According to the Herald (and now the Globe):
Cops are eyeing gambling woes as a possible motive for accused Craigslist killer Philip Markoff’s alleged assaults on Boston-area escorts, one of whom was brutally gunned down in a Hub hotel room, according to two law enforcement sources.Markoff was known to be a big gambler and investigators are probing whether money concerns tied to his gambling may have triggered the alleged violence spree, the sources said. Markoff was traveling south on I-95 with a suitcase when he was arrested by authorities on murder charges yesterday. A source said he may have been on his way to a Connecticut casino when he was arrested. Markoff, who is engaged, and his fiancee listed Foxwoods Resort Casino as one of their preferred honeymoon destinations on a wedding Website. The posting has since been taken down.
Casinos like Foxwoods make 90% of their profits from 10% of the players – addicted, out-of-control gamblers. Foxwoods intensely tracks the gambling habits of these out-of-control players and markets to them relentlessly. Casinos often lend these out-of-control players large sums of money (“markers”) knowing they will wager and lose all of the borrowed money inside their casino.
If a bar owner supplies an already drunk patron with more alcohol and that patron later commits a violent act, don’t we hold the bar owner accountable?
If Foxwoods lent money to Markoff to lose inside their casino and these gambling debts prove to be the motive for his crime, don’t they hold accountability for the tragic aftermath just like the bar owner?
Les Bernal
I think you’re jumping the gun a little, already asking for accountability when the guy hasn’t even been convicted yet, and the motive you suggest is pure speculation.
<
p>Since there are two surviving victims in this case, has he been positively ID’d as the perp yet?
Geez, is the ink dry on that warrant yet?
<
p>Exploitation comes in all forms, don’t it?
the accusation stands — that gambling debt in some way contributed to these crimes — I do think the point is interesting. Why? Because gambling debt does cause these sorts of crimes all over, at a scale far larger than most of us would be comfortable with. Many gambling addicts, like other addicts, will embezzle and steal to pay for their addictions — it’s happened countless times. The important factor for Massachusetts is, if we legalized slot machines here, the rate of problem gamblers – according to federal statistics – would double.
<
p>This is only one small facet of the problems slot machines represent, but it’s a serious problem too often ignored in the costs of having slot machines at a casino/Cahill-sponsored warehouse near you. When Patrick and (especially) Cahill spout make-believe numbers, it’s funny that they never mention or question what these (other) sorts of numbers would be.
Should we hold his landlord accountable for charging too much rent? Or Best Buy for selling him a plasma TV?
interesting questions/moral dilemmas.
<
p>Okay, maybe we can’t raise a fuss with Best Buy over someone buying a TV, but what if Best Buy lured that person in with a zero-interest-for-six months card that became 30% interest after a late payment? And what if they gave out that card to people who had unworthy credit or didn’t have the financial resources to afford the credit limit? What if the debt was related to the predatory mortgage industry — with sleazy banks and companies selling sleazy adjustable-rate mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them?
<
p>Would those sorts of predatory lending policies lead to more or less crime? If it leads to more, would it therefore make smart policy for society to create reasonable measures to regulate it?
<
p>So, you’d have to look at this at a case-by-case basis… but there’s plenty of room for reform, as well as blame, here. We should create policies that help keep people out of desperate situations, not policies that throw people into them.
<
p>Does the customer in your scenario bear any responsibility for spending more than they have or taking on risky debt? The credit terms extended in your hypothetical would be stated before the customer takes on the debt, what happened to individual responsibility here? Is it your opinion that corporations are always predatory and consumers always preyed upon? Can’t afford the TV, don’t buy it, no matter how tempting.
Why should we let people be irresponsible, when we can prohibit predatory lending and not create these problems. It’s not just the individual who made the mistake that gets in trouble, the whole family suffers, and the friends who have to load the poor guy money to pay his rent, and the landlord if he decides to pay the cable bill instead. Why is it a good thing that companies employ predatory practices that lead to so much trouble?
at choosing what is repsonsible, and irresponsible. Because it is a bad idea to infantalize the citizenry.
