Do we have any actual evidence that people who lose money gambling are not good at maths. To be frank that is, to me a load of rubbish. My dad followed form and spent an hour or so most nights going through his books. The element of competition, horse against horse, dog against dog, you against the bookies, is a major part of it. Bookies make most money from fixed odds machines. Lots of people who put a bet on are pretty average at maths. The laws of Chance are only part in of gambling. There are elements that you cannot take into account that have a big influence on he results
It's also possible to come out ahead. My boyfriend studies the racing forms and watches the horses work out, he does the math in his head, and overall he wins, making a nice little supplement to his retirement income. He says, though, that he makes the most money when the track runs a promotion like a dollar-beer day, or on days when there is a super popular race like the Kentucky Derby, because that's when there are lots of people betting who don't know what they're doing.
Gambling isn't always math-foolish. I had a friend who bet in a low-key office betting pool on college (university) basketball games. He didn't always win, but by March he always came out the winningest guy in the pool. He explained his strategy to me: he carefully researched the schools, and in any game always bet on the school that spent the most money on their basketball program.
Gambling isn't always math-foolish. I had a friend who bet in a low-key office betting pool on college (university) basketball games. He didn't always win, but by March he always came out the winningest guy in the pool. He explained his strategy to me: he carefully researched the schools, and in any game always bet on the school that spent the most money on their basketball program.
Commercial gambling almost always is, particularly these days as the big betting companies have taken to banning anyone doing particularly well.
addiction and inability to do maths are both traits stereotypically assigned to poor people by people who want to think poverty is deserved.
I'm baffled as to why you would ascribe such an odious position to me; I don't think it's a reasonable extrapolation from anything I've written.
I didn't.
What I am saying is that even though you don't realise the shiny thing you've found and you're blowing on is a dogwhistle (because you can't hear it) it is for all that a dogwhistle.
The distinction between virtuous risk-takers who are rich and deserve to be rich because they take risks, and non-virtuous risk-takers who are poor and deserve to be poor because they take risks, is one that is regularly wheeled out by right-wingers in this country. I don't believe the US is actually any different. The assertion that people who gamble are fundamentally different from wealthy people who invest is a dogwhistle even though you didn't intend it as such.
On gambling. Las Vegas doesn't pay for all the pretty building, bright lights, free shows with water fountains and a freaking pirate ship battle where one sinks several times a day because gambling has anything to do with rational thinking.
Casino gambling is just one kind of gambling. Friendly and not-so-friendly poker games, office March Madness pools, state lotteries, and some forms of investing likewise involve stakes, risk, and something to be won. (My dad used to call buying insurance betting against yourself. He wasn't wrong.)
I know lots of people who like to gamble in Vegas. I don't know anyone who's damaged their life doing it. The people I know who enjoy it decide ahead of time how much they're going to gamble, and if they lose that sum entirely, they stop gambling. Of course Vegas pays for all the stuff out of their profits -- they're just like every other business in that regard. As long as you treat gambling there like a form of entertainment, you're fine. I have a friend who buys a Powerball ticket fairly regularly; he says his fantasy, which he is very aware of as a fantasy, of becoming instantly wealthy is enhanced by holding a lottery ticket. None of these things appeals to me, but other people also like movies I don't want to see, music I don't enjoy, sports that bore me ...
Socialists like me have no problem with profits. What we hate is profits being made through hidden subsidies.
That sounds a very reasonable position. You might get a whole bunch of non-socialists agreeing with you there. You're happy for the rich capitalists to make any amount of profit, provided they do it honestly, i.e. not taking money out of others' pockets by stealth.
The company that underpays its workers because the state will fill the income gap are benefiting from a hidden subsidy.
Valid point - if the workers wouldn't work for the company at those wages in the absence of state benefits.
