Neither conservative nor Mormon, but online gambling is an addictive scourge that ruins lives, and I'd love to see it banned broadly. And go ahead and ban paid loot boxes as well.
I don't love casinos or lotteries, but at least there's the friction of having to travel to a physical location to feed your addiction.
And then there's the whole "insider trading" and "gambling on war" angles that come into play with prediction markets.
> it is clear from studies and from what we see with our eyes that ubiquitous sports gambling [...] is mostly predation on people who suffer from addictive behaviors.
> This is not a minor issue. This is so bad that you can pick up the impacts in overall economic distress data.
> the financial consequences of legalized sports betting [...] include a 28% overall increase in bankruptcies (!). [...] a 28% increase in bankruptcies is far more than I would have predicted. The typical adult bankruptcy rate is about 0.16%, so this would mean about 4bps (0.04%)/year of additional bankruptcies, or an over 1% additional chance a typical person goes bankrupt during their lifetime. [...] A bankruptcy is extremely socially expensive, on the order of $200k. That alone is almost triple the profits, and clearly wipes out all the social gains. Legalized online sports betting is currently a deeply, deeply horrible deal.
> [...] there might be a 3% overall increase in domestic violence as the result of legalized sports betting [...] This is a huge direct cost to bear. Domestic violence ruins lives. It also is a huge indicator that this is causing large amounts of distress in various forms, and that those gambling on sports are not making rational or wise consumption decisions.
The "return to player" numbers for lottery tickets are on the order of 60% https://wizardofodds.com/are-lottery-players-smart/. Many states have online lottery apps, they do TV and radio ads, etc. Why should that be allowed? Of course some of the only forms of gambling where skill actually matters (poker and sports) come under constant attack...
If you bet randomly on the winner of NFL games on DraftKings you'd expect to lose 4-5% of your money per bet over time. I'm not sure the people here with a cultivated disinterest in professional sports know this but it is much more entertaining to watch a game when you have money on the line. We know that all but 1-2 percent of people are able to control themselves and not become problem gamblers. The UK fines casinos for not doing enough to stop problem gambling, the US can do the same. You can do income checks, have a national self exclusion system, and ban advertising.
Lastly, prediction markets are the only way for Americans to bet on sports and not be banned for winning too much (short of using sketchy agents for Betfair and Asian books that can randomly steal all your money)
>>all but 1-2 percent of people are able to control themselves and not become problem gamblers
That says absolutely nothing about the blast radius of damage from the 1-2% who do become problem gamblers and end up leaving their families impoverished and destitute, robbing their children of chances for education, etc. This cascades into issues and expenses for society in terms of more dependent and fewer productive members.
Similarly only a small percentage of people also are problem drinkers enough to drink and drive, and the small percentage of trips while impaired result in accidents. Yet the blast radius of the damage by that small percent is such that we decided long ago that serious laws and enforcement is a good idea.
Good call on lootboxes. I’d love it if video games that include them would be forced to do age verification to whatever extent casinos need to, and be 18+.
One distinction I think really needs to be included in any gambling bans is whether it’s a game of chance or skill. Betting on yourself is quintessentially American. I’d argue betting on someone else’s game of skill (eg sports betting) is a game of chance.
Would be interesting to see how a new prohibition amendment on gambling on games of chance would work.
As much as I hate what gambling does on the society, I'm still not sure if banning this activity counts as freedom. I believe that grown consenting adults do have a free will and should have the ability to destroy their lives if they so choose.
OTOH allowing those kind of activities WILL end up with people opting in for the greater evil and thus some kind of limits should be enforced by governments.
I have no idea what would be the right approach, but outright banning prediction markets and casinos is definitely not the right one.
> As much as I hate what gambling does on the society, I'm still not sure if banning this activity counts as freedom. I believe that grown consenting adults do have a free will and should have the ability to destroy their lives if they so choose.
