Not only does the bill effectively destroy useful information markets (Robert W. Hahn and Paul C. Tetlock in the New York Times), but it also creates incentives for new undetectable forms of money laundering (Robert X. Cringley (h/t D.H.)).
Unintended consequences of on-line gambling ban
Not only does the bill effectively destroy useful information markets (Robert W. Hahn and Paul C. Tetlock in the New York Times), but it also creates incentives for new undetectable forms of money laundering (Robert X. Cringley (h/t D.H.)).
3 Comments
Oh please.
Article #1 says that fantasy football and blogshares.com might have to go out of business. The Horrors!
Article #2 says “it might be possible” and “what if?” about a dozen times each.
You know, it just might be possible to ammend this law later, if any of these terribly lame horror stories actually come true.
10 bux says these authors are shills for the gambling industry. đŸ˜›
Marty: And what, exactly, is wrong with that? Since when do we need to be protected from the publicly-traded gambling corporations? (As opposed to our local underground bookies that might be interested in more painful ways of debt collection.)
What’s wrong with what exactly?
Using the democratic process to respond to the legitimate concerns of constituents?
Or being a shill for the gambling industry?
If the majority of your neighbors want their elected reprasentatives to ban Internet Gambling, I don’t see much of a problem with letting them do so. Certainly the arguments presented by these two articles are less than whelming.
And if it so happens that we the people are wrong, we’ll be sure to let our legislators know. Is there something wrong with that?