instead of buying new ones, cancel vacations,
get a lawn mower fixed instead of buying new,
stay in their old houses and wear last years clothes.

An AP spends the money he makes just like everybody
else does. How can he be hurting or helping the economy
anymore than anybody else? When he spends $100
at a clothing store, they don't know where the money
came from, and neither does the economy.

In fact, I'd say the AP knows how to spread the money
around far better than the casino does. The casinio put's their
profits into re-feathering their own nests, an AP will
spend it an myriad of places.

So saying an AP is a 'drag on the economy' just doesn't
hold water. He's as much a contributer as anybody else.

Quote: EvenBob

An AP spends the money he makes just like everybody
else does. How can he be hurting or helping the economy
anymore than anybody else? When he spends $100
at a clothing store, they don't know where the money
came from, and neither does the economy.

In fact, I'd say the AP knows how to spread the money
around far better than the casino does. The casinio put's their
profits into re-feathering their own nests, an AP will
spend it an myriad of places.

These two paragraphs conflict logically. If money is just moving around the economy no matter who has it, the only way it would be worse for the casino to have it than the advantage player would be if the casino was burning it. Maybe you are trying to say that the casino will use that money to pay share holders or executives who will then stockpile that money and not push it out into the economy but that is beyond the scope of casino vs advantage players and it makes an awful lot of assumptions about all the people involved and their spending habits.

Quote:

So saying an AP is a 'drag on the economy' just doesn't
hold water. He's as much a contributer as anybody else.

You could say that an advantage player is a drag on the economy because that player uses goods and services provided by society without paying his fair share. It is no secret that some of the best advantage plays are to be dodgy with taxes on gambling wins. In contrast, if that money was sitting in a bank account somewhere it is likely that it would be taxed but at the very least the bank account does not drain society by it's existence.

For the record, I don't hate advantage players any more than I hate celebrities. Is the way they are spending their life the way that will win them the most 'good person' points when it is all tallied up? Probably not, but I don't care. If I ever met an advantage player in a casino and he or she didn't treat me like some scum ploppy, I might enjoy the conversation.

Quote: bigfoot66

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.

Since I received a compliment on this post I decided to expand just a tad. The way that savers communicate with people who would be building these long term projects like factories or multi-billion dollar casino/resorts is through interest rates. A project like CityCenter takes several decades to finally pay for the huge initial investment outlay, which in this case is about $5 billion if I remember correctly. A small change in the interest rate changes the costs of a project like CityCenter tremendously effects the total amount that is repaid over the 30 years, so the business must be either very profitable or the interest rate very low for the project to make sense.

If people are saving a lot of money in the bank, interest rates fall. This communicates to companie like MGM "look, people don't want to consume as much now, this is a great time for us to build a big resort. There is an abundance of unused resources today and we need to be prepared for increased consumption in the future." If people are saving less, there is less capital for the banks to lend, which leads to higher interest rates. Higher rates communicate to MGM, "Not as many people are saving. If you want to invest in a long term project it has to be spectaularly profitable to be worthwhile." High interest rates also communicate to people that not enough resources are being saved for future consumption and encourages people to save more, which will drive the interest rates back down.

Many people are starting to understand that the Federal Reserve rips off savers by inflating the money supply, but the real damage that the Fed does is by distorting the process I described above through manipulating interest rates. The Fed will often drive the interest rate down to "stimulate growth". What ends up happening here is that people save less, as they are getting a lower return on their savings, and businessmen are encouraged to build more long term projects as the price of capital is driven artificially low. This process creates a boom (2000-2008 Las Vegas anyone?) where the society is consuming the future. Often this is concentrated in certain geographical areas and certain sectors in those areas. A number of long term projects are started based upon the low interest rates (CityCenter, FountainBlue, Stump Regis, Echelon, Housing....). Ultimately these projects are abandoned when it becomes clear that A) People are not delaying consumption of resources that are needed to complete the projects, and B) People are not saving so much that they will be able to afford to consume these products (multiple trips to high end Las Vegas resorts) in the future. During the bust period, resources which had wrongly been channeled into long term projects (construction, mortgage brokers, etc) are corrected and returned to a a different use. This dislocation is painful but attempts to delay it (stimulus spending) only temporarily reinflate the bubble and kick the can down the road.