I don't think it is freedom. But. If someone destroys their own life the rest of us who share the same society pay a price, be that government money supporting their rehabilitation, incarceration, or the non-financial impact of people being homeless on our streets etc.
So as much as I favor freedom I also think there should be limits. I think "freedom always without exception" is a pithy statement that doesn't lead to positive outcomes in reality.
> I'm still not sure if banning this activity counts as freedom. I believe that grown consenting adults do have a free will and should have the ability to destroy their lives if they so choose
America is the land of the free, but I think there have been and will continue to be reasonable disagreements on the question of, free to do what? It's evident that "freedom" isn't a pure, unrestricted thing in the anarchist sense. We all agree that through the democratic process, laws can be made to declare some things not free to be done.
And to the degree that various taxpayer-funded social programs exist, the cost of grown consenting adults destroying their own lives are directly borne by the rest of us.
> but outright banning prediction markets and casinos is definitely not the right one
In general, I think a gradual "ban" in the form of taxation is often times better, especially for things that society is trying to discourage out of its sinful or destructive nature; think cigarettes.
> We all agree that through the democratic process, laws can be made to declare some things not free to be done.
We intentionally put a lot of roadblocks in the way of the democratic process. The constitution, and amendments place limits on what the democratic process can do - they can be changed but that takes a lot of time/effort which in turn slows things (for both good and bad). Even that we are a representative democracy vs a pure democracy slows things down.
The above is a slightly US perspective, but most others reading this have similar things in their process to slow down "fad" laws.
One difference between federal-level prediction markets and state-level gambling is that most states had limited gambling to 21+, so most state governments wanted more nuanced options than outright bans
> some kind of limits should be enforced by governments
I'm not sure why we think this works.
Gambling is considered bad, and banned in many states, but many of those states run a lottery. This is just a straight up theft from the poor who are least well equipped to understand they are playing a rigged game, and not rigged in their favor.
> the poor who are least well equipped to understand
Is there some actual evidence that poor people are under the impression that they have a meaningful chance of winning significant money the lottery?
I see this line a lot and it’s extremely patronizing. I’m not even pro lottery but this “poor people are too dumb to understand” does not strike me as a sound argument.
It's more that poor people have worse impulse control and higher time preference[0], which contribute to the behavioral outcome of spending money on lottery tickets despite the EV being negative.
[0]: If we're splitting hairs, we should specify that having poor impulse control and higher time preference are the base causational factors that make it more likely for someone to be poor, buy lottery tickets, engage in criminality, etc. etc.
Poor people stay poor because it’s really hard to climb out of poverty. It’s a function of opportunity, culture, society, and a lot more stuff. Education is a factor but I am doubtful it’s the primary one, and even where it is a major factor, it’s probably more general education than specifically about money.
I feel like the “poor people don’t understand money” line of thought comes from the same people who insist that avocado toast and lattes are why millennials can’t afford housing.
This article looks at lotto sales. I understand it doesn't address the assertions brought up about why people buy tickets, but maybe it still interesting in the context of this conversation.
I think they know it's rigged, but it's also a (very slim) source of hope.
It's depressing to be poor, and have no perceivable path to fix that. Continual lottery participation is an action they can constantly take to have a chance to change that. It doesn't matter that their chances are incredibly low, it's still something they can do to have things not be entirely hopeless.
> Gambling is considered bad, and banned in many states, but many of those states run a lottery. This is just a straight up theft from the poor who are least well equipped to understand they are playing a rigged game, and not rigged in their favor
I think gambling is almost a natural instinct in humans, and a state-run lottery may be a relief valve for that itch to be scratched in a controlled manner.
By virtue of its position, the state often does things it forbids all other actors under its jurisdiction from doing. Thus your comment has much less force than it would seem, even if the apparent contradiction you pointed out is somewhat amusing.
Nations do not apply a standard of 'total freedom' for most other vices. It is known that grown consenting adults can't compete against an algorithmic assault on their self-control systems.