The huge corporation that avoids its fair tax burden is benefiting from a hidden subsidy that pays for the security of the nation they operate in, the criminal justice system that enforces the laws that protect said corporation, the education of its staff, the infrastructure that allows its customers to get to it and allows it to get its products to market... is benefiting from a hidden subsidy.
Valid point - if that tax burden is a fair payment for valued services received.
The distinction between virtuous risk-takers who are rich and deserve to be rich because they take risks, and non-virtuous risk-takers who are poor and deserve to be poor because they take risks, is one that is regularly wheeled out by right-wingers in this country. I don't believe the US is actually any different.
I wish I could find the retort by Elizabeth Warren commending the rich for using roads that were built by the government, relying on a labor force that was trained in public schools and making their workers rely on Medicaid for health care because they refuse to pay liveable wages.
Our system gives social welfare to the rich through tax breaks, subsidies, and enticements.
Take Walmart. They will not put up a new store if the local government will not give them a property tax break. They have a labor force (at least in the US) that is mostly part-time. As long as their workers do not work more than 32 hours, they do not have to pay for health insurance. They subvert every attempt to unionize their workers. If the employees of a store vote to unionize, they simply shut the store down. They have increased their wages, but workers still cannot live on them. The kids of the workers have to rely on subsidized school lunches. Often times Walmart families go to community food banks just because they cannot make ends meet.
In the hour that a Walmart makes his/her $15 wage, the Walton family walks away with $4 million dollars. And they still get over $6 billion dollars a year in taxpayer subsidies.
Now, why can't the Walton's become more equitable for their employees?
I know lots of people who like to gamble in Vegas. I don't know anyone who's damaged their life doing it. The people I know who enjoy it decide ahead of time how much they're going to gamble, and if they lose that sum entirely, they stop gambling.
There's a fairly consistent statistic that somewhere around 2% of gamblers are "problem gamblers". We see stories once or twice per year of someone whose suicided, has stolen from an employer and is going to jail, has otherwise destroyed their life. It's about 1/3 of the 2% who're in that category. So about 6 per 1000. Here's what wikipedia has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_gambling
On gambling. Las Vegas doesn't pay for all the pretty building, bright lights, free shows with water fountains and a freaking pirate ship battle where one sinks several times a day because gambling has anything to do with rational thinking.
This says quite plainly that the only way to make scads of money is to prey on people being irrational. Bit over-egged isn't it?
Do we have any actual evidence that people who lose money gambling are not good at maths. To be frank that is, to me a load of rubbish.
I would sort of agree. They are not bad at maths per-se, they are bad at interpreting probabilities. Which is not uncommon - the Monty Hall problem being a good example. So it is not the maths, it is the interpretation of maths information that is (as with most people) the problem.
On gambling. Las Vegas doesn't pay for all the pretty building, bright lights, free shows with water fountains and a freaking pirate ship battle where one sinks several times a day because gambling has anything to do with rational thinking.
Something similar might be said of insurance companies. However, this assumes that cost and benefit are to be measured in average cost and reward. But, with insurance, the concern is that the small chance of loss would be devastating to the individual if it were realized, while the cost can readily be absorbed. The mirror image of this is at work with many gamblers -- the cost is negligible while the benefit may be life-altering. I am not a gambler, but something like that is often offered as a reason for playing the lottery.
On gambling. Las Vegas doesn't pay for all the pretty building, bright lights, free shows with water fountains and a freaking pirate ship battle where one sinks several times a day because gambling has anything to do with rational thinking.
This says quite plainly that the only way to make scads of money is to prey on people being irrational. Bit over-egged isn't it?
Irrational is not the only way to make scads of money, but it is a good one.
Apple make most of their money renting music and selling the illusion of photography to mobile phone users. Health insurance works by convincing people it is better to spend more money for the illusion of choice for oneself rather than spending less and benefiting everyone. Automakers create "new" models to convince people their perfectly good car is trash and they need a new one.
The companies on this list are there because of irrational consumers. (Microsoft is an arguable exception.)
