SUMMARY
Online Gambling: Lessons from the Internet and Bookmaking
Policy Forum
Thursday, October 23, 2003
11:45 am (Luncheon to follow)
Featuring Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.); Koleman Strumpf, UNC Chapel Hill; Raymond Sauer, Clemson University; and Robin Hanson, George Mason University.
The Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Barney Frank:
Barney Frank has appeared before the Cato Institute on several previous occasions, all focused on the Cato-esque idea of less government involvement. So, no surprise that he takes the anti-prohibition stance with regards to online gambling.
Interesting quotes from Frank with regards to online gambling, public perceptions, prohibition, etc:
“People should be free to gamble.”
The present anti-online-gambling bill is “a fundamentally flawed notion.”
Prohibition of online gambling is a “massive invasion of privacy for no good reason.”
Frank agrees that gambling can be dangerous, but also states that “people may buy too many suits (and) drink too much beer.” So, we don’t see the government attempting to regulate those behaviors. Frank makes the distinction that protecting people from forces over which they have no control is good, but that the government should have “no energy left for protecting people from themselves.”
When asked by a reporter from The Las Vegas Review Journal if he thinks the Kyl bill will pass, Frank says that it’s highly unlikely this year because of time constraints. He further states his opinion that the bill doesn’t stand much of a chance next year either, considering the obstacles related to exceptions for the various legal forms of gambling.
While Frank grossly misses the mark with his notion that fraudulent offshore gaming operators will be exposed and “gone in an hour” after their first scam, his ideas that Market Forces should dominate the industry are right on target.
Raymond Sauer:
Raymond Sauer has conducted extensive research into the history of gambling regulation in America from the perspective of both sides of the issue. He insists that the “battle” between opponents and proponents of gambling has been going on since Colonial America and continues to this day because of issues primarily associated with “revenue potential.”
Historically, Sauer says that accepted forms of gambling, such as lotteries, have become increasingly tolerated because increased government spending has created an environment where the revenue generated from lotteries makes that form of gambling more palatable in comparison to raising taxes.
Sauer points out that offshore gaming is “small potatoes” compared to the overall gambling industry. However, he feels that the offshore operators operating “outside the fringe of the law” are “sitting ducks” for the Kyl-bill-style prohibitionists and, based on history, he feels certain that offshore gambling opponents will eventually win.
Robin Hanson:
Robin Hanson has studied gambling from the aspect of financial markets. His brief argument in favor of internet sports gambling is based on his notion that the sports betting market has enormous potential as a “new financial product.” And, he says, much like the stock market years ago, new forms of financial speculation have historically been considered illegal in their genesis.
Koleman Strumpf:
Extensive studies of convicted illegal bookmakers in Brooklyn form the basis for much of Koleman Strumpf’s arguments against the prohibition of internet gambling. While he agrees that offshore gambling accounts for a very small percentage of the overall market, he seems to feel that prohibition will have much larger consequences.
One of his basic arguments against prohibition is a supply-and-demand type of case. There is such a tremendous demand for sports betting in the United States that there is almost no likelihood that such a popular activity can be banned in its entirety. In fact, he argues, prohibition would create more problems than it would solve, by increasing the influence of local bookies, the number of bettors playing on credit, etc.
Strumpf’s case is best summed up by his notion that there are two basic stances taken towards gambling – a moral evil versus an individual freedom … either way, Strumpf says, “government prohibition is NOT the answer.”
[This message was edited by JoeWager on October 23, 2003 at 02:55 PM.]
Online Gambling: Lessons from the Internet and Bookmaking
Policy Forum
Thursday, October 23, 2003
11:45 am (Luncheon to follow)
Featuring Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.); Koleman Strumpf, UNC Chapel Hill; Raymond Sauer, Clemson University; and Robin Hanson, George Mason University.
The Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Barney Frank:
Barney Frank has appeared before the Cato Institute on several previous occasions, all focused on the Cato-esque idea of less government involvement. So, no surprise that he takes the anti-prohibition stance with regards to online gambling.
Interesting quotes from Frank with regards to online gambling, public perceptions, prohibition, etc:
“People should be free to gamble.”
The present anti-online-gambling bill is “a fundamentally flawed notion.”
Prohibition of online gambling is a “massive invasion of privacy for no good reason.”
Frank agrees that gambling can be dangerous, but also states that “people may buy too many suits (and) drink too much beer.” So, we don’t see the government attempting to regulate those behaviors. Frank makes the distinction that protecting people from forces over which they have no control is good, but that the government should have “no energy left for protecting people from themselves.”
When asked by a reporter from The Las Vegas Review Journal if he thinks the Kyl bill will pass, Frank says that it’s highly unlikely this year because of time constraints. He further states his opinion that the bill doesn’t stand much of a chance next year either, considering the obstacles related to exceptions for the various legal forms of gambling.
While Frank grossly misses the mark with his notion that fraudulent offshore gaming operators will be exposed and “gone in an hour” after their first scam, his ideas that Market Forces should dominate the industry are right on target.
Raymond Sauer:
Raymond Sauer has conducted extensive research into the history of gambling regulation in America from the perspective of both sides of the issue. He insists that the “battle” between opponents and proponents of gambling has been going on since Colonial America and continues to this day because of issues primarily associated with “revenue potential.”
Historically, Sauer says that accepted forms of gambling, such as lotteries, have become increasingly tolerated because increased government spending has created an environment where the revenue generated from lotteries makes that form of gambling more palatable in comparison to raising taxes.
Sauer points out that offshore gaming is “small potatoes” compared to the overall gambling industry. However, he feels that the offshore operators operating “outside the fringe of the law” are “sitting ducks” for the Kyl-bill-style prohibitionists and, based on history, he feels certain that offshore gambling opponents will eventually win.
Robin Hanson:
Robin Hanson has studied gambling from the aspect of financial markets. His brief argument in favor of internet sports gambling is based on his notion that the sports betting market has enormous potential as a “new financial product.” And, he says, much like the stock market years ago, new forms of financial speculation have historically been considered illegal in their genesis.
Koleman Strumpf:
Extensive studies of convicted illegal bookmakers in Brooklyn form the basis for much of Koleman Strumpf’s arguments against the prohibition of internet gambling. While he agrees that offshore gambling accounts for a very small percentage of the overall market, he seems to feel that prohibition will have much larger consequences.
One of his basic arguments against prohibition is a supply-and-demand type of case. There is such a tremendous demand for sports betting in the United States that there is almost no likelihood that such a popular activity can be banned in its entirety. In fact, he argues, prohibition would create more problems than it would solve, by increasing the influence of local bookies, the number of bettors playing on credit, etc.
Strumpf’s case is best summed up by his notion that there are two basic stances taken towards gambling – a moral evil versus an individual freedom … either way, Strumpf says, “government prohibition is NOT the answer.”
[This message was edited by JoeWager on October 23, 2003 at 02:55 PM.]