Is there a minimum amount of exploitation and suffering necessary to maintain an adult and responsible citizenry? Maybe we should actually increase the number of ways people can exploit and ruin people’s lives, so you can be even more superior to even more people.
…this is also an argument for leaving Credit Default Swaps unregulated, or even getting rid of traffic lights.
Who is the “we” that’s going to “let” me not be irresponsible….You? No thanks. I like the idea of a living in a free country where I’m free to make mistakes. It makes life worth living.
<
p>To answer your question, I think SOME people are not as educated or as “smart” as I am, but I also think MORE people are more educated and “smarter” than I am(especially around here).
Landlords don’t make 90% of their profts from addicted tenants nor have I ever heard of Plasma TV Buyers Anonymous.
<
p>Imagine if a man had walked out of the Purple Shamrock at Faneuil Hall after a bartender supplied him with more alcohol even though he knew the man was already drunk and that man later went to a Marriott Copley hotel room and killed a woman. Every law enforcement official and media outlet in the city would have that bartender under a super-intense microscope.
<
p>If Foxwoods lent money to Markoff to lose inside their casino and these gambling debts prove to be the motive for his crime, they deserve the same level of very serious scrutiny.
<
p>Les Bernal
You are asking us to draw a conclusion based on a metaphorical comparison to an imaginary scenario. Is there really any reason to believe that law enforcement would go after a bartender for serving someone who ends up committing murder? I don’t think that is usually the case.
<
p>A bar might be held civilly liable for serving alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person who then injures himself or others accidentally, but I don’t think that would be likely to succeed when applied to deliberate crimes committed by that person. Being drunk doesn’t turn people into murders.
<
p>Likewise being a gambling addict doesn’t turn most people into murderers.
<
p>By making this kind of hyperbolic argument, you only invite ridicule.
<
p>The opposite is true. Intoxicated people commit all kinds of violent crime including murder.
<
p>
<
p>There are examples of gambling addiction also leading to homicide. Here’s a recent story from the St. Paul Star Tribune about debt and gambling addiction being the motive for murder.
<
p>Here’s another about two young children of a Dubuque, Iowa woman who were murdered by her estranged husband, an attack she barely survived herself after being stabbed so many times that “her doctors stopped counting after 59.”
<
p>The facts don’t “invite ridicule” but they do invite strong and swift government intervention against the predatory gambling trade, especially when the trade makes 90% of its gambling profits from addicted, out-of-control gamblers.
<
p>Les Bernal
We can certainly all become the “Stepford People” in order to be certain that a few criminally minded people don’t have an opportunity to become engrossed in an activity that may or may not drive them to commit a crime they would probably commit anyway without some addiction to some evil activity. Men have killed their families over losing their jobs too, do you suggest they never work?
<
p>You absolutely have the right to your opinion that gambling is an activity that people should avoid because you think it is evil and will ruin lives. The obsessive nature of anti-gambling people reminds me of the obsessive nature of anti-abortion people. So fully focused and convince that you are across the board morally correct that the entire act must be banned, there is no middle ground and no compromise.
It’s a fact that according to Christina Binkley of The Wall Street Journal that 90% of the casino’s gambling profits come from 10% of the players.
<
p>It’s a fact that casinos lend money to out-of-control gamblers knowing full well that that the person they are lending it to will wager and lose it all inside their casino.
<
p>It’s a fact that most of the people who own and promote the casinos don’t use the product, including casino exec Steve Wynn, Harrah’s CEO Gary Loveman or Treasurer Tim Cahill.
<
p>And it’s a fact that we are creating addicted, out-of-control gamblers in order to provide a small number of schemers an obscene level of unearned power and wealth, all in the name of getting someone else to pay our taxes.
<
p>Why don’t predatory gambling supporters ever engage on those facts rather than misrepresenting the views of those who oppose them?