Do we have any actual evidence that people who lose money gambling are not good at maths. To be frank that is, to me a load of rubbish.
I would sort of agree. They are not bad at maths per-se, they are bad at interpreting probabilities. Which is not uncommon - the Monty Hall problem being a good example. So it is not the maths, it is the interpretation of maths information that is (as with most people) the problem.
For the few people who actually think they're going to win the lottery or whatever, this is true. But the vast majority of people who buy lottery tickets know they're purchasing an infinitesimal chance of winning. It's really more about the fantasy. For people who gamble in Vegas who aren't addicts, it's about playing the games; having money on them heightens the excitement. Everyone knows the real winners are the casinos. They go because it's fun for them, not because they're innumerate or don't understand probabilities.
In fact, it seems to me that this is one area where people's general grasp of probabilities isn't all that bad because they have lived experience that tells them how likely they are to win. They've bought lottery tickets for years and never won a big jackpot, and they don't expect to win. They've been to Vegas and had various failures and some successes, and they know they can expect something similar the next time - and once their gambling money is gone, it's gone, and if they still have time to spend in Vegas they go to shows. It's things like "X behavior increases your chance of a dread disease tenfold" that they don't get, because they don't stop to think that 10 times a super tiny number is only a slightly larger tiny number; the news articles don't explain these things well and people's actual experience doesn't tell them anything.
I've been acquainted with one person with a gambling addiction, and an inability to do math or calculate probabilities was not his problem. He was an extremely smart guy who knew exactly what the math meant when he gambled, who knew it meant despite having good incomes he and his wife couldn't buy a house, who knew it almost cost him his marriage.
On gambling. Las Vegas doesn't pay for all the pretty building, bright lights, free shows with water fountains and a freaking pirate ship battle where one sinks several times a day because gambling has anything to do with rational thinking.
This says quite plainly that the only way to make scads of money is to prey on people being irrational. Bit over-egged isn't it?
Irrational is not the only way to make scads of money, but it is a good one.
Changing the subject. You claimed it was THE way Las Vegas made money. It's not.
Do we have any actual evidence that people who lose money gambling are not good at maths. To be frank that is, to me a load of rubbish.
I would sort of agree. They are not bad at maths per-se, they are bad at interpreting probabilities. Which is not uncommon - the Monty Hall problem being a good example. So it is not the maths, it is the interpretation of maths information that is (as with most people) the problem.
Yes, the Monty Hall problem is something virtually ALL people get wrong without having it carefully explained to them, and even then they might not believe it because it's so counter-intuitive. "You have an overwhelmingly tiny chance of winning the lottery" is common sense. "You should change doors" is not.
As far as racing goes the odds are worked out for them to an extent. The starting price of horse is influenced by how many people bet in it. Generally the better the horse the more people bet on it the lower the odds. Lower odds means less money to you of it wins. If you put money on a higher price horse you get more money back if it wins, but the chances of that are not as good.
On a roulette table the more open bets, such as those on a colour pay less than those on a single number because you have more chance of winning.
So generally the odds and therefore your chances of winning are their in front of you.
On gambling. Las Vegas doesn't pay for all the pretty building, bright lights, free shows with water fountains and a freaking pirate ship battle where one sinks several times a day because gambling has anything to do with rational thinking.
This says quite plainly that the only way to make scads of money is to prey on people being irrational. Bit over-egged isn't it?
Irrational is not the only way to make scads of money, but it is a good one.
Changing the subject. You claimed it was THE way Las Vegas made money. It's not.
How else do they make money? Hotels, food, entertainment only exist because the gambling is there. Without gabling, it would still be a sleepy desert town.
On gambling. Las Vegas doesn't pay for all the pretty building, bright lights, free shows with water fountains and a freaking pirate ship battle where one sinks several times a day because gambling has anything to do with rational thinking.
This says quite plainly that the only way to make scads of money is to prey on people being irrational. Bit over-egged isn't it?
