Lottery Winnings?

[Scott Lloyd]

You may label it cynical, but, alas, it is the way of the world. Maximizing profit is the name of the game, folks.

MFB, calmoriah and I have all explained how an honest and prudent business arrangement -- which in theory is win-win -- is fundamentally different from gambling -- which by definition is always win-lose. At this point, I fear you're not listening and don't intend to.

Strange - am I the only one who has read Approaching Zion?

Are you saying here that in a capitalistic economy there are never any honest and prudent business deals where all parties benefit?

And how does gambling, which by definition is predatory, promote a Zion society?

Also, Scott, one last hard question - though you may not see it that way - what's the significant difference between slots and arcade games?

If you had been reading for comprehension and following my reasoning, you'd see this is not a hard question at all. The difference is that with slots, the player enriches himself from the losses of others (those who play the machines and lose) consistent with the predatory nature of gambling.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Posted in error.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

That the church will not accept tithes on gambling winnings is a beloved and persistant myth. I have no doubt that there are bishops and stake presidents who believe to their core that this is an official policy of the church, but it is not. It is nowhere to be found in any church handbook.

Be that as it may, I think it would be within the province of a bishop or stake president to teach a member that gambling is not approved by the Church or it's leaders and hence not approved by God. Therefore, it would be inconsistent with the Teachings of the Church to enrich oneself through gambling, then turn around and tithe those winnings and expect to receive the blessings one might otherwise be entitled to when tithing honorably received income.

For handbook support one might apply this:

Members of the Church should endeavor to be involved in activities and employment upon which they can in good conscience ask the blessings of the Lord and which are consistent with the principles of the gospel and the teachings of the Savior. (Handbook 2: Administering the Church, Selected Church Policies)

Edited March 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

I never got an MBA, but I find this to be Common Sense 101.

I did get an MBA. The objective of any good business plan is to provide goods or services that your customer/client base will find satisfactory to their needs at the least cost possible. Yes that is called maximizing profit. It means giving the best for the money spent. As Scott has pointed out the transactions must be,at the very least, perceived to be a win - win transaction.

You may label it cynical, but, alas, it is the way of the world. Maximizing profit is the name of the game, folks.

See Above

[Brian 2.0]

Boxing and other sports don't have as their inherent object to deprive another of his money without providing anything of value in return -- that is unless wagering is superimposed upon them as it is in horse racing.

In a subsequent iteration of my argument I used the word predatory in place of hostile. That better articulates my meaning. While wagering may not seem outwardly hostile, it is predatory by nature. Even governments that sponsor lotteries unavoidably prey upon a portion of the citizenry, those who are foolish or addicted; they cannot avoid doing so. That is why the Church opposes government-sponsored lotteries.

I'll give you that. It seems one of your main points, and is the point for a lot of people, is that it involves money.

I know a good number of people that play poker, but instead of money they use M&Ms or something to that effect. But they would never use money. Do you see this as okay. Playing with M&Ms vs. Playing with Money is for sure a different activity that have obvious difference in feeling when you are playing, I will conceed to that.

So it's less about the game and more about the money. Does the act of having money involved change it to become "predatory", because the nature of the game is still the same?

If each member arrived at the game with a bag of M&Ms and playing with those throughout the night, winning each other's M&Ms would that be considered an okay activity (personally and/or in the church's eyes)?

[Brian 2.0]

Yuck. Blackjack is better than poker any day.

Maybe BJ takes less skill, but to me at least, it is more fun.

BJ is fun, especially in that you are cheering for everyone at the table in a common goal of defeating the dealer, so there is a lot more table commradarie for sure. I just can't play it for too long, because the fact that the house will always win over time starts to get in my head and I don't like it. Poker on the other hand doesn't have a House Edge so that thought never creeps in.

[ERayR]

BJ is fun, especially in that you are cheering for everyone at the table in a common goal of defeating the dealer, so there is a lot more table commradarie for sure. I just can't play it for too long, because the fact that the house will always win over time starts to get in my head and I don't like it. Poker on the other hand doesn't have a House Edge so that thought never creeps in.

In years past I have been known to play for beans and bragging rights. Am I gambling?

[Log]

MFB, calmoriah and I have all explained how an honest and prudent business arrangement -- which in theory is win-win -- is fundamentally different from gambling -- which by definition is always win-lose. At this point, I fear you're not listening and don't intend to.