<
p>Les Bernal
Your 90%/10% link leads to Amazon and a book appearing to be a sensationalistic account of a few Las Vegas bigwigs’ rise to power. Do you have a more direct quote of that text, so it can be seen in context?
<
p>The link talking about casinos lending money ends with, “This Is The Opinion Of David Collins.” The linked article is also tangetially related to the particular assertion claimed.
<
p>Why does the choice in entertainment options of casino CEOs have any relevance on the legality of casinos? Should we mandate a particular BMI for chefs? 2 packs a day to work for the Marlboro Man?
<
p>The last of your facts is a pure appeal to emotion.
<
p>Perhaps the “predatory gambling” supporters don’t engage the 4 facts because at least 2 are only opinions, a third is a non sequitor, and the 4th cannot be verified from the information given.
1) The 90%/10% reference can be found in Wall St Journal reporter Christina Binkley’s book Winner Takes All on Pg. 184. The exact text reads as follows:
<
p>
<
p>Are you suggesting that the WSJ has got it wrong?
<
p>2) David Collins is the columnist for The Day which is the regional daily newspaper in the region where the CT casinos are located. Most non-gamblers are unaware that casinos lend large sums of money to players on the casino floor but it’s a central element to the casino business model. Here’s a couple more examples of the lending practice in action: from The Seattle Times and from The Las Vegas Sun.
<
p>3) The truth that casino execs don’t use their product is a huge part of the story. They say their product is no different than other forms of entertainment and describe it the same as “drinking wine, going out to a restaurant or going to the movies.” Yet, the owner of the vineyard drinks the wine he makes. The owner of the restaurant eats the food he serves. The movie producer watches the movies he makes. This is the only product or service I know of where most of the people who own it and promote it, including public officials, don’t use it and don’t want to live near it.
<
p>4)Taylor Branch the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian of the civil rights movement and biographer of Martin Luther King, describes the issue best. Says Branch:
<
p>
<
p>To hear Branch in his own words, I urge you to watch this brief video clip produced by CasinoFreeMass. After watching it, how is predatory gambling a “sensible” scheme to fund public services that benefit all of us?
<
p>Les Bernal
I’m having a very hard time with your second point. What purpose does it serve for me to lend you money for the express purpose of you giving it back to me? I don’t seem to gain anything in the deal.
and they go off and rob prostitutes or steal their mother’s television set to pay back the debt so they can gamble again. The casino happily takes the dead prostitute’s money, or the poor mother’s money, and loans them more money to lose so they can do it again.
<
p>In diagram form, the money flow goes like this:
<
p>Mom/dead prostitutes -> problem gambler -> casino/state
<
p>This is so that you don’t have to pay as much money in taxes, but in reality you end up having to pay even more to pay for the costs of problem gambling.
Someone needs to rid our society of this demon rum!
You may not be aware that in the late 19th alcoholism had reached epidemic proportions. In many places there was one saloon for every 90 adult males. Many men spent their paychecks on Friday afternoon at the bar. Spousal and child abuse were common and many families were stuck in poverty. And of course their addictions were attributed not to alcohol but to their low moral characters or even their genetics. In other words, poor people deserved their poverty. Not a pretty picture for a democracy.
<
p>You also don’t seem to be aware that Mothers Against Drunk Driving thought it was a real problem to have people drinking and driving, and they succeeded in getting much tougher laws that include pinning responsibility on those who serve alcohol. But maybe you are opposed to MADD.
<
p>Before you yuck it up about prohibition, you should read a little history. Les’s point is absolutely right: if the alleged killer, Philip Markoff, murdered his victim because of a gambling debt, doesn’t that raise a few questions about putting casinos all over Massachusetts?
<
p>
I am totally against drunk driving, I am also against irresponsible drinking, do I want to close down every establishment that serves liquor because of it. NO!