Quote: bigfoot66

Many people are starting to understand that the Federal Reserve rips off savers by inflating the money supply, but the real damage that the Fed does is by distorting the process I described above through manipulating interest rates. The Fed will often drive the interest rate down to "stimulate growth". What ends up happening here is that people save less, as they are getting a lower return on their savings, and businessmen are encouraged to build more long term projects as the price of capital is driven artificially low. This process creates a boom (2000-2008 Las Vegas anyone?) where the society is consuming the future. Often this is concentrated in certain geographical areas and certain sectors in those areas. A number of long term projects are started based upon the low interest rates (CityCenter, FountainBlue, Stump Regis, Echelon, Housing....). Ultimately these projects are abandoned when it becomes clear that A) People are not delaying consumption of resources that are needed to complete the projects, and B) People are not saving so much that they will be able to afford to consume these products (multiple trips to high end Las Vegas resorts) in the future. During the bust period, resources which had wrongly been channeled into long term projects (construction, mortgage brokers, etc) are corrected and returned to a a different use. This dislocation is painful but attempts to delay it (stimulus spending) only temporarily reinflate the bubble and kick the can down the road.

Is that really the Fed's fault or is it the fault of these businessmen for using the wrong indicators when making their decisions. I hope people with that kind of money are not so stupid as to ignore anything besides the interest rate when making these decisions.

Quote: kulin

You could say that an advantage player is a drag on the economy because that player uses goods and services provided by society without paying his fair share. It is no secret that some of the best advantage plays are to be dodgy with taxes on gambling wins..

So you just assume an AP doesn't pay taxes and
that makes him a drag on the economy. Being
an AP in and of itself isn't a drag, its what we assume
he does later?

Can't we make those assumptions about many professions?
A lot of cab drivers pay no taxes. Do waitresses claim most
of their earnings? Do all those people at antique shows and
gun shows, doll shows and the hundred different kinds of
shows pay taxes an on the profit they make? How about
all the millions of Ebay sellers, do any of they pay taxes on
the profit they make?

Of course they don't. Does that make what they do non
value creating/drags on the economy scumbags?

Quote: EvenBob

So you just assume an AP doesn't pay taxes and
that makes him a drag on the economy. Being
an AP in and of itself isn't a drag, its what we assume
he does later?

Can't we make those assumptions about many professions?
A lot of cab drivers pay no taxes. Do waitresses claim most
of their earnings? Do all those people at antique shows and
gun shows, doll shows and the hundred different kinds of
shows pay taxes an on the profit they make?

Of course they don't. Does that make what they do non
value creating/drags on the economy scumbags?

For those professions, you can argue that the net result is a loss in value (they were overpaid) but the start value is not 0 as each of those professions are contributing something. My entire point was that advantage players (when they are doing advantage play) contribute nothing but still use resources.

Your entire point was that advantage players move money into retail while casinos do not. That point is nonsense.

I am not trying to prove everyone but advantage players have a net positive result on the economy. I am trying to show that advantage players (when doing advantage play) have at best no result but in reality a negative result by virtue of their very existence.

Quote: kulin

Is that really the Fed's fault or is it the fault of these businessmen for using the wrong indicators when making their decisions. I hope people with that kind of money are not so stupid as to ignore anything besides the interest rate when making these decisions.

In economics we speak 'ceteris paribus'. It means 'holding all other things constant'. If a businessman decided to build a Wynn in Battle Mountain, NV just because interest rates were so low that would, of course, be stupid. The real problem is that the fed alters the economy in such a way that for 4, 5, 6 years, bad investments (like buying a house in Las Vegas in 2005) look like great investments that are making people rich.

Quote: kulin

I am trying to show that advantage players (when doing advantage play) have at best no result but in reality a negative result by virtue of their very existence.

Because you think they don't pay taxes. Yet, the other
professions that don't claim all their earnings get a pass,
because they are 'contributing' something? AP's are in
a position to contribute far more thru charitable giving
than the other professions mentioned. But that doesn't count, why?

Drug dealers provide a great service, they provide a product
thats in huge demand. They don't pay taxes either, but we
have to consider their jobs as contributing to society, right?

Quote: EvenBob

Drug dealers provide a great service, they provide a product
thats in huge demand. They don't pay taxes either, but we
have to consider their jobs as contributing to society, right?