Gambling is not win/lose. Now, you can slur me if you wish, and apparently you do wish to, because you have, but if there were no benefit from gambling to the gambler in either practice or theory, nobody would do it ever. That's a fundamental fact of economics: all transactions always benefit both parties. If it were not so, the transaction would not be entered into. Therefore, gambling offers the gambler something, making it "win/win" in the relevant sense. Whether YOU consider the benefit sufficient to engage in the action is quite irrelevant, as I'm sure you'll agree that not everyone shares your valuation of things.

Are you saying here that in a capitalistic economy there are never any honest and prudent business deals where all parties benefit?

And how does gambling, which by definition is predatory, promote a Zion society?

The same question is asked of business dealings, which also (though you shall dispute this) are predatory in intent - to give as little as possible while getting as much as possible (the possibilities depend on the desired outcome, the characteristics of the customer, and so forth). There is no justice in a business dealing unless, and only unless, one thing or service is exchanged for another of exactly the same value. Ponder that for more than .01 seconds, please.

In any economic transaction, both parties always benefit - or the transaction would not be entered into.

Before you begin blasting me anew, I will agree there are business dealings which are not predatory in intent - where someone intentionally lowers, or eliminates, the fee for the goods or services past the break-even point in absence of competitive considerations.

If you had been reading for comprehension and following my reasoning, you'd see this is not a hard question at all. The difference is that with slots, the player enriches himself from the losses of others (those who play the machines and lose) consistent with the predatory nature of gambling.

So, when I say "you won't find this a hard question," of course you will choose to slam me while noting that to you this wasn't a hard question! Thanks, Brother Lloyd!

But, herein lies a problem. The slot player is not predatory. They, in all likelihood, neither think about, nor care, that people before them "lost" the money that they win. They have no predatory intent, in other words.

Now, would it truly be a trial to be civil?

Edited March 24, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

You may label it cynical, but, alas, it is the way of the world. Maximizing profit is the name of the game, folks.

I have a better idea. Let's just socialize everything and let other people make our decisions for us, and then tax us so that we can do what they want us to do.

Much better! Everyone works for the government! Just like Greece! It has never worked anywhere else, but heck, we Americans can do anything!

For those who are sarcasm impaired, this is an example.

Edit: I don't mean this to be offensive to Log- it's just that if you agree that business is the "way of the world", why would you think you present yourself as "cynical"? If you are simply pointing out that it must be "win-win" why are you bemoaning the fact as if it is somehow bad or evil to make a profit?

Maybe I am misunderstanding you?

Edited March 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Log]

Edit: I don't mean this to be offensive to Log- it's just that if you agree that business is the "way of the world", why would you think you present yourself as "cynical"? If you are simply pointing out that it must be "win-win" why are you bemoaning the fact as if it is somehow bad or evil to make a profit?

Maybe I am misunderstanding you?

My point is that maximizing profit is predatory in the sense that Scott is using the word. If predation is the moral issue with gambling, and it may well be at least part of it, it's present in other accepted activities which aren't gambling.

Incidentally, MFB, have you read Approaching Zion?

Edited March 24, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

It means giving the best for the money spent.

Those business owners who think it means giving the cheapest one can get away with for the money one can con someone into spending for it are those who generally don't last that long.

I remember at a youth business camp one young man had what he thought was a sure winner based on the numbers and theory of getting the most for the least, it certainly maximized profits for him. It was about creating a placebo to give to Russian troups in case of nuclear disaster to reassure them that they would be just fine but not actually providing anything but window dressing. Besides pointing out that as a business plan he couldn't sell his product as anymore valuable to the Russians than anything they could whip up since it was not based on substance but appearance only, he didn't get that providing a fake in place of medicine, playing on the hopes of people in real trouble, would be somewhat unethical. He was really ticked off he didn't win the business plan competition considering his plan would have netted him an obscene amount of money. I don't think he felt the camp was worth his own investment since he didn't seem to really learn much of anything there.

[Calm]

Therefore, gambling offers the gambler something, making it "win/win" in the relevant sense.

So do illegal drugs given that standard of measurement, the drug addict 'wins' by feeling better, the seller "wins" by making a profit.

Whether YOU consider the benefit sufficient to engage in the action is quite irrelevant, as I'm sure you'll agree that not everyone shares your valuation of things.

There are some transactions that the vast majority of people not involved in the transaction would condemn because the end result is not a win-win in the long run.

The slot player is not predatory. They, in all likelihood, neither think about, nor care, that people before them "lost" the money that they win. They have no predatory intent, in other words.