<
p>
<
p>Mothers Against Drunk Driving fought for tougher laws, they did not fight to ban the use of liquor entirely. Most people drink responsibly. There is now great awareness about the importance of using “designated drivers”. There is community involvement during Prom season to be sure the teens are safe. The work that MADD has done to bring awareness to the issue is tremendous and valued. The same thing can be done for those who have gambling addictions.
<
p>Since we are arguing about what is wrong and what is right in the world, I would like to share that I absolutely HATE “strip joints”. Or as they are more hilariously called….”Gentlemen Clubs”. Let’s have a debate about
the negative impact these places have on cities and towns.
They should be banned.
and promote more male strip shows? 🙂
<
p>Seriously, though, I’m not at all sure that strip clubs (of either genre) have a particular “negative impact” on cities and towns, at least in comparison to both gambling and alcohol (bearing in mind that every strip club is primarily a bar, financially speaking).
<
p>Regarding drunk driving, I fully support MADD — and I wish we would adopt the European approach: set the drinking age (for beer and wine) at 16 and the driving age at 25, combined with extraordinarily strict and strictly enforced DUI laws.
<
p>Problem solved.
Not that I disagree with your overall point, but there isn’t a country in Europe (perhaps even the world) where the minimum driving age is 25. The legal age is 17 in the UK and 18 in the rest of the EU.
Are you seriously suggesting that people shouldn’t be able to get a driver’s license until they’re 25?
<
p>For starters, how are people who work for a living supposed to get to work and support themselves? How are they supposed to get to a store and buy food, etc., or don’t people between the ages of 18 and 25 need to work or buy food?
My point is that I think it makes more sense to let teenagers learn to drink when they’re younger and have them wait until they’re older to learn how to drive.
<
p>Our DUI laws are still far too lenient.
<
p>Oh, and by the way, my understanding is that public transportation (in cities and towns) and bicycles (in rural areas) are the prevailing methods of transportation for 18-25 year old Europeans.
<
p>We don’t live in Europe.
<
p>As for your point, though, I agree that drinking and driving is a problem, but your solution won’t necessarily help.
<
p>How about we start modifying our puritanical and fetishistic views about alcohol? How about we start acting like adults and stop glorifying alcohol as some mystical substance only available on your magical 21st birthday? We have created a mystique around alcohol that has backfired. If people were more rational about it, then 15- and 16-year-old kids wouldn’t be irrational about it.
<
p>The French have it right. Introduce watered-down wine to children when they’re younger so alcoholic beverages don’t acquire an allure that is both unnecessary and destructive.
<
p>We have reaped what we have sown in this nation when it comes to alcohol. Making kids wait until they’re 18 to drive isn’t going to change that.
and I agree that our puritanical and fetishistic views about alcohol greatly worsen the problem (surely the same can be said about sexuality).
<
p>
<
p>I disagree. It takes 16-18 year olds out of the drivers seat, drunk or sober. That age group is greatly over-represented in fatality and accident statistics — see here and here for some representative data. The greatly-increased insurance rates for drivers under 25 reflect this tragic reality.
<
p>If 16-18 year olds were not allowed to drive, then alcohol use by that age group — especially when guided and modeled by responsible parents and adults — would be a significantly smaller problem.
Seems to me if we were to make serious progress with our attitudes about alcohol, 16 to 18 y.o. teens would be 1) less enamored of verboten alcohol, 2) more likely to make responsible decisions, 3) less likely to get caught up in peer-pressured binge drinking, and, in general, 4) less likely to get into an alcohol-related accident.
<
p>IOW, it doesn’t make any sense to acknowledge that our irrational attitudes about alcohol increase its potential for abuse among teens and then suggest that a healthier discourse about the subject wouldn’t, by its nature, decrease ETOH-related MVAs significantly. Using your logic, changing societal attitudes about alcohol would do all of the things I list EXCEPT decrease alcohol-related car accidents among teens.
<
p>Changing attitudes about alcohol among teens changes behavior. The Europeans have this right.
