Rendered at 18:11:06 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
lxgr 1 days ago [-]
> If all of this money went into the capital markets instead [...]
Money is neither created nor destroyed in prediction markets. (In most cases, the collateral goes into boring money market fund like fixed-income products, as far as I understand.)
The real concern here is that, for many people, paid employment simply doesn't look like a viable way to earn a living anymore, so they feel the need to play high-risk, high-reward games in the first place. Capital markets are a great way to preserve and modestly grow one's wealth. If there's no reasonable perspective of any wealth in the first place, is it any wonder that people are looking beyond?
In other words: If your job is at most paying half of what you need to lead the life you want to live (and that, in many cases, your parents have been able to afford working the same job just fine), suddenly betting on a game that pays double or nothing doesn't seem so irrational anymore.
garciasn 24 hours ago [-]
> The real concern here is that, for many people, paid employment simply doesn't look like a viable way to earn a living anymore, so they feel the need to play high-risk, high-reward games in the first place.
This cannot possibly be the motivation; gambling is very rarely a worthwhile investment.
Manipulation through advertising, mobile app behavior alteration, and ease of access are the sole motivators here.
cyanydeez 23 hours ago [-]
Gambling addition is a addiction. No one who has it is rational. Same way drugs is an addiction, people who are on drugs are rarely thinking rational.
And why would they when there's very few options to begin with.
I dont get what you think is happening when people gamble or take drugs. Rarely is the reason rational and sober.
19 hours ago [-]
mandeepj 23 hours ago [-]
You referred the line about “capital markets”, but made a comment about prediction markets
lxgr 23 hours ago [-]
So does the quoted text, no? It contrasts the two.
watwut 22 hours ago [-]
> people, paid employment simply doesn't look like a viable way to earn a living anymore, so they feel the need to play high-risk, high-reward games in the first place.
The odds are such that they loose. Gamblers end up with less money. These people are addicts solving their emotional problem at high financial cost and debt.
> suddenly betting on a game that pays double or nothing doesn't seem so irrational anymore.
It is as irrational as in any other situation. And odds are not double or nothing. That would simply made betting pointless
lxgr 5 hours ago [-]
> And odds are not double or nothing. That would simply made betting pointless
If you bet on a prediction market sitting at 50%, the odds are literally double or nothing. How does that make it pointless?
> The odds are such that they loose. Gamblers end up with less money. These people are addicts solving their emotional problem at high financial cost and debt.
The same action in the same market, taken by different people, can both be irrational gambling or perfectly rational risk hedging, regardless of whether the game is stacked against its players or not.
Gambling is probably a lot like substance addiction: There's probably a huge inherent component to it that makes some people much more prone to get addicted to it than others, but circumstances can vastly increase the chances that any given person is pushed in a bad direction. Gamification and societal normalization of gambling certainly can be that kind of nudge.
tancop 3 hours ago [-]
Money going into capital markets is not automatically productive. Buying bonds and shares from the issuing company (or through an intermediary) is productive because you're helping them expand production in exchange for future profits.
Trading on the stock market is not productive by definition. None of the money is actually invested in a company that would use it to open a factory or develop a new product. It's just as zero sum as gambling, but the ones who lose the most are the people who can't afford to participate.
kicksent 1 days ago [-]
This is just another justification piece to blame millenials and gen z for the economy.
How about some real journalism about how propping up the economy through money printing has destroyed opportunity for the current working generation which has led them to these types of behaviors?
dingaling911 15 hours ago [-]
When COVID happened, logically, that should've crashed the housing market. But instead it went up. Why? Money printing.
Absolutely immoral to prop up wealth for the richest generation while simultaneously protecting them and destroying life for the following generations for 2 years with potentially permanent consequences for the younger ones.
tinuviel 1 days ago [-]
Are you saying the facts presented in the article are false? Many things can be true at once.
andsoitis 1 days ago [-]
That's not the title of the article.
pixl97 24 hours ago [-]
Articles quite often A/B their titles....
k310 1 days ago [-]
> American capitalism was a win-win. We've abandoned it to bet | Opinion
> If all of this money went into the capital markets instead, it would finance the growth of companies through innovation and entrepreneurship, as well as infrastructure that girds the economy.
It's all about the fortune spent on prediction markets. The NBA just announced deals with them. It's capitalism's ultimate dream: "Self Regulation".
1 days ago [-]
RussianBot9580 15 hours ago [-]
Becoming? Any economy is zero sum by definition. There are only so many people in the world, and they can only produce and consume so much. Growth in terms of game tokens that are designed to be inflationary isn't growth, it's just the way the game directs its next round.
5 hours ago [-]
semiquaver 1 days ago [-]
> More than a quarter of Gen Z and millennials surveyed together by Global Strategy Group said they participated in prediction markets, versus 10% of Gen X and just 2% of baby boomers.
This statement borders on lying. At the least it’s extremely misleading framing not supported by their own link.
The 25% of “prediction market” users are entirely doing sports gambling. Two different things that the gambling market desperately wants everyone to confuse.
