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

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]
Market place determines demand... not some dudes arguing on the net.

[/ QUOTE ]
The market does not always decide perfectly. Sometimes the market produces externalities.

[Jack Ruby]

No one is forced to play anywhere.

I am still confused by the distinction between sports and poker.

Exactly what is Tiger Woods contributing by being able to play 18 holes of golf better than the next guy?

[Jack Ruby]

You know better than the market Dima?

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]
No one is forced to play anywhere.

I am still confused by the distinction between sports and poker.

Exactly what is Tiger Woods contributing by being able to play 18 holes of golf better than the next guy?

[/ QUOTE ]
Tiger woods is watched by a bunch of people, creating entertainment in the process. Nobody watches an online pro in his underwear playing 12 tables at once and derives entertainment from it.

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]
You know better than the market Dima?

[/ QUOTE ]
I know enough about how markets work to know when they don't work perfectly. I know enough not to regard market as some sort of deity. Markets fail when one person's profit comes at another person's expense. Markets work when one person's profit comes from enriching society on the whole.

[Tien]

But back to OP's original post. Whenever someone said to me that poker doesn't contribute anything to society I always found it to be a pretty facetious statement.

So many of the jobs out there that contribute to society come from derivitives of greed, or chosen because of the greed factor.

Everyone just wants to make the most amount of money possible. Whether or not it is a contributing profession is hardly ever a deciding factor over whether or not the profession is chosen. So that is were I find it facetious, why bring up contribution to society if it was never a deciding factor to begin with in 99.99% of the jobs chosen.

[Jack Ruby]

The competition is paying the online player.
The online player earns far less than Tiger Woods.

The competition chooses to play the online player.
Some people railbird and derive entertainment.

Your argument is very flawed and prejudiced in my opinion.

What the poker player is wearing is entirely irrelevant.

There clearly is a demand for opposition at poker.
Lots of losing players choose to use their disposable income which supports the winning player.

This is what is happening in the marketplace.

[Piece of Cake]

Contributing to society is a fallacy I created and told your pastor so people would irrationally neglect their possible ability to specialize in poker playing and thus allow less competition.

[otter]

Other than paying taxes we don't contribute a damn thing. I'm fine with that.

[raptor517]

i think giving 44% of what i make to the government is plenty of contribution.