All involved don't have to be "predatory". It would be enough if the slot machine owner predatory. An arcade game owner would be predatory if he set up the machine to be oversensitive, not giving value of a game the player expects. There are many products touted as something they are not, implying they are of higher value than they really are...that business practice is predatory. OTOH, products that are sold with realistic promises not only give value for value but are more likely to sustain long term customer loyalty.

If all gamblers were able to approach the experience as one solely for entertainment and felt the entertainment they got for their money was sufficient, that would be different than the reality where auto stores are kept open 24/7 not only for those who win big so they can buy that new car before they have time to think of investing their winnings wisely, but also for those who have to sell the car they came in to get more money to gamble with....and generally they don't show back up to reclaim it....or so I was told by a car dealer once when we were stuck on a Saturday afternoon with a brokedown van camping out at the auto place while my husband went across town to find a rental facility open. Much easier to buy a car in Las Vegas than rent one, at least on the weekends.

On another note, it has been quite a long time since I read Approaching Zion. While I greatly appreciated it, in some areas that were outside his expertise I believed Brother Nibley had an overly simplistic and naive POV. Don't ask me for details as it's been too long since I read it (read it while we were in Russia in fact, off of our laptop).

Edited March 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I have no clue if these claims are correct, am looking for confirmation....

http://tinyurl.com/7sjetgp

For example, the casinos will not reveal how much of their revenue comes from the 6-8% of the

pathological and problem gamblers who are patrons. Independent scholars have

consistently in the last five or six years estimated that it is from 50-60% of the

revenue. Most of casino income does not come from the so-called recreational

gamblers.

…that a casino in your county will double (or more) the number of foreclosures

(distressed sales)?

I don't see an issue when poker is played for M&Ms or toothpicks, etc. at someone's home for a couple of hours...as long as no one takes it too seriously and it is not being used as an escape from dealing with problems consistently (same goes for any other recreational game). Then it is about skill and having a fun time like other card games one may play, it is not about gambling when it becomes risk free and no one loses and all win (because what they came for was a fun game and all got that).

This is significantly different than when someone walks away from the table thousands of dollars richer and the rest walk away from it with empty pockets. If they can afford it and it causes no harm to lose that is one thing, but is this the case for most gambling? It would seem not at least in the professional places. I don't know the stats for games where friends get together to play, but I think the person best able to judge might be the spouse. Bridge was notorious for awhile for putting people into debt in more genteel circles, don't know if this is still a problem elsewhere, doesn't seem very big these days in the states.

Edited March 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

My point is that maximizing profit is predatory in the sense that Scott is using the word.

It seems you have misunderstood maximizing profit. Predatory implies taking unfair advantage. Maximizing profit means to give the best possible for the amount paid.

Edited March 24, 2012 by ERayR

[Log]

It seems you have misunderstood maximizing profit. Predatory implies taking unfair advantage.

Do you have an example of a voluntary economic transaction which is predatory in that sense? Does the slot machine owner take unfair advantage of the slot machine player, for example?

Maximizing profit means to give the best possible for the amount paid.

That's the exact opposite of the meaning of maximizing profit.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

That's the exact opposite of the meaning of maximizing profit.

Practically speaking it is exactly what it means. The best product for the money will be the one that sells the most, thus bringing in the largest amount of net income in the long run even if it does not maximize profits per item. My husband had a hard time convincing Russian business that if one dropped one's prices, one could actually make more money....they just couldn't wrap their head around that concept that making less per piece while selling more equaled more income, not less.

Edited March 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Log]

Practically speaking it is exactly what it means. The best product for the money will be the one that sells the most, thus bringing in the largest amount of net income in the long run even if it does not maximize profits per item. My husband had a hard time convincing Russian business that if one dropped one's prices, one could actually make more money....they just couldn't wrap their head around that concept that making less per piece while selling more equaled more income, not less.

I will agree that, in certain circumstances, lowering the price of the product can lead to increased profits. I expect you would also agree that, in competitive markets where lowering prices actually does increase profits, the next step taken is to lower the quality of the product to recoup the loss in per-unit sales. Pink slime, anyone?

There is no way out of this: if you're in business to make money, keeping the value of (or expenses involved in creating) the proffered service or good as low as possible while charging as much is possible (and the "possibles" here vary depending on the desired outcome, characteristics of the customer, and so forth) is the only game in town. That's how you make money.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Log

[ERayR]

Do you have an example of a voluntary economic transaction which is predatory in that sense? Does the slot machine owner take unfair advantage of the slot machine player, for example?