<
p>As for non-ETOH related MVAs among the 16-18 y.o. cohort, one must look at our crappy drivers’ ed programs and the irresponsibility of marketing professionals who peddle masculinity = speed. Developmentally, teens of that age are deeply susceptible to messages shaping gender norms and behaviors. Change the message; change the behavior.
I’m suggesting that the consequences of a teenager screwing up while learning to drink are less dangerous to everyone — including the teenager — then when the same teenager is also driving.
<
p>Even with teenagers who are not overly enamored with alcohol, more likely to make responsible decisions and less likely to get caught up in binge drinking, they are still going to (1) occasionally drink more than they should, (2) occasionally make irresponsible decisions, and (3) occasionally get shit-faced. Most of the non-alcoholic grownups that I know do each of the above. I think the difference is that most of the grownups that I know are better at finding ways to not drive when these things occasionally happen.
<
p>If they aren’t able to drive, the consequences will be that 16-18 year-olds will (1) occasionally wake up with hangovers, (2) occasionally piss in alleyways and have sexual encounters that they later regret and (3) walk home singing at the top of their lungs. They will not be climbing into the driver’s seat and killing themselves and others.
<
p>As you observe, we aren’t really very good at preparing even sober 16-18 year-olds to drive responsibly. It seems to me that this adds more support to the suggestion that the Euro approach is more practical — fewer people die.
You say alcohol. How correct.
<
p>You could substitute that word for gambling. Who is trying to ban all kinds of gambling? Not a single person on this thread, for example, would suggest banning a Friday night poker game at your friend’s place. When it comes to drugs, we strictly regulate them, even to the point of banning several kinds — including some kinds of alcohol. We decided to ban all kinds of alcohol for legal adults under the age of 21. We’ve also banned a few kinds of gambling.
<
p>Simply put, all of the energy in the anti-gambling crowd is specifically surrounding slot machines. Why? Slot machines are particularly addictive — they double the rates of addiction within a state. It’s one specific kind of gambling, not gambling as a whole. You have literally hundreds of options in this state in terms of gambling — from going to the tracks to playing any one of the dozens upon dozens of state lottery games to church bingo. However, the most addictive, damaging kind of gambling we’ve banned. It’s for a good policy reason.
If your’re only allowed to drink in the privacy of your own home, you probably live in a dry county.
…even the legal substances are still addictable and in some cases (like driving) more immediately hazardous.
I glad to see your support for the greatest domestic policy failure of the 20th century. It certainly puts your gambling stance into proper perspective: that of a moral crusader out to save us all from ourselves. Not unlike the guys who want to save us from gays, or marijuana.
<
p>As for MADD, they did excellent work in raising awareness and, more significantly, criminal responsibility, for a problem. I do think that the Age 21 limit is not helpful in this regard, as I don’t think that criminalizing a vast swath of the population is productive of anything other than MADD sanctimony. Doubtless you disagree, ansd
<
p>To answer the last question: No. It does not. It is, however, clearly an anecdote that will be abused by “activists” who want everyone to come to the activists’ own Jesus, by force if necessary.
I am not arguing in favor of gambling. I am merely pointing out that your hyberbolic rants only detract from your argument.
<
p>And even though drunk people do commit crimes, the vast, vast majority of drunk people do not. Alcohol cannot truly be considered as anything more than a secondary factor in violent crime.
<
p>You suggested that the police would be interested in investigating someone who served alcohol to a person who went on to commit a violent crime, but this simply does not happen. So who is twisting facts here?
then we should take note.
<
p>But even if it’s not, we should too.
<
p>Certainly not all gamblers are out of control or become desperate. But many are. I believe the addiction rate is 5%. And these people often empty their bank accounts at ATM machines in casinos.
<
p>While murder is an extreme example what can result from gambling addiction – suicide is less so. Broken families, child neglect and abuse, spousal abuse, foreclosures, bankruptcies, political corruption, loan sharking, larceny, and embezzlement are symptoms of gambling addiction.
