GreatCarouser wrote: So if I am a banker and you are a farmer and I lend you monies using a share in your coming corn crop as collateral that's ok because you are 'creating' wealth and are in business to do so but if I come to you as an 'investor' (gambler) and make the same deal we aren't 'creating' wealth? Seems the difference is what name you give the lender?
Investing is not equal to gambling, both involve risk, but one is a zero sum game. And yes, IMO investing is OK, gambling is dumb because the odds are against you. Investing is smart because the odds are with you due to the open-ended nature of investments.
GreatCarouser wrote: Darn, I guess all those casinos, both Indian and corporately owned scattered around the US create no wealth? Tell that to their shareholders and employees. Tell that to the service industries that have sprung up to serve them, their customers, and employees.
You know you are misapplying my words because you quote me correctly below. Taking a sucker’s money is morally repugnant no matter how much “legitimate” business you build around it.
GreatCarouser wrote: Commodity traders and others who speculate in 'high-volatility' investments can come out winners. Because they may not be publicly traded partnerships does that mean that 'no wealth has been created'? Burn all the mom-and-pop small businesses then.
You are really stretching here. Traders who never intend to take possession of the underlying product are gamblers because that kind of trading is a zero sum game. A winner, a loser and the house takes it cut. No wealth has been created but for the house. I don’t understand how you compare this to Mom and Pop shops.
GreatCarouser wrote: Please don't tell me about the 'wreckage' of broke gamblers unless you are willing to include in that number the overwhelming number of small business owners who lose at their particular gambles when compared to the numbers that 'win'.
The businesses who fail are entering into an open system of unlimited potential. They succeed or fail based on their discipline, intelligence, application of ideas and all of those indefinable and knowable and unknowable risks that are out there. The winning or losing is not a foregone conclusion; that is the fundamental difference in gambling and investment.
GreatCarouser wrote: Just as more and more small businesses do survive and thrive so do more and more 'professional gamblers' and no other industry creates the possibility for quick wealth from a relatively miniscule investment for the casual and uninformed 'investor' that the gambling industry does (I am including a major lottery win here as it is legal gambling). As lousy as the odds of it happening are they are far greater than the odds of it happening from any other investment.
Where the hell do you get your statistics from? If you really believe this you have been hopelessly mislead. The rate of failure of a business is not the same as losing at gambling. As a business runs its course, the owners (investors) extract current and future value from it. Sometimes returning many times their investment before the business closes. Closure does not equal losing. The net aggregate return on US business investing is historically between 5-10 percent to the good. The net aggregate return on gambling is incredibly simple to calculate. Wagers, minus the house’s cut yields a net aggregate loss to the gamblers. You can not escape this or call it wealth creation for the gamblers. The returns to any one gambler are distributed on a standard bell curve with the fat part of the group somewhere around break-even minus the house’s cut. The folks you hear about making it big are thin end of the tail of the curve and they are no more common than before because it is statistically impossible.
GreatCarouser wrote: If you go to wager on a pari-mutuel wagering event (horse race or dog race, for example) you are giving the house an edge of approximately 17-20% on whatever monies you wager there...I'd love to find an insurance company that would offer me even odds 1/4 as good as those (and they are quite lousy odds compared to most casino games for example) on the return of my often legally-mandated 'wagers' with those 'wealth-creators'.
Again, you have been mislead if you believe that this is how insurance works. It would take another long post to explain it, let me know if you are interested.
GreatCarouser wrote: It seems by your lights, *ig Jon, only businesses that create something 'tangible' are wealth creators. Let's burn all the banks along with the lawyers, ad agencies, management consultants etc. then.
There are businesses who don’t deal in tangible items who take sucker’s money just the same as the gambling house, they are morally repugnant too. And again, you tar with a broad brush. Just because the usage has been immoral doesn’t mean the business is inherently unworthy. And no, a business of tangible items is not the only means to create wealth, but they are the most, well, tangible. They just happen to be the foundation of most systems of genuine wealth creation.
GreatCarouser wrote: Saying that ..."(t)here is a winner, there is a loser, the house takes it cut and no wealth is created, except for the house..." is like saying that all those 'winners' are bound to lose/spend what they have won and be left,
I never said that or implied it, but now you are delving into the gamblers psychology, which is how these Taj Mahals of gambling are created. Make the sucker think he is winning or it is easy to win and he will continue to gamble. Make it hard or no fun and he will go home. Google the gambler’s fallacy if you really want to delve in to what is wrong with gambling from the humane standpoint.
GreatCarouser wrote: at best, breaking even on their investment. That conclusion is laughable.
See above, it is statistically impossible for it to be any other way with gambling, no matter how much you wish it were different.
GreatCarouser wrote: Is it really my analogy that is 'shallow and malformed' or perhaps only the conclusions you reached that deserve those adjectives?
Your analogy is busted beyond repair, because you have apparently been trained by the very folks who want to take your money. Your illustrations are the classic gambler’s justifications and they don’t hold up to scrutiny.