clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) (07/11/85)
In article <702@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura|Barrister Jimomura Solicitor|Toronto) writes: > ... > As for lotteries being immoral, suit yourself. >I won't argue morality. Purely out of personal >interest, what is the basis for your version of >morality. I have no intention of arguing it's >validity. It's your business. I agree with the comment that lotteries are immoral. They have been called -- perhaps in an attempt to find a bon mot, but truly all the same -- "a tax on the stupid". A rational person who knows something about probability and has alternative ways to improve his or her situation does not buy lottery tickets. Therefore to buy lottery tickets you must be either (1) stupid or (2) hope- lessly poor. I consider it immoral for politicians who are neither stupid (in spite of our common prejudices) nor poor to offer this kind of temptation to people whose money would be better spent buying milk. I understand the temptation for the politicians themselves: they want to keep me happy by using lottery profits to keep taxes down. But most immoral actions are prompted by some kind of temptation. I'd rather pay higher taxes, thanks.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/11/85)
> ... A rational person who knows something about probability and has > alternative ways to improve his or her situation does not buy lottery tickets. I think I fit this description, and I occasionally buy a lottery ticket. I don't expect to win; the cost is filed under "entertainment expenses" rather than "investments". Mind you, my lottery-ticket budget is $20/yr, and I've underspent it for the last decade or so... I generally agree with the rest of Jim's comments. Lottery advertising is particularly obnoxious, and is obviously aimed at convincing the stupid and poor that their lucky day is just around the corner. I'm not sure that I consider the lottery business out-and-out morally wrong, since the reasoning for this would apply to many other forms of advertising hype as well, but it's definitely on the sleazy side. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
clewis@mnetor.UUCP (07/11/85)
In article <1243@utcsri.UUCP> clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: > A rational person who knows something about probability and has >alternative ways to improve his or her situation does not buy lottery tickets. That's silly. I KNOW that the probability of winning is virtually nil. I also am doing quite well financially thank you. And, I'm rational (so far as I can tell! :-)). But, the occasional "waste" of a couple of bucks doesn't hurt me in exchange for some minor entertainment/excitement and the off chance (certainly remote) of getting rich. Certainly, I would be somewhat annoyed if lottery revenue went into the general Government taxation pot - but none of them (to my knowledge) do. Consider lottery revenue voluntary contributions to programs and projects that would be screamed about if they came out of general revenues. ("What! My tax revenue is being used to pay for little league hockey uniforms in Moose Factory?! (or birth control clinics in Vancouver, or right to life groups in Sask - choose your favorite hated group) - I'll never vote for you again!") No, lotteries aren't immoral - but the people who participate in them to the point of financial strain are sick (exactly the same as compulsive gamblers (horse bettors etc.) similarly alcoholics) and should be treated. If you DO consider lotteries immoral for the reasons you specify, then, following the same argument, alcohol should be considered immoral. Same for horse betting. As would card games and other such "vices". Are you a member of the WCTU or something? I know Fred isn't. Sheesh! -- Chris Lewis, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321
acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (07/12/85)
In article <1243@utcsri.UUCP> clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: > A rational person who knows something about probability and has >alternative ways to improve his or her situation does not buy lottery tickets. >Therefore to buy lottery tickets you must be either (1) stupid or (2) hope- >lessly poor. I consider it immoral for politicians who are neither stupid >(in spite of our common prejudices) nor poor to offer this kind of temptation >to people whose money would be better spent buying milk. To suggest that all people buy lottery tickets because they are hopelessly poor or stupid is a rather condescending attitude to adopt towards a large segment of our society. Many people buy lottery tickets as a form of entertainment fully