<
p>So the percentage of those negatively effected by gambling addiction becomes higher than 5%. Often people who don’t even gamble.
<
p>Seeing as how our State is supposedly once again about to debate the value of slot machines as a cure for our revenue woes, should we use a product known to cause these issues to balance a budget?
<
p>Personally, I would say no. But in light of the fact that no other state has managed to balance their budgets on the backs of gambling enthusiasts, and in many cases even have higher taxes than Massachusetts, then I’d have to say NO!
half of that without them. That’s why this moral dilemma is so relevant.
I bet that alcoholics likewise comprise a small but significant portion of the population.
<
p>And yet we not only permit this drinking, but make money off it by taxing and regulating it. The scandal!
<
p>I began, when all of this started last year, on the fence about this. The early pro-casino arguments seemed a bit silly, and there remains the issue of market saturation.
<
p>But, as time goes by, it has become clear that theprimary argument against “predatory gambling” is that the opponent is morally opposed to gambling, thinks people should do something more productive with their time, and wishes to compel them to do so, for their own good.
<
p>So I have come around. If people want to gamble, they’re going to gamble. Either here, using bookies, in an unregulated environment, or in Connecticut, contributing tax revenue there. Might as well capture some of that lost revenue.
The most common argument I hear against legalized gambling (and State-sponsored lotteries) is also the most compelling, in my opinion — that it is among the most regressive of all the tax choices.
<
p>In my view, it has little to do with “morality” and everything to do with demographics. Poor people are far more likely to feel financial pressure (duh!), they are far less likely to understand the statistics and their implications, and they are least able to afford the resulting financial losses.
<
p>If we want to profit from “vices”, I’d support legalized (and taxed) marijuana and legalized (and regulated and taxed) prostitution way above legalized gambling.
If you haven’t seen this movie yet, you ought to, it’s quite frightening….
<
p>Idiocracy Synopsis & Movie Info
<
p>
It’s only regressive if people let it be. Nobody has to gamble, but I do believe all odds should be clearly posted at lottery points-of-sale and in casinos. I still haven’t figured out why those under the most financial pressure will fritter away money on such long odds; it seems VERY counterintuitive.
I don’t mean to be snarky, towards you or the population that is exploited, but I think it’s simply true. The population that is most vulnerable is also least able to appreciate the implication of the odds, even if posted. If a person doesn’t grasp the concept of probability, then posting the odds has no meaning.
<
p>
<
p>The explanation that rings most true for me is that increasing financial pressure breeds increasing desperation — and a desperate person is more easily lured by the promise of a win, and more likely to underestimate the consequences of losing. A person who is drowning is irrationally dangerous to a would-be rescuer.
<
p>Why do desperately poor and horribly oppressed populations tend to breed freedom-fighters/terrorists who throw themselves into conflicts that they are bound to lose?
<
p>Perhaps because they feel they have so little left to lose.
…to take the title of your above comment as a compliment:)
Where has it “become clear that the primary argument against ‘predatory gambling’ is that the opponent is morally opposed to gambling?” I’ve been one of the most vocal about casinos in the mass blogosphere and that’s never been my argument. You want to go gamble with your friends on a Friday night? Have fun. Want to go to see the games at Suffolk Downs? Enjoy yourself. There’s even dozens of different games at a convenient store, gas station, super market, restaurant or packie near you — and they’re in no danger of going away.
<
p>What I am chiefly against, as is most of the anti-casino community, is slot machines. Why? Because they make bad policy. Now, you can argue whether or not you agree with that statement based on my (linked to) reasoning or not, but even if you disagree with me, you can’t argue that my position – the position many others hold with me – is one based on moral opposition. It’s a decision based on a hard look at the facts and what, policy-wise, makes the best sense for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
And they all boil down to: people will waste their money! Some people might be addicted!
<
p>You and Dan Kennedy don’t succumb to hysteria as much as these posters above, but both of you seem to land pretty firmly in the “Its a sin” camp, rephrased to reflect your particular theology.