They do contribute hugely to society. They risk their very freedom to provide highly sought after chemicals to their customers. The prostitute is also a major contributor to society. That said, I don't imagine mine is a popular opinion.

Also the idea that something must be taxed in order to count as a contribution to society is a premise I question.

Quote: EvenBob

Drug dealers provide a great service, they provide a product
thats in huge demand. They don't pay taxes either, but we
have to consider their jobs as contributing to society, right?

Are we talking about economy or society? I think you are still hung up on net value. Net value to the economy is something that obviously many people will have and many people will not have. Does advantage playing make anything economically better for anyone besides the player? You cannot possibly come up with a yes answer to that. It is however very easy to find all the ways that advantage playing detracts whether it's wasting other people's time, wasting public resources (such as subsidized energy), or doing anything at all that is beyond the activities of an empty chair.

When the person is not doing advantage play, is there an opportunity for them to do something with economic value? Absolutely.

Quote: bigfoot66

Also the idea that something must be taxed in order to count as a contribution to society is a premise I question.

I am a very poor wordsmith, Kanye West would not be pleased. I am simply trying to show that there are ways that advantage play can be a drain on the economy. I am not trying to show that there is exactly one way that advantage play drains an economy, that all advantage play drains an economy, or that nothing besides advantage play can be a drain on an economy.

Quote: bigfoot66

In economics we speak 'ceteris paribus'. It means 'holding all other things constant'.

"..economics threatens to become the dominant rationalist and fundamentalist
religion of contemporary capitalist society.."

Economics is far more a religion than it is a science. It
has its sects and cults just like a religion does. Its
not unusual to have an economic convention to break
out in fistfights in some countries.

They all think they're right. They Cold War was about
differing economic opinions. The USSR maintained the
only system that worked was no private businesses.
Everything was made by the gov't. One kind of car,
one kind of toilet paper, one kind of vodka and bread,
all made by gov't run factories. The US felt a little differently.

But it was all about economics. So do I bow down to
Bigfoots opinion as being the be all end all? Not in the
slightest. He told me yesterday I should take an economic
class because I didn't understand that that giving a poor
person a car creates no value, its just transfers assets.
He clearly doesn't even understand what 'creating value'
means.

When somebody asks me what the value of my dog is, they
aresn't asking what he's worth. When they ask what the value
of reading a certain book was, they aren't asking me how
much money I made from reading it.

By giving a poor person a car, I have created value in their life
by giving them mobility, making their lives easier. It has nothing
to do with trasnsfering the monetary value of the car from
me to them, as Bigfoot thinks.

Certainly there can't be any economic difference between someone who plays at a casino simply based on their skill. There are a great many lifetime winners in casino games which have no skill involved (for craps, I'm one of them). Similarly, there are poker room winners and losers, some by luck and some by skill, but all are equivalently participating in the poker room business. I consume a product (house-banked games) that is offered by the casino based on a business model that, in the aggregate, will be profitable. Certainly not everyone can be winners, but just as certainly not everyone must be losers. I don't think the question of whether a particular gambler "adds value to the economy" can be based on the *results* of that gambler's activity. An analogy: many grocery stores offer coupons, and so do many food-item manufacturers. Occasionally, these coupons can be combined with other sales to result in a zero-cost item, or even one at negative-cost -- that is, the store will give you the item *and* cash in exchange for only the appropriate coupons. I don't think someone who accepts such a deal from a store is somehow qualitatively different than someone who doesn't use coupons and who pays the listed retail price.

Think of the same scenario in the equity world. If I daytrade a stock and lose, that's not a meaningfully different participation in the economy than if I win. I might win more or less often based on my skill at daytrading, or if my monkeys are more accurate with their darts that day, but the nature of the transaction doesn't depend on whether it's profitable for me. How could it be otherwise?

Quote: MathExtremist

Think of the same scenario in the equity world. If I daytrade a stock and lose, that's not a meaningfully different participation in the economy than if I win. I might win more or less often based on my skill at daytrading, or if my monkeys are more accurate with their darts that day, but the nature of the transaction doesn't depend on whether it's profitable for me. How could it be otherwise?

Theoretically, if you invest in unprofitable companies then you are wasting resources, and if you invest in profitable companies than you are creating resources. That said I do not pretend to understand the stock market.