realizing that they won't win. While anticipating the draw they can dream about what they would do if they won all that money and that has a certain entertainment value. Yes, I know you don't need a lottery ticket to dream, but that ticket makes the probability of that dream coming true a lot higher than if you didn't have a ticket. I don't want to leave the impression that the only hope or dreams that these people have is the 'weekly lottery' but instead that it is a fun thing to do just like going to a movie, or going out for a beer with friends on a Friday evening so that you can kill off a few brain cells. People who are otherwise rational may smoke, drink, ingest hallucinogens, eat to excess, or read the Globe and Wail. All these activities are viewed by their participants as enjoyable and entertaining even if the actions are of a dubious nature. As a result there is no reason to suggest that lottery tickets won't be bought by otherwise rational people even if they know something about probability and aren't poor. It is unfortunate that people buy lottery tickets for the reasons that Jim has outlined. It is also unfortunate, but true, that some of the types of people who buy lottery tickets instead of milk also buy cigarettes and alcohol which is just as big a waste of money. You can't legislate common sense and even if you could I don't think you should. If you decide to ban government lotteries do you get rid of bingos and the lotteries run by the Lions and Kinsmen too? Do you ban lotteries even when the vast majority of people who buy tickets aren't poor or stupid? Are lotteries themselves an immoral act or is it just the promotion of them by the politicians/advertisers as a panacea for personal and governmental financial problems that is immoral? > >I'd rather pay higher taxes, thanks. > I'd like the government to reduce its spending all round and then we wouldn't have to contemplate the possibility of more lotteries or increased taxation. (Maybe we could even have reduced taxes, but that is a concept foreign to politicians.) Donald Acton PS I have never bought a lottery ticket but on occasion have been guilty of reading the Globe and Wail.
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (07/12/85)
In article <1243@utcsri.UUCP> clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: >I'd rather pay higher taxes, thanks. I wouldn't. Jim Robinson
anthony@utcsstat.UUCP (07/12/85)
In article <1243@utcsri.UUCP> clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: >the stupid". A rational person who knows something about probability and has >alternative ways to improve his or her situation does not buy lottery tickets. >Therefore to buy lottery tickets you must be either (1) stupid or (2) hope- >lessly poor. I consider it immoral for politicians who are neither stupid >(in spite of our common prejudices) nor poor to offer this kind of temptation >to people whose money would be better spent buying milk. Applying basic probability theory, it can be shown that for every dollar invested in Wintario, the expected return is 47 cents. Conversely, the expected return on the same dollar at the race track is 87 cents and 93 to 95 cents at Las Vegas! On the average, lotteries in this country provide a return of 42 to 49 cents on the dollar. >lessly poor. I consider it immoral for politicians who are neither stupid >(in spite of our common prejudices) nor poor to offer this kind of temptation >to people whose money would be better spent buying milk. Definitely!! Taxing the poor by exploiting their circumstances with false hopes leaves something to be desired of. -- {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!utcsstat!anthony {ihnp4|decvax|utzoo|utcsrgv}!utcs!utzoo!utcsstat!anthony
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (07/12/85)
I'm an not exactly hopelessly poor (though definitely not rich)
and I doubt if I am stupid by most normal measurements (my third yr.
at U. of Windsor law school saw me ranked something like top 20%).
I buy lottery tickets. Not many, and not with any expectation
of winning. I also enter some other contests on occasion. Ironically,
my win/loss average over my lifetime may actually be on the plus side
(most things I enter are free or for the cost of a postage stamp and
envelope). Mainly it depends on how you value some of the non-money
things I've won.
Like I said. Morality is your business (or Fred's or anybody
elses). I don't feel my above statement makes your reasoning invalid.
Maybe you're right. I guess I just don't *feel* that gamblings wrong.
I have no religious basis for morality (not in the traditional sense)
which is what I expected Fred to put forward (or anybody else).