<
p>Then there is Amber paw, who thinks that Detroit is Detroit (with homes for sale for less than a used car) because there is a casino there.
<
p>Superficially, the argument that casinos don’t expand the economy is appealing, but I don’t think it carries very far. First, because Mom & Pop and their failing store/restaurant get trotted out early, which is always a reliable indicia of BS. Second, because the fundamental premise is that it is the job of government to cause people to spend their money here, and not there, which I reject. And last, because people making this argument seem to regard $50 dropped at a casino as gone, wasted, either because (i) they don’t view an evening at the casino to have value, or (ii) because the spender didn’t come away with $50 worth of anything. All of this just boils down to a value judgment about spending money at a casino, which value is sought to be imposed on someone else. The last also seems to argue in favor of banning the Red Sox, the MFA, and the Coolidge Corner Theater.
<
p>That leaves saturation of the market. Once, there was Vegas and Atlantic City. Now, we have all of these, plus the big two n Connecticut, plus some in Rhody that aren’t doing so well. Could it be that gamblers already have sufficient supply to meet their demand? (If they do, much of the “encouraging addiction!” arguments wash out) In this sense, it would be worthwhile to ensure (how? I don’t know) that casinos don’t become a state subsidized industry, as racing, both dog and horse, has become.
Not as shocking as it sounds. In retail banking, 120% of profits come from 20% of customers. That’s right, 80% of customers are unprofitable. Bank profits come from the extremes: large depositors who use a lot of services, and small depositors who bounce checks and incur big fees.
The biggest difference is the retail bank’s business model: their mission is not to turn their customers into losers.
<
p>The casino business model is based on the principle of getting players, in the words of MIT Professor Dr. Natasha Schull, “to play to extinction” – which means until their money is all gone. It’s highly unlikely that any retail banking institution would have that as part of their business plan because if they did, you would see lawsuits from state attorney generals across the country just like they sued Countrywide Financial for its subprime lending practices.
<
p>Casino exec Steve Wynn summed it all up cleanly in a recent 60 Minutes interview.
<
p>
<
p>Do you think any retail bank president would say that about their business?
<
p>Les Bernal
But some of that type of brutal honesty would be refreshing from a bank president.
<
p>I oppose expanded gambling. But I think we should be wary of stats that are easy to remember.
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
Why is it assumed that people are out to make money at the casino. Anyone I have ever met goes to enjoy a weekend or an evening, knowing they will lose money. The occasional trip that ends in the black just makes it more exciting.
<
p>Your entire line of reasoning is that because there are some people who are unable to distinguish between a mutual fund and an hour at the craps table, no one should have this option for their recreation. This is simply rubbish.
<
p>One could certainly envision that kind of talk by a bank president: We make most of our money from bounced check fees, overdrafts, and foreign ATM fees. When customers f–k up, we profit!
<
p>
<
p>I’ve tried to respond to each of your posts with sincerity and sourced facts yet you continue to misrepresent my “entire line of reasoning.” The facts don’t support your comments.
<
p>The casual player you reference who visits a casino a couple of times a year is not of much value to the casino from a revenue perspective. The lifeblood of the casino trade is the out-of-control gambler and they have a very good idea who these out-of-control gamblers are. The Wall Street Journal reported that casinos like Harrah’s can trace 75.6 percent of its gambling revenue back to specific customers.They know who the out-of-control gamblers are on their casino floor.
<
p>The movie industry doesn’t make its money from people addicted to movies. Citizens Bank doesn’t make its money from putting people in bankruptcy.
<
p>Les Bernal
I don’t know about Citizen’s, but banks certainly make money from people spending more than they can afford. In fact, credit card companies call people like me — who pay their balances in full every month — ‘deadbeats’ and ‘freeloaders’ because they don’t make any money off of us.
<
p>And frankly, a lot of people’s lives are ruined by credit card debt. A lot of people do not use credit cards responsibly, and the credit card industry certainly makes more money off of those people than it does off the 40-50% of cardholders who always pay in full.