Quote: MathExtremist

Certainly there can't be any economic difference between someone who plays at a casino simply based on their skill.. I don't think the question of whether a particular gambler "adds value to the economy" can be based on the *results* of that gambler's activity.

Exactly so. Those who denegrate AP's for not adding
'value', seem to have some kind of grudge against them.
There are many jobs that have added value once the
money is made, AP's are certainly not alone in this. You
can't judge a person on his contribution to the economy
by just one thing that he does, you must consider all
aspects of his life.

Quote: MathExtremist

An analogy: many grocery stores offer coupons, and so do many food-item manufacturers. Occasionally, these coupons can be combined with other sales to result in a zero-cost item, or even one at negative-cost -- that is, the store will give you the item *and* cash in exchange for only the appropriate coupons. I don't think someone who accepts such a deal from a store is somehow qualitatively different than someone who doesn't use coupons and who pays the listed retail price.

Good example. I have a sister in law who does this
with coupons. It would never occur to me to degrade
her by saying she 'adds no value' to the economy.

Quote: EvenBob

By giving a poor person a car, I have created value in their life
by giving them mobility, making their lives easier. It has nothing
to do with trasnsfering the monetary value of the car from
me to them, as Bigfoot thinks.

Bob you have gotta be the thickest guy this side of the nuthouse or else, as I suspect, you just enjoy taking a contrary position. Giving a poor person a car is fine thing to do but it does not create anything new on a macro scale. Your loss is the poor person's gain. You could create value by opening a car factory that turns $12,000 worth of steel, plastic, glass, and labor into a $25,000 car. You would, almost magically, turn $12k of resources into a $25k resource for yourself without taking from anybody. This is the economic miracle that I am refering to when I talk about "creating value". Or how about using an exceptional artistic talent to turn a $25 canvas and $15 worth of paint into a $5,000 still life. Again, you have created $4,960 of value out of thin air. This is creating value out of nothing, and this miracle repeated over and over by billions of people is why we are so much richer today than people 5,000 years ago who were always a famine or infection away from their children dying. This miracle is why average people today have more servants at their disposal and live a better life than the kings of the middle ages.

This miracle of turning X value into Y value where Y>X does not happen when you an AP hits the buttons on a dueces wild machine. It does not happen when someone wins the lottery. Giving up your vaction to Reno so that you can buy some poor person a car is honorable but is not an example of the economic miracle that I am calling "creating value".

Quote: bigfoot66

Theoretically, if you invest in unprofitable companies then you are wasting resources, and if you invest in profitable companies than you are creating resources. That said I do not pretend to understand the stock market.

That's a fine characterization, but "wasting" vs "creating" resources is not, I think, the determining factor of whether one contributes to the economy. Neither gambling nor stock investing are productive activities: all you're doing is giving your money to a third party to use for a while. In the case of investing, it's sometimes for a long while and you typically expect a positive ROI. In the case of gambling, it's often for less than 60 seconds and you typically expect a negative ROI. But in both cases, the companies you transact with are the ones who typically contribute to the economy (by creating jobs, producing goods or services, etc.)

What's the economic difference between a daytrader with a hot stock tip and a blackjack card counter? Aren't both of them simply consuming the services provided by third parties, and don't both those services allow one to exchange money for a chance at more money? Don't both have a +EV?

Quote: Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary (1906)

The gambling known as business looks with austere disfavor upon the business known as gambling.

Unfortunately I don't understand the stock market well enough to really go into detail with you here. My understanding is that the modern stock market is not all that different from casino gambling. However, in the theoretical stock market you are a long term investor giving money to companies that they use to build factories, etc. The business generates a profit that it distributes to investors in the form of a dividend and eventually your ownership stake in the company increases in value which you ultimately sell and make a pile of money.

I agree with you that the day trader who owns APPL for 30 minutes and flips it for a 2% return is doing something completely different. I am not sure that this is productive except that it makes the market so liquid that stock prices become a very accurate reflection of the value of the company. Maybe the day trader has some role in ensuring that more investments are steered toward efficent companies and away from inefficent firms but again at this point I am speculating.

BTW I really like the quote, and it was totally accurate until about the time the Mirage was built.