That's the exact opposite of the meaning of maximizing profit.

I suppose it depends on what variable you include in the equation. Most people I know give continuing business some value. If you want a sure way to fail in business it would be to use your definition of maximizing profits.

NOTE: I did not say to provide premium quality at bargain basement prices. If it were that easy anybody could do it.

[Log]

I suppose it depends on what variable you include in the equation. Most people I know give continuing business some value. If you want a sure way to fail in business it would be to use your definition of maximizing profits.

Actually, that valuation is incorporated into my definition of maximizing profits (see my previous post).

In any event, I think StarGeezer had it in part right when he mentioned the desire to get something for nothing.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Log

[Stargazer]

My point is that maximizing profit is predatory in the sense that Scott is using the word. If predation is the moral issue with gambling, and it may well be at least part of it, it's present in other accepted activities which aren't gambling.

Incidentally, MFB, have you read Approaching Zion?

Maximiizing profit. Hmmm.

Let's look at pricing, hypothetically. We shall ignore advertising, packaging, and other aspects of business.

I have a widget to sell, and it costs me $10 to make and ship one of them. There are also fixed costs involved with maintaining the factory and the machines which I use to make the widgets, as well as paying the people who make my widgets, In order to break even I have to charge $10 per widget, plus each widget's share of my fixed costs. How many widgets must I sell to break even? Let's say that my production capacity is 20,000 widgets per month, and my fixed costs are $100,000 per month. What price should I set on my widget?

If I sell 1 widget per month I must charge at least $100,010 for that widget in order to break even. If I sell 2, I must charge 50,010. For 10 it's $10,010. Ramping this up to selling 20,000 widgets, I must charge at least $15 per widget. But how many widgets will I sell if I set the price at $15? At that price I MUST sell all 20,000 of my capacity, without question. But can I? Will there be 20,000 people every month who want and are willing to pay $15 for a widget? And anyway, breaking even isn't good enough -- for one thing, if I break even I am not making a profit and my investors will not be happy. So I need to find that price that will maximize my profit.

So we test the market and play with the price a bit. We find that if we price the widget at $20, we sell 10,000 of them, and our profit is $0. If we charge $25 we sell 10,000, and our profit is $50,000. $30 sells 8,000 and profit $60,000; $35 sells 7,000 for 75,000; $40 sells 5,000 for $50,000; higher prices yield smaller sales and smaller profils. The maximum profit price point is $35, so that's what we offer it for.

Question: in setting our price at $35, rather than $25 or $30, are we predators?

[Stargazer]

I think StarGeezer had it in part right when he mentioned the desire to get something for nothing.

Well, I'm getting old, I guess, but I didn't think that my current age qualified me as a "geezer". Where do you set that quantitatively, anyway? 50? 60? 70?

[Log]

My age + 5 years. Just ribbin' ya, old (wo)man!

On topic, however, If you will accept my rephrasing of your question in the prior post to be "is maximizing profit predatory?" the answer is yes. If that's not an acceptable rephrasing, please let me know.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Log

[Stargazer]

My age + 5 years. Just ribbin' ya, old (wo)man!

On topic, however, If you will accept my rephrasing of your question in the prior post to be "is maximizing profit predatory?" the answer is yes. If that's not an acceptable rephrasing, please let me know.

Stargazer is a guy. fwiw. And 60 years old. In some jurisdictions that qualiies as Geezer class; in some others it does not.

OK, if maximizing profit is to be considered predatory, and considering the example I gave of setting a price for maximum profit, which price point would you consider non-predatory, and why would you set it there instead of somewhere else?

[Log]

Stargazer is a guy. fwiw. And 60 years old. In some jurisdictions that qualiies as Geezer class; in some others it does not.

OK, if maximizing profit is to be considered predatory, and considering the example I gave of setting a price for maximum profit, which price point would you consider non-predatory, and why would you set it there instead of somewhere else?

At the break-even point, because that is fair in the sense of perfectly equitable - equal values are exchanged - or at less than the break-even point (both cases must be in absence of competitive considerations).

[mfbukowski]

My point is that maximizing profit is predatory in the sense that Scott is using the word. If predation is the moral issue with gambling, and it may well be at least part of it, it's present in other accepted activities which aren't gambling.

Incidentally, MFB, have you read Approaching Zion?

Nope.