As an anti-Caesars dude from way back, I appreciated this op-ed from Ross Douthat:
When future historians ponder the forces that unraveled the American social fabric between the 1960s and the 2020s, I hope they spare some time for one besetting vice in particular: our fatal impulse toward consistency.
This is a good weekend for thinking about that impulse, because Super Bowl Sunday is capping off a transition in big-time sports that has made the symbiosis between professional athletics and professional gambling all but complete. The cascading, state-after-state legalization of sports betting, the ubiquitous ads for online gambling in the football playoffs, the billion dollars that the National Football League hopes to soon be making annually from its deals with sports betting companies — everywhere you look, the thin wall separating the games from the gambling industry is being torn away.
This transformation will separate many millions of non-wealthy Americans from their money, very often harmlessly but in some cases disastrously, with a lot of sustainable-or-are-they gambling addictions falling somewhere in between. . . . once we decided that some forms of gambling should be legally available, in some places, with some people profiting, it became inevitable that restrictions would eventually crumble on a much larger scale. The multi-generational path from Las Vegas and Atlantic City, to Native American casinos, to today’s ubiquitous online gambling looks like one continuous process, with no natural stopping place along the way.
But the trouble is that societal health often depends on law and custom not being perfectly consistent, not taking every permission to its logical conclusion.
In the case of gambling, some limited permission was always necessary: Betting will always be with us, it’s a harmless vice for many people, if you over-police it you’ll end up with an array of injustices.
But the easier it is to gamble, the more unhappy outcomes you’ll get. The more money in the industry, the stronger the incentives to come up with new ways to hook people and then bleed and ruin them. . . . So what you want, then, is for society to be able to say this far and no farther, even if the limiting principle is somewhat arbitrary . . . encouraging Americans to treat the gambling experience as a holiday from the everyday, not seriously wicked but still a little bit shameful or indulgent — which is why it stays under the table, or in Vegas. . . .
Speaking just as a citizen, not as a policy analyst, this makes sense to me. Betting on the Super Bowl is fun! But office pools should be enough, no need for immersive internet betting experiences.
There was just one thing about Douthat’s article that bothered me, and that’s where he writes:
Part of what we’re witnessing from #MeToo-era feminism, for instance, is a backlash against the ruthless logic of an unregulated sexual marketplace, and a quest for some organic form of social regulation, some new set of imperfect-but-still-useful scruples and taboos.
I don’t get that at all. It’s my impression that the me-too movement is all about old-school sexual harassment: rich and powerful men engaging in sexual harassment. “Ruthless” this may be, but I don’t see how it’s the “logic of an unregulated sexual marketplace.” Douthat seems to be saying that me-too is a backlash to something new, but it seems to me that it’s a reaction to something old. What’s new is not sexual harassment; what’s new is that it’s harder to get away with it. Anyway, I agree with Douthat on the general point that rules can be inconsistent and still be useful, so I guess I can just set aside that particular example and focus on the betting story.
As a statistician, I’ve thought a lot about betting. Gambling is closely related to uncertainty, and betting can be fun, as well as being a way to fix ideas and even “put your money where your mouth is.” On the other hand, so much of organized gambling is about ripping people off. A little bit of people being ripped off is OK, I guess, but too much of it is . . . too much. One reason I’m wary of attempts to make betting into a foundational principle of statistics or social science is that it’s tied so closely to successful efforts to con people.
Agree with you on the #MeToo thing being more about acknolwedging stuff that’s always existed. The thing he says about a backlash against an unregulated sexual marketplace is hard to grasp … in the other examples he gives its about the market opportunities meaning that industries become unavoidable, but how does that apply to workplace sexual harassment? It’s kind of a bizarre analogy.
He has valid points on gambling. I’m good with sports betting but it is getting way too easy for people to bet a lot of money now, and we’re not really prepared for the aftermath of it. But he has to throw a random #metoo reference in there, as an Easter egg for the right-wingers, just so they remember he’s still on their side.
