Crikey.

You getting your economics from the utterly useless Quiggin or something?

They are fine taxes when ….

1. You are getting both the goods and the taxes. Which is the case when you first apply them.

2. Not misallocating your ongoing investment. Which will be the case within a few months of you applying them.

3. Not getting a retaliation from your trade partners. Which will be the case when you’ve not left them time to retaliate.

4. Not missing out on international business opportunities that you’ll never know about. Which will be the case up front.

Of course these things all reverse. But if you are into computer models rather then reality like Quiggin and Gruen then this will all sale right over your head.

Humphrey.

You are rich enough.

Head off to Auburn and learn some economics for Christsakes.

This neo-classical Jive thats driving your act is just embarrassing.

I do not have the information on the particular case, Yobbo, but as I recall it is a oft-noted one among gambling counsellors. Perhaps those 7 days included periods asleep on a lounge, and/or slumped over a machine – as I have witnessed some patrons in gaming venues. That said, I cannot rule out that the particular case is an urban myth, but certainly the evidence before the PC inquiry was that there are gamblers who effectively binge and gamble “around the clock”, although most problem gambling does not fit that pattern – rather, it is gamblings spending several blocks of time each week, and sometimes each day, in gaming venues.

However (and Michael also take note), the example of the regulation I gave was simply that – an example of a potentially welfare-enhancing gaming regulation. There are plenty of others I could have nominated, and I certainly would not resile from advocating many more regulations to address problem gambling – sacraligous though that might be to people whose outlook is restricted by Libertarian theology.

Regarding the number of licenses, contrary to the thrust of Yobbo’s argument, the evidence showed that proliferation of gaming venues was indeed correlated with the extent of problem gambling. While no doubt some problem gamblers will travel significant distances to get their fix, not all will. That said, that is not to say that the best response to the social costs of problem gambling is to restrict licenses. A consumer protection model, that allows normal (non-problem) gamblers to enjoy the past-time while attempting to minimise the risks of problem gambling, is in broad terms the regulatory model I favour.

Richard Smart

I call bullshit on this. Since you think a 1-hour break will solve the problem I assume you mean 7 days without sleep.

No gambling addiction is going to give you superhuman powers.

I’m a compulsive gamer and the most I can play world of warcraft or civilization for without completely crashing is 28-30 hours without sleeping. After that your body just completely shuts down.

Besides that, the problem with regulation is not with opening times, it is with the number of licenses.

Most states in Australia only have 1 licensed gaming venue, which means that 1 venue basically rapes the ass out of every person who walks in there. Burswood Casino offers returns of 30-35%, compared to casinos in Las Vegas (or similar zones where gambling is legal) who give back 48-49%.

Having more casinos isn’t going to make any difference to “problem gamblers” as long as there’s already 1 they can go to.

Brendan: As the Productivity Commission pointed out in its 1999 inquiry on gambling, “problem gamblers”, who constitute about 3 per cent of all gamblers, but account for as much as one third of gambling revenue, exhibit significant cognitive limitations, as reflected in DSM-IV psychiatric test results and other screening measures. Discounting future costs is not of itself a cognitive problem, but irrational discounting is. Problem gamblers exhibit other cognitive problems too that mean that they are unable to make decisions to satisfy their own preferences. The resultant internalities constitute a significant social cost.

Incidentally, you asked whether the fact that some gamblers have problems justifies punishing them all. The answer is probably not, but then, I advocated regulation to address such issues; not sin taxes. A regulation that requires gambling dens to close 1 hour in 24 affects very few normal gamblers, since most venues choose an hour like 4-5am when normal gamblers are at home in bed. However, a simple regulation like this stops problem gamblers from spending multiple days in a row on pokies – and some have been known the spend as many as 7 days in a row “in the zone”. So, no or at least low costs to normal gamblers; and big benefits for problem gamblers and their families.

Now, of course, one might argue that one can rationally choose to spend 7 days in a row losing all one’s earnings on the pokies, perhaps even citing Becker to strengthen the case (or, at least, to befuddle the opposition). But if you seriously attempted to maintain such a position, you would probably need your head read!

Richard.

As it stands, primarily because of tax, I don’t bother unless a client is desperate and willing to pay good money. Even then, they generally can only afford to solve their problems rather than optimise their situation because they’ve got to pay both me and the government.