Nations have established middle grounds for gambling. To gamble, drive a couple of hours down to an exempt casino and set fire to your money if you so wish. Bootleg operations are permitted as long as they stay low. Prostitution has similar regulations. Sports betting, Onlyfans & Prediction markets remove those necessary frictions from each vice, preying on men (it's mostly men) at their most vulnerable.
I think an on over-fixation on “freedom” is what leads to many of the societal ills we (uniquely) deal with in America.
Freedom itself is itself a nebulous concept. Are my freedoms restricted when I can’t drive 80mph through my neighborhood? Yes. On the flip side I enjoy the “freedom” of living in a more controlled, safer environment. Is a corporation’s freedoms restricted by the laws that prevent them from dumping toxic sludge into the river upstream from me? Yes, but my freedom from living downstream of that pollution is preserved. Are my freedoms preserved when we allow broad access to firearms in this country? Yes, at the cost of my kids freedoms to attend a public school without the risk of being shot by a mentally ill psychopath.
Here we are considering the freedom to destroy your life via gambling vs the freedom from being targeted by corporations with much greater resources than you trying to get you to do so, and the freedoms of your family who may choose to not gamble and still have their lives destroyed as a result.
An “pure” worldview of maximizing personal freedoms over-simplifies the trade-offs and is doomed to fail in the real-world as a result. Realistically maximizing societal well-being requires a more moderate approach.
I agree to a point. But it should be regulated as what it is, which is gambling. Prediction markets doing everything in their power to avoid regulation is just scummy.
Some things are banned for the good of society. Please remember that no man is an island, each is a piece of the continent. A man with an addiction he can't afford rarely destroys just his own life.
However, I will ask you to consider that under discussion are very specific bans. Call these something else if it makes you feel better. I think these are normally called "regulation." But, what's being discussed is still completely compatible with "freedom", especially with added context of the elected lawmakers enjoying the support of their constituency for their actions. This also leaves the door open for a future electorate to legislate something else.
The contract between citizen and state is that we offload some rights and responsibilities to the state, which in turn does things and protects us. How's addiction handling in this pciture, should the state protect us from it? Like it should protect us from unruly neighboring states, unemployment, financial ruin, whatever (I'm not focusing on a particular country)?
I'd like to first see all advertisements for gambling banned. Then lets take a look at the data after 1-2 years.
Or if you allow it put a warning like the surgeon generals warning on tobacco. Clearly state that most people lose money.
Smoking is legal but advertising cigarettes is illegal. I grew up in the 1980's where smoking was everywhere. We even had a smoking area at school. Today I don't know anyone that smokes. Obviously people still do but it is much less common
These markets are a straightforward way to cut through all the noise of the current media conglomerates. Rather than getting bombarded by inflated headlines a glance at polymarket or kalshi is often enough to know whether something is actually happening or it's just the media corporations trying to get your attention.
Of course there should be limits with regards to what kind of markets are allowed on these platforms. But in a lot of areas there's genuine price discovery happening that's not available anywhere else.
1. I have only moderate confidence that the odds on prediction markets represent true odds.
2. I think the existence of prediction markets can change the outcome of events. See the Super Bowl Streaker as an example.
3. I don’t have a strong use for prediction market odds. In the few areas of my life that require forecasting I have sources of information i understand and trust more, sometimes with private data not available to the general public.
> 3. I don’t have a strong use for prediction market odds. In the few areas of my life that require forecasting I have sources of information i understand and trust more, sometimes with private data not available to the general public.
100%. I have no earthly idea what the value of these markets is for things I'm not an expert in (I assume they're roughly equivalent to asking the bots and teenagers on Reddit and pretending that's crowd-sourcing, given what they show in things I understand well), and I have no use for them in things I am an expert in.
But hey, at least government employees/soldiers can cash in on secret operations before they happen? That's fun, or whatever.