Politely, this kind of reads like a “this is fine at the level I grew up with, but I don’t think things should change any more” aka “get off my lawn you kids” kind of thing.
(Also known as, well, we can reduce the limits on abortion but let’s not get completely unrestricted because societal breakdown).
Finally, stop taking Ross Douthat seriously. He’s the right wing version of Tom Friedman.
Total:
1. Sure, but it could be that the level of gambling enforcement when Douthat grew up is appropriate. Not all change is good.
2. Right wing and left wing columnists can still make good points. It’s also encouraging to see this sort of sensible argument right there on the op-ed page, which is so often a place for edgelord-style crap. I prefer Douthat’s direct style of argument to the cuteness of Gary Becker, for example, despite Becker’s reputation among economists as some kind of genius.
Back in the 1960s, I had a post-doc fellowship in Norway with Norsk Tipping
https://www.norsk-tipping.no/selskapet/engelsk
“Norsk Tipping is assigned by the government to offer games that create excitement and entertainment within responsible limits, with the profits going to good causes.”
I,so to say, was one of those “good causes.”
Loosely speaking, it was akin to the famous Irish Sweepstakes. The Norwegians bet on Norwegian soccer matches during its brief season and then on soccer matches in England where the season was much longer. This was before North Sea oil made Norway a rich country but even then, it was socialist enough that gambling did not cause family ruin.
An oddity of my largess is that the winter of 1965 was so brutal in Europe that the soccer matches in England were cancelled week after week, but the betting had to continue. Consequently, the score of the nonexistent games were decided in secrecy before the deadline for submission by (honest) Norwegian officials and the winners chosen accordingly. Regardless of the wretched weather, my payment went on electronically unabated.
As always, the motto of Norway remains, “It doesn’t matter whether you win or lose, the important thing is to beat Sweden.”
I think the me too thing was a reference to that west elm charlie thing. I realize it’s not west elm charlie, but its not worth googling and you’ll know what I talking about.
《even if the limiting principle is somewhat arbitrary 》
《too much of it is . . . too much.》
Why not insure everyone with a generous-enough basic income?
What if the opportunity cost of cracking down on virtual rip-offs is increased physical rip-offs?
If people demanded to get paid for the monetized info they share on social media that would be a start.
Sorry, Ross and Andrew. There is lots of legal gambling already – including state lotteries, which were also supposed to be the demise of proper society – so it’s hard to see how one more hat in the ring is going to be a problem for the “social fabric”.
But right or left, a great way to sell that column is to occasionally throw some red meat to the other side. You can get opposing papers to run your column under the “Even-The-Group-We-HATE-Opposes-Blah-Blah” rubric. Nothing scores more clicks than “Conservatives support global warming legislation” or “Liberals oppose minimum wage hike”.
But it’s kind of hilarious that the legalization of big-time sports gambling is going forward under the Biden admin, which despises all business that aren’t donation-driven left-wing coffee shops, and especially despises business that are profitable. This must have slipped under their radar. Surely some new regs will be in place by the next Super Bowl.
Anon:
1. Douthat discusses your point that “there is lots of legal gambling already.” The whole point of his op-ed is that we should move beyond all-or-nothing thinking. Yes, there are state lotteries, and I don’t like them, but that’s also not the same as websites where people can legally gamble from the comfort of their own home every minute of the day. Also, lots of bad things can happen and not be “the demise of proper society.” Again, that’s all-or-nothing thinking. I recommend you read what Douthat has to say.
2. I don’t see Douthat’s column as having a “side.” Yes, political columnists are political, but not everything they say is partisan.
3. Your characterization of the Biden administration is ridiculous. Just for example, google *joe biden gm truck*. In any case, I think you’re off base in trying to turn this into a partisan issue.
