Being told "professional poker doesn't contribute to society."

[unlucky4me]

The president we have now contributes a lot to the death rate of our people.

[heater]

[ QUOTE ]
The president we have now contributes a lot to the death rate of our people.

[/ QUOTE ]

View: You're [censored] daft.

[Resistance]

Poker pros contribute jack [censored] to society, admit it.

"But we pay taxes111!!"

So does everyone else, welcome to the real world.


If you want to contribute to society, do some voluntary work a day a week, give spare money to charity, etc.

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]

Sooo, how would the world economy do if consumer spending all across the world were to be cut by 50% and how would the world economy be effected if people were to stop paying taxes?

I don't need to go to a college lecture to figure that answer out.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you need to go to college to learn to ask the right questions, which is far from a trivial skill. People don't just stop spending out of the blue, that's irrational. If they do it, they do it for a reason, like loss of income, or desire to save more (to spend more later). For what reason would people in your hypothetical scenario decide to cut spending by 50%?

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am able to think about these issues particularly clearly, more so than lots of other people in my field, because I am a gambler. So if poker players don't contribute anything, neither do academic theorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm pretty sure they teach courses in logic at cornell. you might want to look into that.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't understand the meaning of this sentence or are you deliberately dense?

Be careful stinkypete, it might require a little thing called INFERENCE. I don't know if your deductive logic capabilities can handle it.

[/ QUOTE ]

nobody's suggesting that it's impossible for a poker player to contribute to society. they're just pointing out the simple fact that the act of earning money by playing poker does nothing to contribute to society.

you wrote a paper. you are a poker player. poker players are thus in the same category as academics, because academics also write papers.

to me, that's a pretty retarded argument. but maybe you used some special ivy league logic that the rest of us mere mortals can't comprehend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pete,

Where in this post do I say that I was in the ivy league, or that I would take any pride in it if I were? What is this chip on your shoulder? In life you have a choice: You can instantly attack any statement you hear, or you can try to understand and learn from your fellow human beings.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I've made this argument a lot and so maybe I skipped over a part. I thought it was clear that my paper is essentially a glorified poker concept. I actually wrote that line and deleted it in my last post. Therefore, (oops I have to be careful with you when I use the word "therefore") I think getting some of the poker concepts such as sample size, selection bias, the value of information, etc), out there is a good thing for academia as well as the mainstream. Therefore poker is helpful to academia and others.

Sorry if I was unclear. Also sorry that I am admittedly a little proud of my work right now and I shouldn't let my enthusiasm carry me away.

[Lyric]

[ QUOTE ]
Sooo, how would the world economy do if consumer spending all across the world were to be cut by 50% and how would the world economy be effected if people were to stop paying taxes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't matter. That's not the point.

[Jack Ruby]

Online poker players provide competition/entertainment for their opponents.

Their opponents are willing to pay for the competition.

Very honest form of income.

Better player usually gets the cheese.

[mittman84]

[ QUOTE ]

If Lyric makes 200 000$ a year paying poker and paid 100 000$ last year in taxes, that 100 000$ he paid in taxes is money the US government would have never seen ever again if he or some other pro didn't win the money.

[/ QUOTE ]
You lose at this argument.

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]
Online poker players provide competition/entertainment for their opponents.

Their opponents are willing to pay for the competition.

Very honest form of income.

Better player usually gets the cheese.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do people really believe this? Are there some amateurs who quit playing poker because they couldn't find anyone skillful to play against? I would venture a guess that by far the majority of amateurs would prefer to be "entertained" by other amateurs rather than poker pros.

[Tien]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You would be correct if society can imaginarily "create" a few million jobs out of thin air overnight. What do you think happened to depressed economies with high unemployment? There AREN'T enough surpless jobs or oppurtunities to replace the millions of jobs that will be loss. Take a look at Detroit city. All the lectures in the world wouldn't be able to solve the problem of tens of thousands of unemployed people.

Jobs that aren't "productive" by YOUR definition comprise of millions of jobs out there that cannot be easily replaced by "productive" jobs overnight.


Regardless of what the jobs are, jobs that don't produce anything by your definitions are necessary to keep people employed. Poker players contribute a lot more to society than homeless bumps.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously there's going to be a short term shock if millions of jobs disappear overnight, but since that's not on the agenda, I'm not worried about it.

In the long run I'm right, our economy is dynamic, and jobs and opportunities are created as needed, and as such there is no such concept as "surplus job or opportunity". If all unproductive jobs are phased out at reasonable pace, other jobs and opportunities will be created, and on average we'd all be better off for it.

As for unproductive jobs being necessary to keep people employed, I think you're back to the broken window fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, "nonproductive" jobs will replace the other "nonproductive" jobs.


You cannot simply say all will be fine and dandy when the unemployment rate will sky rocket with the consequence of millions of people becoming unemployed.

You are downsizing the effect it will have on the economy as a whole. Not only will you lose nonproductive jobs, productive jobs will go along with it because of reduced consumer spending.

You cannot have one without having the other. Nonproductive jobs whether or not they contribute or not will still serve as a catalyst for consumer spending and taxing.