Poker, Football and Economics
I'm the first to admit that I don't understand Economics. It seems to me that 90% of it is just a mechanism for separating idiots from their money (and of course I'd never be party to something like that). It often makes me think about a short story I read once, a science fiction thing, where robots made loads of stuff and everyone had to consume it, or else. One guy couldn't keep up so he made his robot consume it instead. They found out and he thought he was going to get the chair but everyone decided "great idea" so they got half the robots to make loads of stuff and the other half to consume it all. Sorted. The parallels are clear, lol.
Anyway, I had been meaning to post something on here for a while about whether playing poker was a productive occupation, to society in general. And I would probably have concluded, not really, but unless you're actually a doctor or a teacher then STFU because you're no better. But before I got around to it (i.e. sometime, ever) this came up on 2+2. The original question was "Being told that professional poker doesn't contribute to society - anyone have a good answer ?". About 20 posts in, "plzbenice" answered, and I quote : "theres no argument agaisnt it because theyre right. so? ty for your money dumbasses now i go snort coke from a bunch of silicontits, have fun at your job sucker." Which was, IMO, the 10/10 gold star correct answer, end of thread.
Then I was thinking about this again when I saw in BBC Sport's sort of paper round-up, the bare-faced statement that "If England fail to qualify for Euro 2008, it will cost the economy at least £1.25bn. ". Erm, what exactly does that mean ? If, as I suspect, it means that people aren't going to whack £1.25 bn on their credit cards to buy their kids crappy replica shirts made in a Chinese sweatshop [1], then to me that sounds pretty good for everyone except the sweatshop owners, and I figure screw them. This just goes back to the robots. If half of us are making tat in vile conditions and the other half are buying it when we don't really need it, is this "economic growth" or a complete waste of time ? Don't ask me, as Leftfield Lydon said, I don't know. And when it all comes down, I quote freely from the same source : don't blame me, I told you so.
[1] On further thought, maybe some of it was to account for rebuilding contracts on town centres after England lose to Germany on penalties.
Anyway, I had been meaning to post something on here for a while about whether playing poker was a productive occupation, to society in general. And I would probably have concluded, not really, but unless you're actually a doctor or a teacher then STFU because you're no better. But before I got around to it (i.e. sometime, ever) this came up on 2+2. The original question was "Being told that professional poker doesn't contribute to society - anyone have a good answer ?". About 20 posts in, "plzbenice" answered, and I quote : "theres no argument agaisnt it because theyre right. so? ty for your money dumbasses now i go snort coke from a bunch of silicontits, have fun at your job sucker." Which was, IMO, the 10/10 gold star correct answer, end of thread.
Then I was thinking about this again when I saw in BBC Sport's sort of paper round-up, the bare-faced statement that "If England fail to qualify for Euro 2008, it will cost the economy at least £1.25bn. ". Erm, what exactly does that mean ? If, as I suspect, it means that people aren't going to whack £1.25 bn on their credit cards to buy their kids crappy replica shirts made in a Chinese sweatshop [1], then to me that sounds pretty good for everyone except the sweatshop owners, and I figure screw them. This just goes back to the robots. If half of us are making tat in vile conditions and the other half are buying it when we don't really need it, is this "economic growth" or a complete waste of time ? Don't ask me, as Leftfield Lydon said, I don't know. And when it all comes down, I quote freely from the same source : don't blame me, I told you so.
[1] On further thought, maybe some of it was to account for rebuilding contracts on town centres after England lose to Germany on penalties.
5 Comments:
Well taking that to its logical conclusion I guess you have to include the owners of the silicontits with the doctors and teachers in the "productive" category, no?
Obviously don't know what they meant about 1.25B either. But if I had to back the number some way, I would say it's entertainment value compared to Finland being there.
Aksu
Anonymous said...
Who the hell is leftfield lydon?
Dude, google is your friend :-)
Andy.
The Boston perspective:
our local baseball team
just won the "world championship"
and now the city is basically
shut down due to the victory parade.
The cost to the economy is staggering
compared to any benefits of t-shirt
sales and bad sausages from street
vendors. Naturally the sausage
sellers like it this way, they would
have put their carts away a month ago
otherwise.
I'm quite certain that this is
a net loss to the city at least.
Poker on the other hand is I
think a clear net benefit. We
only tie up the space of the
table, we pay the dealer to help
entertain us, and we enjoy the
game. About the same number of
chips leave the table as arrive,
subject to house rake I suppose,
but those go out in someone else's
pocket so the chips are pretty
much an economic neutral. The
benefit you provide to society
is that you act as an example
of how it's possible to live a
rational, thinking life-style
and come out ahead, plus of
course you and the other players
get the benefit of an entertaining
pastime.
Post a Comment
<< Home