--
James Omura, Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomurafred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (07/12/85)
In article <1243@utcsri.UUCP> clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: >I understand the temptation for the politicians themselves: they want to keep >me happy by using lottery profits to keep taxes down. But most immoral actions >are prompted by some kind of temptation. > >I'd rather pay higher taxes, thanks. Right! But the thing is, we're paying higher taxes *and* we've still got the lotteries. Cheers, Fred Williams
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (07/12/85)
In article <1268@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >That's silly. I KNOW that the probability of winning is virtually nil. >I also am doing quite well financially thank you. And, I'm rational (so >far as I can tell! :-)). But, the occasional "waste" of a couple of bucks >doesn't hurt me in exchange for some minor entertainment/excitement and >the off chance (certainly remote) of getting rich. > OK Chris, so you found a counter example of someone who was not destitute, still rational, (nnyyeeeaaaaahhhh, *just kidding*), and buys lottery tickets. However, just because you occasionally do it, doesn't make it moral. I was talking with Sophie yesterday, and admitted that even I have bought the occassional wintario ticket. I consider them donations, (3 in my life), to some of the causes they support. But I did win $25 and that leaves me about $10 ahead. I doubt I'll buy any more. Now if I want to donate to a local hockey team I'll look them up and give them the money directly, and feel better about doing it. >the general Government taxation pot - but none of them (to my knowledge) >do. Consider lottery revenue voluntary contributions to programs and >following the same argument, alcohol should be considered immoral. Same >for horse betting. As would card games and other such "vices". Are you >a member of the WCTU or something? I know Fred isn't. > Alcohol, horse betting, betting for cash, playing cards for cash, etc. *are* immoral. This doesn't mean I'm getting rid of the wine in my cellar. I do have my vices, believe it or not, but you'll never see me drunk. Cheers, Fred Williams. PS: Chris, I know what you're comment will be so I'll leave it in from the previous posting. >Sheesh!
fred@mnetor.UUCP (07/12/85)
In article <706@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura|Barrister Jimomura Solicitor|Toronto) writes: >elses). I don't feel my above statement makes your reasoning invalid. >Maybe you're right. I guess I just don't *feel* that gamblings wrong. >I have no religious basis for morality (not in the traditional sense) >which is what I expected Fred to put forward (or anybody else). > I thought my ears were burning. Please don't get me wrong. I am not trying to dictate morality to the net. I'm merely giving my ideas in the hope of stimulating a little further action on the net. Do my ideas of morality have a religous basis? Well, I really don't want to get into a discussion on religon, certainly not in this newsgroup, it's not the place. I don't follow an organised religon. My ideas of morality, I like to think, are based on logic, or at least as close as I can come. Cheers, Fred Williams
clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) (07/12/85)
In article <1268@mnetor.UUCP> clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis) writes: >In article <1243@utcsri.UUCP> clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: >> A rational person who knows something about probability and has >>alternative ways to improve his or her situation does not buy lottery tickets. Well, not as a means of advancement, anyway. Apologies to everyone who gets a thrill out of spend a couple of bucks for a chance of becoming rich that they know is worth much less than that. (Sorry: that sounds critical. It's not meant to.) >Certainly, I would be somewhat annoyed if lottery revenue went into >the general Government taxation pot.... Can't think why. >No, lotteries aren't immoral - but the people who participate in them >to the point of financial strain are sick (exactly the same as compulsive >gamblers (horse bettors etc.) similarly alcoholics) and should be treated. Well, yes, they're sick, but not in "exactly the same [way] as...". The cure for their disease is a better life and more money. Most lottery-ticket buyers -- and I believe the best surveys show this -- are people who aren't very well off, have grungy jobs, and are middling desperate about their lives. You're not a typical buyer. >If you DO consider lotteries immoral for the reasons you specify, then, >following the same argument, alcohol should be considered immoral. Same >for horse betting. As would card games and other such "vices". Are you >a member of the WCTU or something? I know Fred isn't. Horse betting isn't such a problem; I don't think very many people do that. But, as you say, for these reasons alcohol should be considered immoral -- or at least making it should. Sure, I like to drink a couple of beers or a glasses of wine occasionally, and it's not immoral to sell to people like you or me. But lots of people's lives are ruined by the demon drink, and I sure wouldn't want to be making my money that way. The WCTU has a point. Unfortunately, it seems you can't ban alcohol. It's been tried, and people just want it too much. You can ban lotteries, at least to the extent that ticket-buying goes way down, and it is even possible to ban it and have relatively innocuous people running the illegal lotteries. We had that happy but precarious situation in the good old Irish Sweepstake days, remember? But I doubt that we can get it back.
anthony@utcsstat.UUCP (Anthony Ayiomamitis) (07/12/85)
How true. Taxes just keep going up and up and up. I think there is
a very interesting one-to-one correspondence between taxes and lotteries.