Quote: bigfoot66

Bob you have gotta be the thickest guy this side of the nuthouse

Are personal attacks and name calling really needed
to make your point? Its very immature.

Quote: bigfoot66

Giving a poor person a car is fine thing to do but it does not create anything new on a macro scale.

Here is the definition of creating value, in this
case, thru charity.

"you’re creating value when you can see tangible positive changes in the world"

When I give a person a car, I have created positive changes
in their life. I have created value in their lives. They can now
drive to the store intead of walking. They can drive to their
job. It opens up a whole new world for them. Its the very
essense of creating value.

Quote: bigfoot66

Giving up your vaction to Reno so that you can buy some poor person a car is honorable but is not an example of the economic miracle that I am calling "creating value".

This is where you're not getting it. Creating value in this
case has nothing to do with making the person richer.
Creating value is not always about money. If I volunteer
in a soup kitchen every weekend, I'm creating value thru
my actions. I can see positive results in the real world
from what I've done. Thats what charitible giving and
charitable work does, it creates value of the real
kind, but can't be measured in dollars and cents. How do
you measure saving a life, or relieving a hardship, in dollars
and cents.

My dog constantly creates value in my life. He offers loyal
companionship, he offers unconditional love. Having my
dog creates positive results in my life, I'm happier, I
more satisfied. You can't measure that in money.

Quote: EvenBob

Are personal attacks and name calling really needed
to make your point? Its very immature.

It is neither a personal attack nor name calling. It is frustrating to try to explain this stuff to you because every time I try to pull away you either PM me a legitimate question or mischaraterize my position on the board in such a way that I feel the need to correct you, but I end up saying the same things over and over.

Quote: Bob

This is where you're not getting it. Creating value in this
case has nothing to do with making the person richer.
Creating value is not always about money. If I volunteer
in a soup kitchen every weekend, I'm creating value thru
my actions. I can see positive results in the real world
from what I've done. Thats what charitible giving and
charitable work does, it creates value of the real
kind, but can't be measured in dollars and cents.

A lot of people try to argue this. How do you propose we measure value if not through $$$? What thing would you prefer to work for more than money, since this other thing must be a better store/representation of value.

Quote: Bob

My dog constantly creates value in my life. He offers loyal
companionship, he offers unconditional love. Having my
dog creates positive results in my life, I'm happier, I
more satisfied. You can't measure that in money.

I propose a very easy way to measure the amount of value your dog adds to your life in money. Imagine that the dog has a terrible medical condition and must recieve a surgery in order to survive. What is the most you would be willing to pay for his medical care before you decide that it is too much and opt not to do the surgery. $200? $500? $2000? There is some number where you would decline treatment. That is the monetary value that you place on the things you get from your dog.

Quote: bigfoot66

A lot of people try to argue this. How do you propose we measure value if not through $$$? What thing would you prefer to work for more than money

Here's a really good example of value. There
was a woman years ago who had some Civil
War letters from a great grandfather. They
were worth $150 tops. She said she wouldn't
part with them for any amount, the sentimental
value to her family was too great.

Money is but one way way of calculating value.
I create value when I work in a soup kitchen.
I create value when I give a car to a poor person.
I create value when I win money as an AP and
donate part of it to charity.

Look again at Robin Hood. You can't stop your
evealuation of what he did at the robbery, like
you stop your evaluation of AP's when they win the
money. You have to evaluate the value created when
Robin Hood gives to the poor, when the picture is
complete. Nobody would ever say to Robin Hood
that he contributes nothing to society by robbery,
that he creates no value. You can't say it about an
AP either.

The $500 an AP wins from a casino was also worth $500 to the casino. There has been no creation of value because it is the same money just now in different hands. Whatever happens to that money through the AP or the casino, hopefully it is given to charity or used responsably, it is still worth $500. By winning that money from the casino the AP did not make those chips worth more than what is printed on top of them. You are talking about a very different, almost moral definition of "creating value" and Bigfoot is talking about "creating value" in a economic sense. A positive difference in someone's life is very different than a positive difference in the monetary value of something. So can we say you both win and move one.

Quote: FrGamble

The $500 an AP wins from a casino was also worth $500 to the casino. There has been no creation of value because it is the same money just now in different hands.

Amen, Father! Amen!

Quote: FrGamble

The $500 an AP wins from a casino was also worth $500 to the casino.