It's very strange that they think prediction markets "cut through all the noise of the current media conglomerates" and yet the temperature bet is easily manipulated, and any bets about war and other foreign affairs are resolved by reading news reports from the field and not some new group of independent arbitrators or investigators. The war journalists are even being pressured by the gamblers to change their reporting https://www.timesofisrael.com/gamblers-trying-to-win-a-bet-o...
Prediction markets seemed neat when I first heard about them, but they've proved to have "theory meets the real world" externalities I wouldn't have ever considered. Insiders betting on (and possibly influencing) military/diplomatic stuff, reporters getting threatened, weather stations getting hit with hairdryers. It's wild.
I think this is far from widespread. It's very difficult to tamper with the majority of markets, and nearly impossible to do so without getting noticed (hence, the news story about this case).
I agree that there's something interesting here, but the majority of markets are absolute garbage. "Drake Iceman First Week Album Sales", "Arsenal vs Burnley", "Another GTA 6 Trailer Released by May 31", for instance. I am much more interested in the price discovery on markets relating to politics, global trade, pandemics, etc., but sports betting has proven to be largely a net negative for society imo.
Shame that prediction markets seem to have failed a bit, since they seem in principle like a good idea. You force participants to have skin in the game and remove the usual mood affiliation and ideological bias that afflicts the professional commentariat in the media.
Perhaps a solution instead of banning them would be to create a class similar to accredited investors that are allowed to participate. And stuff like market manipulation should just be prosecuted in old fashioned ways like we prosecute any crime.
I think they should be legal, but the amount of marketing and pushing around them is so bad.
It's like you make something legal, and some group of people try as hard as possible to push the limit as far as they can, and in turn ruin for everyone.
I think the biggest problem with prediction markets can be solved with some law that would remove anonymity from those who trade, from the perspective of some regulating body* . now I know what I just said and I'm sure to be downvoted to hell for suggesting such a thing, but this would make it much easier to fight insider trading, assassination markets/equivalents, ect
You could just force the biggest entities in this space to comply and people wouldn't care enough about secretly betting on wars so it would all work out.
* if you make it so that everyone sees what their neighbor betted on then overall predictions will become less accurate due to social signaling
Mostly it's just the regulations around sex that are wack. Jesus has great advice around taking care of the poor, the sick, and the refugee, which are given short shrift by the Christian nationalists on the US.
I consider it more of a "stopped clock" situation; I've found myself getting more and more disillusioned with Christians as I get older, but this is one thing I can agree on.
We should distinguish between the moral condemnation of a behavior and the desire to outlaw it. The latter is hardly Christian in any universal sense and seems to be mostly an effect of Protestant puritanism. For example, many saints have argued to tolerate prostitution and other vices for the sake of man's weakness.
So it’s still gambling for the other participants who don’t have that insider knowledge then. If one person at a blackjack table is counting cards, does that make it not gambling for everyone else?
It's a good question, actually now that I think of it.
Obviously, insider trading, but as a society we have long decided that this is evil.
And if we compare markets where I am ready to put my money where my mouth is, then this actually is called gambling. Just not a game of chance but rather game of skill.
Abtractly, there is no conceptual difference. Everything is a gamble. We are always betting on everything. We are always positioning ourselves in relation to everything else in the world. Often unconsciously and unknowingly.
It becomes problematic when we make a game of it and add financial stakes. Gambling is a lot like drugs in its ability to hijack the brain's reward circuits. I stopped investing in cryptocurrencies because seeing +400% profits was like crack. I never gambled any money I couldn't afford to lose but there are people out there who were leveraging their entire lives to FOMO into markets.
When I own a stock I also vote on the board of directors and so I have long term influence on the future. (I don't agree with stocks where I don't get that vote, or where my vote is meaningless because insiders have more control than their ownership share - even though they exist. Yes I know the amount of stock I own is trivial, but I still at least have it)
They do both involve taking risks for money admittedly but there are crucial differences.