BS article, do not read.
rdiddly 24 hours ago [-]
How are they so different? Seems like sports is just a special case of the larger category.
npc99 23 hours ago [-]
so, to be clear, are you seeking to mislead us into thinking there is something fundamentally different between gambling on sporting events versus on things like election outcomes?
semiquaver 23 hours ago [-]
> there is something fundamentally different between gambling on sporting events versus on things like election outcomes
Yes. Everyone seems to like sports gambling and no one whatsoever cares about non-sports-gambling prediction markets. Thats the difference. Framing this as an issue about prediction markets is misleading. It’s about sports gambling only
npc99 23 hours ago [-]
A lot of people are pretty puritanical about gambling in general. I think prediction markets just push themselves harder and have an air of tech bro douchebaggery about them, so that's why they are currently getting most of the hate.
rdiddly 18 hours ago [-]
From the linked survey results:
Percent who say they "frequently" or "sometimes" engage in:
online sports betting: 23%
prediction markets: 14%
Not a huge difference. I would say the two things are not materially different in popularity (in this one survey).
The article (which I agree is a bit crappy) even goes out of its way to mention the two things separately in the sentence "For someone to win in a prediction market or sports bet, someone else has to lose." They are different things, but they are both zero-sum, which is the point of the article. So the two things are not really different in principle, either.
I can't really grasp what your point is or how you can criticize the article for not being unsupported by the link, and then misrepresent the contents of the link.
Money is neither created nor destroyed in prediction markets. (In most cases, the collateral goes into boring money market fund like fixed-income products, as far as I understand.)
The real concern here is that, for many people, paid employment simply doesn't look like a viable way to earn a living anymore, so they feel the need to play high-risk, high-reward games in the first place. Capital markets are a great way to preserve and modestly grow one's wealth. If there's no reasonable perspective of any wealth in the first place, is it any wonder that people are looking beyond?
In other words: If your job is at most paying half of what you need to lead the life you want to live (and that, in many cases, your parents have been able to afford working the same job just fine), suddenly betting on a game that pays double or nothing doesn't seem so irrational anymore.
This cannot possibly be the motivation; gambling is very rarely a worthwhile investment.
Manipulation through advertising, mobile app behavior alteration, and ease of access are the sole motivators here.
And why would they when there's very few options to begin with.
I dont get what you think is happening when people gamble or take drugs. Rarely is the reason rational and sober.
The odds are such that they loose. Gamblers end up with less money. These people are addicts solving their emotional problem at high financial cost and debt.
> suddenly betting on a game that pays double or nothing doesn't seem so irrational anymore.
It is as irrational as in any other situation. And odds are not double or nothing. That would simply made betting pointless
If you bet on a prediction market sitting at 50%, the odds are literally double or nothing. How does that make it pointless?
> The odds are such that they loose. Gamblers end up with less money. These people are addicts solving their emotional problem at high financial cost and debt.
The same action in the same market, taken by different people, can both be irrational gambling or perfectly rational risk hedging, regardless of whether the game is stacked against its players or not.
Gambling is probably a lot like substance addiction: There's probably a huge inherent component to it that makes some people much more prone to get addicted to it than others, but circumstances can vastly increase the chances that any given person is pushed in a bad direction. Gamification and societal normalization of gambling certainly can be that kind of nudge.
Trading on the stock market is not productive by definition. None of the money is actually invested in a company that would use it to open a factory or develop a new product. It's just as zero sum as gambling, but the ones who lose the most are the people who can't afford to participate.
How about some real journalism about how propping up the economy through money printing has destroyed opportunity for the current working generation which has led them to these types of behaviors?
Absolutely immoral to prop up wealth for the richest generation while simultaneously protecting them and destroying life for the following generations for 2 years with potentially permanent consequences for the younger ones.
> If all of this money went into the capital markets instead, it would finance the growth of companies through innovation and entrepreneurship, as well as infrastructure that girds the economy.
It's all about the fortune spent on prediction markets. The NBA just announced deals with them. It's capitalism's ultimate dream: "Self Regulation".
The 25% of “prediction market” users are entirely doing sports gambling. Two different things that the gambling market desperately wants everyone to confuse.
BS article, do not read.
Yes. Everyone seems to like sports gambling and no one whatsoever cares about non-sports-gambling prediction markets. Thats the difference. Framing this as an issue about prediction markets is misleading. It’s about sports gambling only
Percent who say they "frequently" or "sometimes" engage in:
online sports betting: 23%
prediction markets: 14%
Not a huge difference. I would say the two things are not materially different in popularity (in this one survey).
The article (which I agree is a bit crappy) even goes out of its way to mention the two things separately in the sentence "For someone to win in a prediction market or sports bet, someone else has to lose." They are different things, but they are both zero-sum, which is the point of the article. So the two things are not really different in principle, either.
I can't really grasp what your point is or how you can criticize the article for not being unsupported by the link, and then misrepresent the contents of the link.
Doubt