“The whole point of his op-ed is that we should move beyond all-or-nothing thinking”
I guess my point is that his point is silly. Normally, what we have are laws, and laws are almost always “all or nothing” in that if you comply with the law, you can operate your business, and if you don’t you can’t. This makes the business environment what we call “fair” – in other words, we don’t choose businesses by our personal moral biases, but we allow any business that operates within the law to continue to operate.
“Yes, political columnists are political, but not everything they say is partisan.”
True. They don’t sell columns to newspapers, they’re just out there for the moral good of society. They wouldn’t ever try to up their distribution numbers (or salaries) by writing columns that would have broader appeal than their normal partisan market. Didn’t Phil say here a while back, something like “it’s difficult to get people to believe in something that their salaries depend on them not believing?”. I guess that means money underlies many decisions that might appear independent of money at first glance.
“google *joe biden gm truck*”
:) Biden seeks piles of cash for *union* “businesses” facing annihilation. GM has exactly zero EVs in 2021, while Tesla sold a whopping 936,172. Likely Biden would prefer that a business employing tens of thousands of Dem-voting-contributing union members would not fail, even if that means accepting that the business will make a profit.
“Your characterization of the Biden administration is ridiculous”
Dude you must not be awake. Google “Cramer Calls Biden Antibusiness Presidency”.
The Biden admin has tried (and failed) to increase corporate taxes; is gearing up to attack tech mergers long since consolidated as well as generally attack corporate M&A (many longstanding employees of the SEC have resigned); is attacking oil and gas drilling; is attacking businesses that aren’t unionized through regulation and unionization rules. That’s just what I can think of off-hand. He’s the most anti-business president at least since LBJ and possibly in American history. He and his labor branch of the party *despise* innovation – his mentality is to ban powered screw drivers because they are job killers – and it’s a big joke on the internet, even among liberal tech nuts, that he finally said “Tesla” a few days ago. Telsa’s recent announcement that they’re going to prioritize robotic assembly line workers over the release of new models is a pretty overt nod to the attacks of the Biden presidency.
Anon:
I hope you can reflect and consider that you’re engaging in just the sort of all-or-nothing thinking that Douthat is criticizing:
1. You talk about laws, without recognizing that laws can change. Regarding gambling, in years past gambling was legal in certain places and scenarios but illegal in many others. Just because gambling is legal in some places and scenarios and tacitly permitted in others (e.g., the cops were not gonna break up your weekly low-stakes home poker game), it does not need to be legal in the instant online version.
2. You talk about Douthat and other columnists having commercial motivations. Of course they do, but that doesn’t mean they can’t also be sincere in what they are writing. It’s an all-or-nothing view to think that just because something has commercial motivations, that other motivations don’t matter.
3. You talk about some of the Biden adminstration policies that you dislike; from there you go to the obviously false statement that they “despises all business that aren’t donation-driven left-wing coffee shops, and especially despises business that are profitable.” Again, all or nothing thinking. It’s happening to you in real time, and I agree with Douthat that this is a problem.
Anonymous
Your contributions on this blog have often been insightful and often emphatic. I’ll admit I don’t read many of them in detail, including this one. But this caught my eye:
“GM has exactly zero EVs in 2021, while Tesla sold a whopping 936,172.”
What in the world are you talking about? GM has many electric vehicles and sold many of them in 2021. Statements like this make me avoid bothering to read everything else you write. I’m sure I have completely misunderstood your statement, but it appeared to be straightforward and, if so, is absolutely incorrect.
Please clarify.
Dale, note that anonymous is just that, anonymous.
There are dozens of us!
Dale, unless yours was a tongue-in-cheek comment (and a good one – implying that anonymous posters as a whole have contributed greatly to the comments over the years), I think you are thinking of the commenter “Anoneuoid”. Who is indeed a full-blown crank.
Yes, sorry to all the other anonymous commentators. I have no idea whether this one is a regular or not. But, concerning the substance of my comment: can this particular “anonymous” respond regarding their statement that GM sold zero electric vehicles? If not, then I will disregard the entire comment. It is frustrating, however, to have this blog polluted by such things.