Irrational is not the only way to make scads of money, but it is a good one.
Changing the subject. You claimed it was THE way Las Vegas made money. It's not.
How else do they make money? Hotels, food, entertainment only exist because the gambling is there. Without gabling, it would still be a sleepy desert town.
BUT NOT ALL GAMBLING IS DUE TO IRRATIONALITY. Sheesh it's like pulling fucking teeth.
Do we have any actual evidence that people who lose money gambling are not good at maths. To be frank that is, to me a load of rubbish.
I would sort of agree. They are not bad at maths per-se, they are bad at interpreting probabilities. Which is not uncommon - the Monty Hall problem being a good example. So it is not the maths, it is the interpretation of maths information that is (as with most people) the problem.
Yes, the Monty Hall problem is something virtually ALL people get wrong without having it carefully explained to them, and even then they might not believe it because it's so counter-intuitive. "You have an overwhelmingly tiny chance of winning the lottery" is common sense. "You should change doors" is not.
But you might.
There is a Lottery Syndicate at work. They beleive that any time, they are going to win a good amount of money. They have lost overwhelmingly (of course).
It is both a misunderstanding of what probablilities mean. That 1:16M* means you will not win. That there is a 50%* change of matching NO NUMBERS WHATSOEVER - making it the most likely event. It is understanding what the probabilities actually mean.
And I would agree that it is also just a way of spending money for pleasure. For some. And that is fine, as long as the spending on enjoyment is not obsessive.
I would say this is wilful suspension of logic, rather than miss understanding chance. The chance of winning big means they could win it. Someone has to win. Logic says it won’t be them. There is always the possibility they could be the ones.
The logic of playing the lottery depends on attitude, not mathematics.
If I buy a lottery ticket every week, I'll spend £200 a year.
If I save that money, then I'll have enough for a couple of reasonably fancy meals for two a year. That is one calculation.
The other is that I would probably have paid for a couple of fancy meals for two anyway. By buying into the lottery, I could potentially live like a lord every day.
Personally, I don't buy lottery tickets, because I have very low aspirations. I'm content with what I have, and if given a million quid, I wouldn't change much at all. But others are not, so they do. It's not about the maths.
Many many poor people buy lottery tickets because it gives them a small hope that living in poverty won't be permanent. The poorer one is, the less options there are to move away from that life.
By observation, socialists tend to put the welfare of people as more important than the profits commercial organisations make - which tend not to be connected with human beings, in common parlance. This is not true in reality, of course - maybe the language around company profits needs to change, as well as the obscene difference between the lower and higher paid employees.
BUT NOT ALL GAMBLING IS DUE TO IRRATIONALITY. Sheesh it's like pulling fucking teeth.
Gambling is irrational, it is in the very name.
If you mean not everyone gambles irrationally, you are closer. Though, I think what best describes what you are looking for is that it is possible to gamble responsibly.
BUT NOT ALL GAMBLING IS DUE TO IRRATIONALITY. Sheesh it's like pulling fucking teeth.
Gambling is irrational, it is in the very name.
If you mean not everyone gambles irrationally, you are closer. Though, I think what best describes what you are looking for is that it is possible to gamble responsibly.
This isn't about me. It's about what you said. Which you clearly aren't going to own. Nothing really changes.
And no it's not in the name. "Gamble" means to risk on a game of chance, and comes from a middle English word meaning to play or be merry. Nothing about irrationality at all.
An FDR administration official made the point that profits and taxes are basically the same thing -- excess income diverted to other purposes. In the case of taxes, they are diverted to public purposes, while profits are diverted for private use. Perhaps an appropriate question for your right wing friends would be why they hate taxes.
You could say that FDR hated horded profits - like Apple's which were placed offshore as of the Recession To End All Recessions. In the 2nd New Deal at the end of his 1st term, he introduced an undistributed profits tax against corporations on their retained earnings, so that they'd instead be distributed to shareholders in the hope that the latter would spend them. FDR's goal was to thereby help get the economy going again.
