This is an important subject but I wasn't particularly impressed by several of the arguments. Like the idea that a small percentage of users accounting for the vast majority of the losses, similar to how a small percentage of alcohol drinkers account for most of the sales - this seems more like a reason in favor of it not being a major problem for the vast majority of users. (Don't be mistaken: just because the the guest's arguments are not explicitly religious doesn't imply they are not moral arguments.)
I also don't see how Pigouvian taxes apply to this situation. What's the negative externality? It ought to be something tangible, like "you undermined my property rights by your actions" rather than "you are doing something I don't like," lest this become a justification for totalitarianism. And I don't think it makes sense in the context of the guest's own arguments - if the real problem is the small percentage of problem bettors, they are going to be the least sensitive (i.e., have the most inelastic demand curves) to changes in price and therefore such a policy is likely to be ineffective in the goal of discouraging them in particular.
The argument I found most compelling is regarding the fact that bettors who are successful are essentially shut out and blacklisted by the betting companies. This makes any promises of winnings fraudulent and these companies should be class-action sued into oblivion for doing this.
I have a friend, a doctor and former NFL football player, who has a podcast about our favorite college team. A while back, he began aggressively arguing in favor of legalized sports betting at the same time he started running paid ads from sports betting companies. He's a very moral man, but has a couple of blind spots: I think he thinks that as gambling is not a medical addiction it must not really be harmful. Also, he thinks any opposition to gambling must be driven by right-wing moralism and fundamentalism that he abhors.
I emailed him a couple of times to point out the ethical problem but he ignored me. It bothers me enough that I no longer listen to the podcast. It's as disturbing to me as it would be if my doctor friend had become a paid shill for the tobacco industry.
I like how Saagar approaches this. His critique focuses on real-world harms and doesn't use moralistic or religious arguments. I think a lot of smart people completely failed to anticipate how addictive and harmful legalized internet gambling would be.
Big fan of Saagar, great to see him here
This is an important subject but I wasn't particularly impressed by several of the arguments. Like the idea that a small percentage of users accounting for the vast majority of the losses, similar to how a small percentage of alcohol drinkers account for most of the sales - this seems more like a reason in favor of it not being a major problem for the vast majority of users. (Don't be mistaken: just because the the guest's arguments are not explicitly religious doesn't imply they are not moral arguments.)
I also don't see how Pigouvian taxes apply to this situation. What's the negative externality? It ought to be something tangible, like "you undermined my property rights by your actions" rather than "you are doing something I don't like," lest this become a justification for totalitarianism. And I don't think it makes sense in the context of the guest's own arguments - if the real problem is the small percentage of problem bettors, they are going to be the least sensitive (i.e., have the most inelastic demand curves) to changes in price and therefore such a policy is likely to be ineffective in the goal of discouraging them in particular.
The argument I found most compelling is regarding the fact that bettors who are successful are essentially shut out and blacklisted by the betting companies. This makes any promises of winnings fraudulent and these companies should be class-action sued into oblivion for doing this.
I have a friend, a doctor and former NFL football player, who has a podcast about our favorite college team. A while back, he began aggressively arguing in favor of legalized sports betting at the same time he started running paid ads from sports betting companies. He's a very moral man, but has a couple of blind spots: I think he thinks that as gambling is not a medical addiction it must not really be harmful. Also, he thinks any opposition to gambling must be driven by right-wing moralism and fundamentalism that he abhors.
I emailed him a couple of times to point out the ethical problem but he ignored me. It bothers me enough that I no longer listen to the podcast. It's as disturbing to me as it would be if my doctor friend had become a paid shill for the tobacco industry.
I like how Saagar approaches this. His critique focuses on real-world harms and doesn't use moralistic or religious arguments. I think a lot of smart people completely failed to anticipate how addictive and harmful legalized internet gambling would be.