The social social of gambling

by Tony Lawrence

8/11/07 CasinoFacts has always been very excited about the so-called "social costs" of gambling.. the crime (we'll be dealing with that again, but not today), the bankruptcies and despair that can lead to suicide. Most recently, folks on their forum have worked themselves into a self congratulatory frenzy over this Cape Cod Times article.

That article gives examples of people with gambling problems and cites studies which show all sorts of horrible things happening when casinos invade happy little towns. For the moment, let's accept all that as 100% accurate: Casinos cause bankruptcies and even suicides. The "social cost" of that far outweighs any possible benefits, right?

No, it does not.

Let me repeat that in case you've been reading too quickly: the social costs of gambling, even if they are as dire as that article says, do not outweight the benefits, and that would still be true if Middleboro would not be getting one dime from that casino.

Why? Because, as better researchers have pointed out, defining social cost may seem very difficult, but it's actually not all that hard.

Yes, you may have someone go bankrupt from gambling. On the other side of that is that someone else becomes wealthier - the casino itself, some lucky players, and those to whom the casino owes tribute (Middleboro, the State of MA). The equation balances: there is no net loss to society. No "social cost".

Oh, foul play, you scream: you can't treat the despair of bankruptcy as being balanced by someone else putting more into their stock portfolio. Well, yes, you can, and in fact we do that all the time. But in the particular case of the Indians, the program to feather their nests with gambling revenue was specifically designed to lift them out of economic despair, so the balance perhaps has even more merit.

But still, you cry "You are talking about bankruptcy or even suicide!". Yes, but the bankruptee or suicide entered the casino of their own volition. People are driven to bankruptcy and suicide by the Internal Revenue Service also, but surely not of their own choice (their own stupidity, perhaps). We had a friend who murdered his business partner because he was being driven to economic ruin - he's now in jail. Bad things happen to nice people in a free market economy. Shall we convert to communism because of that?

It's the same kind of nonsense bandied about concerning the supposed economic costs of casinos: that the dollars are just sucked away from more worthy uses. EVERY business sucks money away from other businesses; in the United States, we like to call that the free market economy and we applaud it. I suck money from small businesses all over the country and in turn that money is sucked from me by businesses here. There is one great difference when a casino sucks my money away, however: it only does so by my choice.

When the price of electricity increases or Oak Point raises my rent, I have little choice but to pay the increased costs. Any casino spending I do is entirely discretionary. It's my choice to give the casino money that I might have spent on books, travel, or who knows what: MY CHOICE.

It can also be my choice to gamble away everything I own. If we wanted to prevent that, we could do so easily: just as large investors have to prove liquid assets before making certain kinds of investments, we could require casinos to prove solvency before allowing bets over certain amounts, or losses over certain amounts. With the electronics available to us today, that would be fairly easy to do, and I doubt you'd have much sympathy for someone who cheated that requirement and lost it all anyway. But do we want to do that in a free society? Do you want a government agency tell you how to spend your money?

Gambling bankruptcies are no different than anything else: we have friends who spent themselves into financial ruin by "keeping up with the Jones". Both of them together didn't make half of what I do, but you'd never have known that by comparing lifestyles and "toys". Indeed, you would have thought it was exactly the opposite.

Should the car dealer who sold them the new Caddy they could not afford be responsible for their problems? Should the real estate agent who sold them their house be asked to contribute money to financial counseling programs? Not in this country.. but for some reason CasinoFacts folks want to treat gambling differently..

Well, no, that isn't quite true either: few blame the State for the sad folks who line up with their SSI checks and buy lottery tickets, but if they flocked into the casino, that's entirely different!

But it isn't different: it's all personal choice, and in this country we do not tell you that you cannot piss away your life savings any damn fool way you choose.

Do remember that gambling at an Indian casino is not illegal: anyone has every right to spend money there just as they have the right to spend it everywhere else. If you want to argue that gambling is too seductive, that it has the same dangers as illegal drugs, you've already lost that argument: our laws say that this is a lawful activity.

If you want government to tell you how to spend your income, I'd like to suggest you are in the wrong country. You and I and every one else here is free to spend as we please. We can be frugal and save, or throw it all away foolishly. We can drink it away, spend it on boats and vacations or anything else we want. It's our choice, and if we want to spend it at a casino, that's our choice also.

If you want to prevent people from making stupid financial decisions, you have to give up your own freedom of choice. Does anyone at CasinoFacts want to do that?

* Tony is a regular contributor to OakPointCommunity.org .

Home

Archives of TONY LAWRENCE columns