You actually participate meaningfully in the outcome via investing instead of just price discovery and the successes are derived from the valuation or income of the venture instead of the losers. The participation is not only in impact on their credit rating and sales but also concrete choices in government of it.
Not to mention in principle there is an actual activity being backed by the investment to produce non-zero sum gains. While there may be risks involved in say, running a turnip farm or sending a ship across the ocean, you are still supporting a useful activity for its own end. Crucially as well there is motivation to do the task even without the market, even though it may enable it.
If you can manipulate the outcome of the turnip farm (as opposed to the market) to make it succeed that is doing useful work and not just cheating a bet. A guideline of the distinction would be - would charging somebody for making the outcome successful in a not otherwise criminal way be a Kafkaesque injustice?
You can in fact use the market to gamble via options intended for credit or insurance but stopping those by stopping the market entirely would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
I don't love casinos or lotteries, but at least there's the friction of having to travel to a physical location to feed your addiction.
And then there's the whole "insider trading" and "gambling on war" angles that come into play with prediction markets.
> it is clear from studies and from what we see with our eyes that ubiquitous sports gambling [...] is mostly predation on people who suffer from addictive behaviors.
> This is not a minor issue. This is so bad that you can pick up the impacts in overall economic distress data.
> the financial consequences of legalized sports betting [...] include a 28% overall increase in bankruptcies (!). [...] a 28% increase in bankruptcies is far more than I would have predicted. The typical adult bankruptcy rate is about 0.16%, so this would mean about 4bps (0.04%)/year of additional bankruptcies, or an over 1% additional chance a typical person goes bankrupt during their lifetime. [...] A bankruptcy is extremely socially expensive, on the order of $200k. That alone is almost triple the profits, and clearly wipes out all the social gains. Legalized online sports betting is currently a deeply, deeply horrible deal.
> [...] there might be a 3% overall increase in domestic violence as the result of legalized sports betting [...] This is a huge direct cost to bear. Domestic violence ruins lives. It also is a huge indicator that this is causing large amounts of distress in various forms, and that those gambling on sports are not making rational or wise consumption decisions.
If you bet randomly on the winner of NFL games on DraftKings you'd expect to lose 4-5% of your money per bet over time. I'm not sure the people here with a cultivated disinterest in professional sports know this but it is much more entertaining to watch a game when you have money on the line. We know that all but 1-2 percent of people are able to control themselves and not become problem gamblers. The UK fines casinos for not doing enough to stop problem gambling, the US can do the same. You can do income checks, have a national self exclusion system, and ban advertising.
Lastly, prediction markets are the only way for Americans to bet on sports and not be banned for winning too much (short of using sketchy agents for Betfair and Asian books that can randomly steal all your money)
That says absolutely nothing about the blast radius of damage from the 1-2% who do become problem gamblers and end up leaving their families impoverished and destitute, robbing their children of chances for education, etc. This cascades into issues and expenses for society in terms of more dependent and fewer productive members.
Similarly only a small percentage of people also are problem drinkers enough to drink and drive, and the small percentage of trips while impaired result in accidents. Yet the blast radius of the damage by that small percent is such that we decided long ago that serious laws and enforcement is a good idea.
Just because only a small percentage of people
Would be interesting to see how a new prohibition amendment on gambling on games of chance would work.
The line isn't all the clear, is it? Is poker skill or chance? What about betting on a horse? Or buying a stock option?
OTOH allowing those kind of activities WILL end up with people opting in for the greater evil and thus some kind of limits should be enforced by governments.
I have no idea what would be the right approach, but outright banning prediction markets and casinos is definitely not the right one.
I don't think it is freedom. But. If someone destroys their own life the rest of us who share the same society pay a price, be that government money supporting their rehabilitation, incarceration, or the non-financial impact of people being homeless on our streets etc.