So what. When I play as an AP, I have the positive
edge, I have the positive expectation. When the
casino plays against a non AP, the casino has the
positive expectation. Does the casino create value
when it wins? Does the casino have drag on the
economy when it wins, as the AP has been accused
of?

I don't know why I am addicted to the futile effort of answering EvenBob, especially in an area I am no expert on but here it goes.

I think the casino creates value when it wins because it has provided you with hopefully a good time, a drink or two, a nice friendly dealer, and a safe and legal place to try your luck and beat the odds. That has value to someone who likes to gamble for fun. When a AP player wins I hope they also have a good time and its not too much of a grind but he/she does not give back to the casino, and you might want to make the arguement (s)he takes more than just money from the casino in its other services and convienences offered. Whatever the casino or player does with the money afterwards cannot overcome the fact that the casino is creating value (entertainment) that gamblers pay for in games set up with a negative expected return and the elusive possibility of winning. The AP is not creating value but rather using the casino and not giving it anything in return. Like others have said I too would say as long as the AP is winning legally (including card counting) then the act is morally neutral with the possibility of doing some moral good if the money is used in a holy and responsible way. However, I do think the Wizard's point is very clear that the AP is not creating value to the economy.

Quote: FrGamble

I think the casino creates value when it wins because .

No no no, there is not a whit of difference in the
casino taking my $500 because they have the edge,
and me taking their $500 because they have the
edge. No difference, none, zero.

If I create no value because I have the edge, they sure
as hell create no value because they have the edge. It
can't be any other way. The casino and I are equal in
every detail. They force me to play at their edge in certain
games, I force them to play at my edge in my game.

Quote: EvenBob

Here's a really good example of value. There
was a woman years ago who had some Civil
War letters from a great grandfather. They
were worth $150 tops. She said she wouldn't
part with them for any amount, the sentimental
value to her family was too great.

You hit upon something very important here: Value is SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. There is no such thing as intrinsic value, and different people value the same things differently. When I have a product that I value at, say, $100, and you value the object at, say, $200, there is the potential for us to trade. Depending on our relative bargaining skills and other factors, we might settle on any price over $101 and under $199. If you value the object at $50 and I value it at $200 it is impossible for the trade to occur voluntarily. Let's say I give you the object for $150. We both have profited $50, and by trading society as a whole has become $100 wealthier even though nothing new has been created.

It is in this narrow sense that it is possible (though by no means guaranteed) that giving a car to a poor person creates value. Maybe I have a 1000 cars and my least favorite one is worth $400 to me, so I give it to some homeless guy who values it at $650, here we have create $150 in value. But if you value you the car at $1000 and the poor person abuses it and treats it like it is worth $500, then transfering the car to him has destroyed $500 in value.

Quote: Bob

1) Money is but one way way of calculating value.

2) I create value when I work in a soup kitchen.
3) I create value when I give a car to a poor person.
4) I create value when I win money as an AP and
donate part of it to charity.

1) I challenged you to name another superior way to measure value, please do so or else admit that it is difficult to measure value without using money or a money substitute
2) Yes at the rate of approximately minimum wage. If you did not do the work for free they would have to hire someone at approximately minimum wage
3) No except for what I stated above.
4) Moving money alone does not create value. Again, if you are going to make this claim please explain how much value is created. You write a $500 check to the Salvation army. Go. Where is value created. What if you win $500, give it to charity, but the casino owner was planning on doing the same thing with the money had he not lost it. Have you still created value?

Quote: Bob

Look again at Robin Hood. You can't stop your
evealuation of what he did at the robbery, like
you stop your evaluation of AP's when they win the
money. You have to evaluate the value created when
Robin Hood gives to the poor, when the picture is
complete. Nobody would ever say to Robin Hood
that he contributes nothing to society by robbery,
that he creates no value. You can't say it about an
AP either.

I am not familiar with every detail of the story, but generally speaking, no, stealing from one person and giving it to another creates no more value than moving money from my left hand to my right hand.

This last point is very important to me. You claimed that I could not derive a monetary value for the affection you get from your dog and in less than 10 minutes I posted an elegant answer to your point. You would go a long way towards reassuring me that this is not just some big game to you by either offering an objection or admitting that I made a pretty damn good point there. I am putting a lot of energy into this and I would like to feel like I am not speaking to a wall.