Socialists like me have no problem with profits. What we hate is profits being made through hidden subsidies.
That sounds a very reasonable position. You might get a whole bunch of non-socialists agreeing with you there. You're happy for the rich capitalists to make any amount of profit, provided they do it honestly, i.e. not taking money out of others' pockets by stealth.
The company that underpays its workers because the state will fill the income gap are benefiting from a hidden subsidy.
Valid point - if the workers wouldn't work for the company at those wages in the absence of state benefits.
The huge corporation that avoids its fair tax burden is benefiting from a hidden subsidy that pays for the security of the nation they operate in, the criminal justice system that enforces the laws that protect said corporation, the education of its staff, the infrastructure that allows its customers to get to it and allows it to get its products to market... is benefiting from a hidden subsidy.
Valid point - if that tax burden is a fair payment for valued services received.
Like the hidden subsidies of Child Labor or environmental Destruction in related imported Products by removing countervailing Tariffs; of Imports from all parts of the world by removing Fees for Inspections at Ports of Entry, or via Tax Exemptions and Credits for jet-fuels or airfreight; and of financial Institutions by exempting financial, especially derivative, transactions from Excise Tax, by allowing Them to short shares of a stock without having to borrow them or to pay a fee to lender or issuer, and by exempting Them from tax upon Expatriation of Their subsidised profits, as a way to evade domestic Taxation.
There's a book with a chapter describing how a social safety net improves labor markets, which has as its basic thesis that everything we know about capitalism is wrong. I can't remember its title nor the author.
The tax burden can never be "fair," because the unfairest advantage is that of being the legal fiction that is a corporation, and in many countries also having rights equal or superior to that of natural persons.
There's a book with a chapter describing how a social safety net improves labor markets, which has as its basic thesis that everything we know about capitalism is wrong. I can't remember its title nor the author.
The author is Ha-Joon Chang, a reader in the Political Economy of Development at Cambridge. The title is 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism, and the chapter is
#21 Big government makes people more, not less, open to changes.
There's a book with a chapter describing how a social safety net improves labor markets, which has as its basic thesis that everything we know about capitalism is wrong. I can't remember its title nor the author.
The author is Ha-Joon Chang, a reader in the Political Economy of Development at Cambridge. The title is 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism, and the chapter is
#21 Big government makes people more, not less, open to changes.
That sounds interesting... might have to add that to my reading list!
The author is Ha-Joon Chang, a reader in the Political Economy of Development at Cambridge.
That sounds interesting... might have to add that to my reading list!
I thought his books were useful when I read them: the other book I've read is Economics: a User's Guide, which is a call for pluralism of economic theories with particular emphasis on all the aspects of the economy that mainstream neoclassical economics ignores.
Comments
It's also possible to come out ahead. My boyfriend studies the racing forms and watches the horses work out, he does the math in his head, and overall he wins, making a nice little supplement to his retirement income. He says, though, that he makes the most money when the track runs a promotion like a dollar-beer day, or on days when there is a super popular race like the Kentucky Derby, because that's when there are lots of people betting who don't know what they're doing.
Commercial gambling almost always is, particularly these days as the big betting companies have taken to banning anyone doing particularly well.
What I am saying is that even though you don't realise the shiny thing you've found and you're blowing on is a dogwhistle (because you can't hear it) it is for all that a dogwhistle.
The distinction between virtuous risk-takers who are rich and deserve to be rich because they take risks, and non-virtuous risk-takers who are poor and deserve to be poor because they take risks, is one that is regularly wheeled out by right-wingers in this country. I don't believe the US is actually any different. The assertion that people who gamble are fundamentally different from wealthy people who invest is a dogwhistle even though you didn't intend it as such.