<
p>Look, I think that casinos are probably a bad bet (pun intended) to solve our revenue crisis. But I think you’re being a bit sensationalistic to cavuto a link between Foxwoods and this woman’s murder.
I would argue it the other way – the fact that banks/credit card co’s do this (get people in over their heads with totally off the chart interest rates and fees), is evidence that we need to reintroduce usury laws in this country, lost under Reagan.
<
p>And also that resort casinos/slots are a dumb idea.
(Revenue wise, regressive-tax-wise, AND morally.)
So what? It it supposed to shock us that casinos make money from people who like to go to casinos?
<
p>This is true of every business that sells something. They make money from people who like the product and come back.
<
p>To the extent banks make money on credit cards, it is by getting people into debt and keeping there, paying high interest rates. In other words, from people who like to borrow money.
<
p>American beer consumption is estimated to be approximately 85 liters per year, per capita. That translates to 22 gallons per year for every man, woman, and child. Or 234.6 12 oz. beers.
<
p>Approximately 21% of the US population is age 20 or under. If one assumes that no one under age 20 drinks, that works out to 27 gallons a year for every American adult. That works out to slightly less than a six pack each week, every week for every single adult. That number must necessarily be low, because not every person drinks that much. Obviously, a portion of the consumption must be attributed to underage consumption, but that is profiting from crime!!!!
<
p>The inescapable conclusion is that the alcohol industry makes a lot of money– it might be said that their business model depends on– drunks.
<
p>Without doing the research, I bet that a significant slice of fast food revenue comes from people who (i) are obese, and (ii) eat way to much fast food.
<
p>I simply don’t see a problem with this, since “banning” all of this– that is, pushing it all into the black market– is without question more harmful, and is beyond the scope of the proper role of government.
from my sister going to visit Foxwoods 2-3 times a year, expecting to lose $50 at the slots and get tons of free drinks, than someone who becomes addicted and spends to extinction… and, in some cases, as with many other kinds of addicts, then some.
<
p>If all we had to worry about were people who go to the slots on occasions, expecting to lose what they’d spend at a Red Sox game, I’d be arguing vociferously for expanded gambling. However, in reality, that’s far from the truth: problem gambling is a huge societal problem — and that’s only one problem that slot machines and casinos create. The others, equally bad IMO, is what it does to local economies and communities.
…you at least recognize the difference. That is the point. There are enough people who can tell the difference and, like your sister, are examples of the difference that we should be able to find a middle path.
I don’t think it’s fair that he’s being called the “Craiglist killer.” If he used Boston Globe classified ads to find his targets, he would not be called the Boston Globe killer.
Are you kidding? If all his victims came from Boston Globe classifieds there is a very good chance that he would be called exactly that – although not by the Globe itself. You could bet money that you would see that moniker in the Herald.
He might be called the Classifieds killer.
<
p>Let’s hope this is never proven either way.
The Boston Globe would never frame the story that way. I don’t think the print media would, either.
<
p>Now, Craigslist on the other hand… it’s been held largely accountable for wiping out 25% of a newspaper’s profits (that’s roughly the percent of profits newspaper ads used to bring in from classified ads). Craigslist killer? Wicked sexy story — it’s got it all: alliteration, just three syllables, attacks a new-fangled, not completely-understood-by-all of society thing & attacks a competing interest to all of print media that’s done a lot to damage profits to boot. Run the presses!
Although not by the Globe as I already said.
<
p>Clearly there is a difference of opinion, but the fact is that the situation has not occurred yet, and probably never will occur so we are arguing over a contrafactual. As such it is not a strong basis for any type of “fairness” debate.
<
p>BTW, who first coined the “Craigslist killer” in any case? Was it the Globe, the Herald, local TV, or someone else?
you guys at BMG have outdone yourselves. At certain points during this diary I thought I was reading The Onion.