Quote: EvenBob

So what. When I play as an AP, I have the positive
edge, I have the positive expectation. When the
casino plays against a non AP, the casino has the
positive expectation. Does the casino create value
when it wins? Does the casino have drag on the
economy when it wins, as the AP has been accused
of?

The casino obviously offers something that people want as they enter the building KNOWING that they are likely to lose. Maybe they enjoy the atmosphere, or the dancing fountains, that Vegas Energy, its probably different for everybody. But is doesn't matter. The fact that they are willing to purchase the product the casino is offering is all we need to know to prove that it is a profitable transaction for the gambler and that he believes he is getting his money's worth.

The casino is not interested in serving AP gamblers and when it does so it is almost always because of an error. The casino does not want to be a part of the transaction. That proves that, in the mind of the casino people, it is not a profitable transaction and thus not one that creates value for them.

Edit: I should have just let the Padre's response stand, he makes a number of fine points that I agree with.

Bob brought up the notion of subjective value versus intrinsic value. If value was intrinsic instead of subjective, then money would not exist. Anyone know why?

Quote: bigfoot66

Bob brought up the notion of subjective value versus intrinsic value. If value was intrinsic instead of subjective, then money would not exist. Anyone know why?

We wouldn't need a medium of exchange. My chicken would always be worth three loaves of bread, etc. so there would be no need for a unit of currency to act as middleman.

Of course, value is always subjective. That's why arbitrage can exist.

Quote: FrGamble

The $500 an AP wins from a casino was also worth $500 to the casino. There has been no creation of value because it is the same money just now in different hands.

Exactly! And I would argue BETTER hands. :) I will give a portion to charity, because it is who I am. But even if I didn't and I spent 100% on my own needs and wants, that is head and shoulders better than giving it to a super PAC campaign fund and torturing the general population with yet more political commercials, so I can argue that the world is a better place because I have relieved the casino (and their owner's that obviously have more money than they know what to do with) of these funds. So, your welcome. :)

Quote: bigfoot66

It is in this narrow sense that it is possible (though by no means guaranteed) that giving a car to a poor person creates value.

Its not narrow at all, its very broad. Most value in
the world is not measured in monetary terms.

Quote: bigfoot66

1) I challenged you to name another superior way to measure value

1. My friend, I value his friendship immensely.
2. I value the time I spent at my grandma's farm as a child.
3. I value the arts my town offers.
4. I value the library I go to every Monday.
5. I value the love of my wife.

The list is endless, you get the idea. These values
can't be measured, but are real and tangible. They
are more real then monetary measurement, in fact.

Quote: bigfoot66

You write a $500 check to the Salvation army. Go. Where is value created.

I have no idea, I never deal with them. I only
give money when I know exactly how it will
be spent.

Quote: bigfoot66

I am not familiar with every detail of the story, but generally speaking, no, stealing from one person and giving it to another creates no more value than moving money from my left hand to my right hand.

Boy, rest of the world would certainly disagree with you.
Robin Hood is always held up as the penultimate example
of created value. He took a vile act, robbery, and gave the
proceeds to the poor, creating value in changing the lives
of hundreds of people. You think they would agree he created
no value?

Quote: bigfoot66

This last point is very important to me. You claimed that I could not derive a monetary value for the affection you get from your dog and in less than 10 minutes I posted an elegant answer to your point. .

No, you set up a straw man and then knocked him down.
It had nothing to do with what value my dog gives me
every hour of every day. He staring at me right now, warming
my heart, giving me immeasurable value.

Quote: bigfoot66

The casino obviously offers something that people want as they enter the building KNOWING that they are likely to lose. Maybe they enjoy the atmosphere, or the dancing fountains, that Vegas Energy, its probably different for everybody. But is doesn't matter. The fact that they are willing to purchase the product the casino is offering is all we need to know to prove that it is a profitable transaction for the gambler and that he believes he is getting his money's worth.

Wow, you ramble all over the map with your answer.

The question is really simple. The casino has the
edge and wins in most games. The AP has the edge
and wins in his game. If the AP creates no value because
he has the edge, the casino creates no value either when
they have the edge. They have to be equal.

So when you denegrate the AP, be sure you also denegrate
the casino for doing exactly the same thing.