[seemorenuts]

I saw about a dozen major errors in logic in this post, but it would take too long for too little benefit to point them all out.

Insurance does NOT equal redistribution.

If you used that equals sign to mean something else, maybe.

Only the third clause in your second paragraph is true.

"Immoral" isn't so subjective that you can throw it around incorrectly. The gambles are not zero EV as defined by Sklansky, so the fourth paragraph got off to a bad start.

You don't need to use utility, it's erroneous to say that nothing is contributed to society if you don't produce something; entertainment would fall under the services umbrella.

[ QUOTE ]
This is because +ve utility derived from winning is greater in magnitude than -ve utility resulting from losing (though rake plays a role too).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again. Do you understand the concept of marginal utility?

Why "should" wealthy people use their money to help others?
That's another debate.

Sixth paragraph: you're obfuscating by introducing the concept of these nebulous ethical frameworks; and confusing the utility for the benefit of the wealthy spender with the overall utility to a broader community. In any event, the latter use has greater utility, irrespective of the ethical framework.

Seventh paragraph: much more than $10K would have been 'wasted' in that scenario, you would have to say that the bankrolls needed to avoid ruin were 'wasted' which is a much higher number--so high that your ;waste' of 'millions of dollars' in your SUV example is unconvincing.

If we exclude the comment about religion in Sklansky's post, it's a simple matter of choosing what to admire so as to more effectively play poker to win. When he insinuated that aside, I think he complicated the simple message.

"Nothing real happens" is incorrect, as you've taken millions (not merely $10K, so as to lower the risk of ruin) out of circulation to afford that luxury.

I don't see how your last sentence follows from your erroneous argument--how do you base what you should* or should not admire on the fact that the habits revolve around consumption to the exclusion of gambling habits?

P.S. there are several reasons why purchasing SUVs are good for society, you have omitted mention of those.

*Lastly, don't ignore the naturalistic fallacy, but I think that's getting ahead of ourselves.