So as much as I favor freedom I also think there should be limits. I think "freedom always without exception" is a pithy statement that doesn't lead to positive outcomes in reality.
America is the land of the free, but I think there have been and will continue to be reasonable disagreements on the question of, free to do what? It's evident that "freedom" isn't a pure, unrestricted thing in the anarchist sense. We all agree that through the democratic process, laws can be made to declare some things not free to be done.
And to the degree that various taxpayer-funded social programs exist, the cost of grown consenting adults destroying their own lives are directly borne by the rest of us.
> but outright banning prediction markets and casinos is definitely not the right one
In general, I think a gradual "ban" in the form of taxation is often times better, especially for things that society is trying to discourage out of its sinful or destructive nature; think cigarettes.
We intentionally put a lot of roadblocks in the way of the democratic process. The constitution, and amendments place limits on what the democratic process can do - they can be changed but that takes a lot of time/effort which in turn slows things (for both good and bad). Even that we are a representative democracy vs a pure democracy slows things down.
The above is a slightly US perspective, but most others reading this have similar things in their process to slow down "fad" laws.
I'm not sure why we think this works.
Gambling is considered bad, and banned in many states, but many of those states run a lottery. This is just a straight up theft from the poor who are least well equipped to understand they are playing a rigged game, and not rigged in their favor.
Is there some actual evidence that poor people are under the impression that they have a meaningful chance of winning significant money the lottery?
I see this line a lot and it’s extremely patronizing. I’m not even pro lottery but this “poor people are too dumb to understand” does not strike me as a sound argument.
[0]: If we're splitting hairs, we should specify that having poor impulse control and higher time preference are the base causational factors that make it more likely for someone to be poor, buy lottery tickets, engage in criminality, etc. etc.
I don’t have any trouble believing that there is some slice of poor people that this is true about. But I kind of doubt that holds in general.
I feel like the “poor people don’t understand money” line of thought comes from the same people who insist that avocado toast and lattes are why millennials can’t afford housing.
https://archive.is/kY7U6
It's depressing to be poor, and have no perceivable path to fix that. Continual lottery participation is an action they can constantly take to have a chance to change that. It doesn't matter that their chances are incredibly low, it's still something they can do to have things not be entirely hopeless.
I think gambling is almost a natural instinct in humans, and a state-run lottery may be a relief valve for that itch to be scratched in a controlled manner.
That rationale gets undermined if the state lottery is widely advertised in a predatory manner though.
Nations have established middle grounds for gambling. To gamble, drive a couple of hours down to an exempt casino and set fire to your money if you so wish. Bootleg operations are permitted as long as they stay low. Prostitution has similar regulations. Sports betting, Onlyfans & Prediction markets remove those necessary frictions from each vice, preying on men (it's mostly men) at their most vulnerable.
Prediction markets : gambling :: weed : cigarettes
Freedom itself is itself a nebulous concept. Are my freedoms restricted when I can’t drive 80mph through my neighborhood? Yes. On the flip side I enjoy the “freedom” of living in a more controlled, safer environment. Is a corporation’s freedoms restricted by the laws that prevent them from dumping toxic sludge into the river upstream from me? Yes, but my freedom from living downstream of that pollution is preserved. Are my freedoms preserved when we allow broad access to firearms in this country? Yes, at the cost of my kids freedoms to attend a public school without the risk of being shot by a mentally ill psychopath.
Here we are considering the freedom to destroy your life via gambling vs the freedom from being targeted by corporations with much greater resources than you trying to get you to do so, and the freedoms of your family who may choose to not gamble and still have their lives destroyed as a result.
An “pure” worldview of maximizing personal freedoms over-simplifies the trade-offs and is doomed to fail in the real-world as a result. Realistically maximizing societal well-being requires a more moderate approach.