State lotteries are run by government monopolies, and there’s an argument that we should WANT “vice” industries to be like that, and thus inefficient. The late Mark Kleiman was very wary of legalized marijuana going the way of the alcohol industry, even though he supported decriminalization.
> I don’t get that at all. It’s my impression that the me-too movement is all about old-school sexual harassment: rich and powerful men engaging in sexual harassment. “Ruthless” this may be, but I don’t see how it’s the “logic of an unregulated sexual marketplace.” Douthat seems to be saying that me-too is a backlash to something new, but it seems to me that it’s a reaction to something old.
I’m not sure I agree with the point of view I’ll describe, but let me try to steelman some version of Douthat’s argument:
Me-too, like almost anything “controversial”, is best viewed as a motte-and-bailey. The motte, i.e the easily defensible claim nobody has an issue is, is that old-school style sexual harassment is bad. In so far as the allegations are taken as being true, this includes things like Harvey Weinstein, and other rich and powerful men engaging in behaviours that have always been seen as sexual harassment.
The bailey to this motte is the idea that any sexual advance from a person in power is harassment or worse. We see this e.g. with Aziz Ansari’s bad date being framed as “sexual misconduct”, Louis C.K, or maybe even Trump’s “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything….” . There is a version of the me-too argument that would consider e.g. a professor (consensually) sleeping with a student to be something akin to rape. This part is new, and fits with Douthat’s “unregulated sexual marketplace”.
A few thoughts..
Are there any meaningful differences between sports betting and day trading in the stock market? In both the average person will do no better than what you would expect betting / trading randomly; it’s mostly for entertainment purposes; there will be some small % of people that get carried away and loses their life savings; there is also some small % of people who make a living off of betting / trading. If you want to restrict sports betting, why shouldn’t we prevent people from day trading, too? I suppose one point would be that the stock market actually serves a useful purpose (i.e. allocation of capital to productive firms), however day trading is not required for this.
I think there needs to be research done into how many people actually end up having significantly terrible outcomes from gambling. For most people it’s either a profitable hobby (the small % of sharps) or a form of entertainment (it can’t be understated how much more enjoyable sport-watching is when you have $20 bucks on it). No need to be overly paternalistic here (remember how much you hate the ‘nudgelords’ Andrew?).
Also, most state governments will be taking a sizeable cut of these profits, which will be used to do some good (if you think the government is capable of doing some good).
Finally, even before states started legalizing, many Americans were betting online at offshore books (e.g. in Costa Rica). These firms cater to Americans and they are very easy to bet with (and it’s not risky or difficult to do so… similar level of illegality to pirating movies). Regardless of whether or not the US continues to grow regulated sports betting, US bettors’ appetite for gambling will not go away. The US gov’t may as well get a piece of this, and they can also have some control over the industry to help problem gamblers.
FYI in all of this I am thinking about sports betting, not casino games which I agree are kind of gross.
“Also, most state governments will be taking a sizeable cut of these profits, which will be used to do some good (if you think the government is capable of doing some good).”
In actual practice, what happens most of the time, is that the claimed good from a casino (or other massive giveaway (e.g. tax break) to some industry) never materializes. When it’s not a specific claimed good, then what you have is the less affluent paying taxes instead of the rich (back in the 60s/70s in MA, my father used to joke that he’d vote against state gambling every time, and every time it would get voted it in, and he’d have both his concience and his money).
I drove through Reno Nevada (great song by Richard Farina, by the way) once and was going to throw some pocket change at a slot machine just to check off another stupid thing I’d never done, but when I walked in the door, I saw a row of slot machines occupied by elderly women with drugged expressions on the faces mechanically pulling the levers. (Sorry, anechdote ain’t evidence, I know, but it sure was majorly horrifying…)
I don’t know what the right balance is, but will always support and vote for candidates who oppose gambing in all its forms.
Re: #MeToo, I think Douthat is referring to things like Aziz Ansari and Cat Person.