I know lots of people who like to gamble in Vegas. I don't know anyone who's damaged their life doing it. The people I know who enjoy it decide ahead of time how much they're going to gamble, and if they lose that sum entirely, they stop gambling. Of course Vegas pays for all the stuff out of their profits -- they're just like every other business in that regard. As long as you treat gambling there like a form of entertainment, you're fine. I have a friend who buys a Powerball ticket fairly regularly; he says his fantasy, which he is very aware of as a fantasy, of becoming instantly wealthy is enhanced by holding a lottery ticket. None of these things appeals to me, but other people also like movies I don't want to see, music I don't enjoy, sports that bore me ...
That sounds a very reasonable position. You might get a whole bunch of non-socialists agreeing with you there. You're happy for the rich capitalists to make any amount of profit, provided they do it honestly, i.e. not taking money out of others' pockets by stealth.
Valid point - if the workers wouldn't work for the company at those wages in the absence of state benefits.
Valid point - if that tax burden is a fair payment for valued services received.
I wish I could find the retort by Elizabeth Warren commending the rich for using roads that were built by the government, relying on a labor force that was trained in public schools and making their workers rely on Medicaid for health care because they refuse to pay liveable wages.
Our system gives social welfare to the rich through tax breaks, subsidies, and enticements.
Take Walmart. They will not put up a new store if the local government will not give them a property tax break. They have a labor force (at least in the US) that is mostly part-time. As long as their workers do not work more than 32 hours, they do not have to pay for health insurance. They subvert every attempt to unionize their workers. If the employees of a store vote to unionize, they simply shut the store down. They have increased their wages, but workers still cannot live on them. The kids of the workers have to rely on subsidized school lunches. Often times Walmart families go to community food banks just because they cannot make ends meet.
In the hour that a Walmart makes his/her $15 wage, the Walton family walks away with $4 million dollars. And they still get over $6 billion dollars a year in taxpayer subsidies.
Now, why can't the Walton's become more equitable for their employees?
There's a fairly consistent statistic that somewhere around 2% of gamblers are "problem gamblers". We see stories once or twice per year of someone whose suicided, has stolen from an employer and is going to jail, has otherwise destroyed their life. It's about 1/3 of the 2% who're in that category. So about 6 per 1000. Here's what wikipedia has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_gambling
This says quite plainly that the only way to make scads of money is to prey on people being irrational. Bit over-egged isn't it?
I would sort of agree. They are not bad at maths per-se, they are bad at interpreting probabilities. Which is not uncommon - the Monty Hall problem being a good example. So it is not the maths, it is the interpretation of maths information that is (as with most people) the problem.
Something similar might be said of insurance companies. However, this assumes that cost and benefit are to be measured in average cost and reward. But, with insurance, the concern is that the small chance of loss would be devastating to the individual if it were realized, while the cost can readily be absorbed. The mirror image of this is at work with many gamblers -- the cost is negligible while the benefit may be life-altering. I am not a gambler, but something like that is often offered as a reason for playing the lottery.
Apple make most of their money renting music and selling the illusion of photography to mobile phone users. Health insurance works by convincing people it is better to spend more money for the illusion of choice for oneself rather than spending less and benefiting everyone. Automakers create "new" models to convince people their perfectly good car is trash and they need a new one.
The companies on this list are there because of irrational consumers. (Microsoft is an arguable exception.)
For the few people who actually think they're going to win the lottery or whatever, this is true. But the vast majority of people who buy lottery tickets know they're purchasing an infinitesimal chance of winning. It's really more about the fantasy. For people who gamble in Vegas who aren't addicts, it's about playing the games; having money on them heightens the excitement. Everyone knows the real winners are the casinos. They go because it's fun for them, not because they're innumerate or don't understand probabilities.