However, I will ask you to consider that under discussion are very specific bans. Call these something else if it makes you feel better. I think these are normally called "regulation." But, what's being discussed is still completely compatible with "freedom", especially with added context of the elected lawmakers enjoying the support of their constituency for their actions. This also leaves the door open for a future electorate to legislate something else.
Or if you allow it put a warning like the surgeon generals warning on tobacco. Clearly state that most people lose money.
Smoking is legal but advertising cigarettes is illegal. I grew up in the 1980's where smoking was everywhere. We even had a smoking area at school. Today I don't know anyone that smokes. Obviously people still do but it is much less common
* researchers found that prediction markets are actually good for your wellbeing
* lobby group is lobbying to fight against Utah lawmakers who are working against the wellbeing of people in Utah
These markets are a straightforward way to cut through all the noise of the current media conglomerates. Rather than getting bombarded by inflated headlines a glance at polymarket or kalshi is often enough to know whether something is actually happening or it's just the media corporations trying to get your attention.
Of course there should be limits with regards to what kind of markets are allowed on these platforms. But in a lot of areas there's genuine price discovery happening that's not available anywhere else.
2. I think the existence of prediction markets can change the outcome of events. See the Super Bowl Streaker as an example.
3. I don’t have a strong use for prediction market odds. In the few areas of my life that require forecasting I have sources of information i understand and trust more, sometimes with private data not available to the general public.
100%. I have no earthly idea what the value of these markets is for things I'm not an expert in (I assume they're roughly equivalent to asking the bots and teenagers on Reddit and pretending that's crowd-sourcing, given what they show in things I understand well), and I have no use for them in things I am an expert in.
But hey, at least government employees/soldiers can cash in on secret operations before they happen? That's fun, or whatever.
A market that only works as long as participants in the market also pretend that they aren't in a market is nonfunctional.
Let all reasoning be silent when experience gainsays its conclusion. The beautiful libertarian theories have failed.
Perhaps a solution instead of banning them would be to create a class similar to accredited investors that are allowed to participate. And stuff like market manipulation should just be prosecuted in old fashioned ways like we prosecute any crime.
It's like you make something legal, and some group of people try as hard as possible to push the limit as far as they can, and in turn ruin for everyone.
You could just force the biggest entities in this space to comply and people wouldn't care enough about secretly betting on wars so it would all work out.
* if you make it so that everyone sees what their neighbor betted on then overall predictions will become less accurate due to social signaling
Christianity has some good stuff (love thy neighbor, etc), but I'd rather we not lean too heavily on it for public policy, for obvious reasons
In sports? Perhaps you just observe a player get injured in a car accident and bet based on that.
Obviously, insider trading, but as a society we have long decided that this is evil.
And if we compare markets where I am ready to put my money where my mouth is, then this actually is called gambling. Just not a game of chance but rather game of skill.
It becomes problematic when we make a game of it and add financial stakes. Gambling is a lot like drugs in its ability to hijack the brain's reward circuits. I stopped investing in cryptocurrencies because seeing +400% profits was like crack. I never gambled any money I couldn't afford to lose but there are people out there who were leveraging their entire lives to FOMO into markets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Trust_%26_Clearing_...
You actually participate meaningfully in the outcome via investing instead of just price discovery and the successes are derived from the valuation or income of the venture instead of the losers. The participation is not only in impact on their credit rating and sales but also concrete choices in government of it.
Not to mention in principle there is an actual activity being backed by the investment to produce non-zero sum gains. While there may be risks involved in say, running a turnip farm or sending a ship across the ocean, you are still supporting a useful activity for its own end. Crucially as well there is motivation to do the task even without the market, even though it may enable it.
If you can manipulate the outcome of the turnip farm (as opposed to the market) to make it succeed that is doing useful work and not just cheating a bet. A guideline of the distinction would be - would charging somebody for making the outcome successful in a not otherwise criminal way be a Kafkaesque injustice?
You can in fact use the market to gamble via options intended for credit or insurance but stopping those by stopping the market entirely would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.