Whose Numbers Game Is a Racket?

By -
Monday's NY Times ran a story (pg. A1) on the persistence of illegal numbers games in New York, despite the creation of the state-run lottery in 1980, which was supposed to wipe them out. The article noted that the payoff from the illegal games averages about 600-to-1, while the government version pays 500-to-1. A government gambling official explained that "legal games... face certain competitive disadvantages." He listed that they don't take 25 cent bets, they don't "let people bet on credit," and they report winnings to the tax authorities. The second item is not really true: the state lotto doesn't extend credit, but they certainly don't stop someone from borrowing money to play. In fact, the operators of illegal games who extend credit have a reason to try to ascertain that their customers aren't over-extending themselves, which the government games don't.

In any case, none of these reasons explain the lower payoff in the state version: they are all are circumstances that should make the state payout more, just as, for example, taxable bonds must offer higher yields than equivalent tax-free competitors. The lower payoff arises because the state isn't trying to compete with the illegal games by offering a better deal, but by threatening its competitors with violence.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more