In fact, it seems to me that this is one area where people's general grasp of probabilities isn't all that bad because they have lived experience that tells them how likely they are to win. They've bought lottery tickets for years and never won a big jackpot, and they don't expect to win. They've been to Vegas and had various failures and some successes, and they know they can expect something similar the next time - and once their gambling money is gone, it's gone, and if they still have time to spend in Vegas they go to shows. It's things like "X behavior increases your chance of a dread disease tenfold" that they don't get, because they don't stop to think that 10 times a super tiny number is only a slightly larger tiny number; the news articles don't explain these things well and people's actual experience doesn't tell them anything.
I've been acquainted with one person with a gambling addiction, and an inability to do math or calculate probabilities was not his problem. He was an extremely smart guy who knew exactly what the math meant when he gambled, who knew it meant despite having good incomes he and his wife couldn't buy a house, who knew it almost cost him his marriage.
Changing the subject. You claimed it was THE way Las Vegas made money. It's not.
Yes, the Monty Hall problem is something virtually ALL people get wrong without having it carefully explained to them, and even then they might not believe it because it's so counter-intuitive. "You have an overwhelmingly tiny chance of winning the lottery" is common sense. "You should change doors" is not.
On a roulette table the more open bets, such as those on a colour pay less than those on a single number because you have more chance of winning.
So generally the odds and therefore your chances of winning are their in front of you.
BUT NOT ALL GAMBLING IS DUE TO IRRATIONALITY. Sheesh it's like pulling fucking teeth.
But you might.
There is a Lottery Syndicate at work. They beleive that any time, they are going to win a good amount of money. They have lost overwhelmingly (of course).
It is both a misunderstanding of what probablilities mean. That 1:16M* means you will not win. That there is a 50%* change of matching NO NUMBERS WHATSOEVER - making it the most likely event. It is understanding what the probabilities actually mean.
And I would agree that it is also just a way of spending money for pleasure. For some. And that is fine, as long as the spending on enjoyment is not obsessive.
If I buy a lottery ticket every week, I'll spend £200 a year.
If I save that money, then I'll have enough for a couple of reasonably fancy meals for two a year. That is one calculation.
The other is that I would probably have paid for a couple of fancy meals for two anyway. By buying into the lottery, I could potentially live like a lord every day.
Personally, I don't buy lottery tickets, because I have very low aspirations. I'm content with what I have, and if given a million quid, I wouldn't change much at all. But others are not, so they do. It's not about the maths.
By observation, socialists tend to put the welfare of people as more important than the profits commercial organisations make - which tend not to be connected with human beings, in common parlance. This is not true in reality, of course - maybe the language around company profits needs to change, as well as the obscene difference between the lower and higher paid employees.
If you mean not everyone gambles irrationally, you are closer. Though, I think what best describes what you are looking for is that it is possible to gamble responsibly.
This isn't about me. It's about what you said. Which you clearly aren't going to own. Nothing really changes.
You could say that FDR hated horded profits - like Apple's which were placed offshore as of the Recession To End All Recessions. In the 2nd New Deal at the end of his 1st term, he introduced an undistributed profits tax against corporations on their retained earnings, so that they'd instead be distributed to shareholders in the hope that the latter would spend them. FDR's goal was to thereby help get the economy going again.
Like the hidden subsidies of Child Labor or environmental Destruction in related imported Products by removing countervailing Tariffs; of Imports from all parts of the world by removing Fees for Inspections at Ports of Entry, or via Tax Exemptions and Credits for jet-fuels or airfreight; and of financial Institutions by exempting financial, especially derivative, transactions from Excise Tax, by allowing Them to short shares of a stock without having to borrow them or to pay a fee to lender or issuer, and by exempting Them from tax upon Expatriation of Their subsidised profits, as a way to evade domestic Taxation.
There's a book with a chapter describing how a social safety net improves labor markets, which has as its basic thesis that everything we know about capitalism is wrong. I can't remember its title nor the author.
The tax burden can never be "fair," because the unfairest advantage is that of being the legal fiction that is a corporation, and in many countries also having rights equal or superior to that of natural persons.
#21 Big government makes people more, not less, open to changes.
That sounds interesting... might have to add that to my reading list!