The former were created during the war to help offset its cost. For some
reason they forgot to do away with taxes once war was over (I wonder why -:)).
With lotteries, they were supposedly a one time thing (to help pay for the
1976 Olympics). But these have also stuck around.
The government will do ANYTHING to raise money. Especially if there
is no public outcry (for example, Lotteries).
--
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!utcsstat!anthony
{ihnp4|decvax|utzoo|utcsrgv}!utcs!utzoo!utcsstat!anthonymike@genat.UUCP (07/12/85)
> In article <1243@utcsri.UUCP> clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: > > >the stupid". A rational person who knows something about probability and has > >alternative ways to improve his or her situation does not buy lottery tickets. > > Applying basic probability theory, it can be shown that for every > dollar invested in Wintario, the expected return is 47 cents. Conversely, > the expected return on the same dollar at the race track is 87 cents and > 93 to 95 cents at Las Vegas! > On the average, lotteries in this country provide a return of 42 > to 49 cents on the dollar. > Ah yes, but did you take into account the benifits derived from the Wintario funded Pools, Arenas, etc. which have come about due to the lottery? Mike Stephenson
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/12/85)
It is worth remembering that probability-based arguments indicating that
lottery tickets are a losing proposition have a serious flaw: the
sample set is not large enough to be a statistical universe. If I buy
one $10 ticket for a lottery that has a $1M grand prize and nothing else,
and spends 1/2 of its take on the prize, my expected return is *not*
$5. It is "zero or $1M". Speaking of an average expected return is not
meaningful for a single ticket. This is what makes lotteries interesting...
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryanthony@utcsstat.UUCP (Anthony Ayiomamitis) (07/12/85)
In <5784@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > It is worth remembering that probability-based arguments indicating that > lottery tickets are a losing proposition have a serious flaw: the > sample set is not large enough to be a statistical universe. If I buy Probability based arguments use what mathematicians/statisticians call expected values - i.e. what is the AVERAGE return given a decent number of chances. Expected values are completely independent of the sample set since Exp Value = sum (x times p(x)) where p(x) is the probability that event x will occur and x is simply the event's value (for example, $). Thus, if some proposition has an EV of 10 units and it will cost 5 units to participate, given completely random conditions, I should expect that in all likelihood I will come out ahead. Similarly, if I were to participate in such a lottery daily, I will expect to be nicely in the black at some future date (the longer away this "future date" is the better I can be sure of my being in the black!). With lotteries, the converse is of course true (i.e. EV <<< cost of partic.) since they must make money to be worthwhile to the organizers. > one $10 ticket for a lottery that has a $1M grand prize and nothing else, > and spends 1/2 of its take on the prize, my expected return is *not* > $5. It is "zero or $1M". Speaking of an average expected return is not No way!! Average expected returns mean that if you were to continously bet, IN THE LONG RUN, you will be averaging the expected value as your winnings. To compute the expected return, you have to know the probability of winning the $1M. For your return to be "zero or $1M" you are assumming that the probability of winning is 0.000000... or 1.0! In fact, since your example has only one prize, you are guaranteed that the expected return will be between $0 and $1M (and the probability of winning will determine how close you are to $0 or $1M). > $5. It is "zero or $1M". Speaking of an average expected return is not > meaningful for a single ticket. This is what makes lotteries interesting... It is meaningful in the sense that it tells you the odds of getting a return. If the expected value for Wintario is 99 cents, you would expect some sort of return almost every time out (even with 1 ticket). Conversely, if the expected return is 0.01 cents, whether you buy 1 or 100 tickets, don't bother worrying about expecting any winnings. IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, you will win nothing in the latter case. What makes lotteries interesting is the possibility of YOU being the 1 out of x thousands that gets the big pot only. However, an average expected return is as meaningful for one ticket as it is for 10,000 tickets since the expected return is not based on the number of tickets bought but the PROPORTION (in one sense) of the ticket's value. Thus, if the expected return on Wintario is x cents, whether you buy 1 or 10,000 tickets, your average return is going to be x cents per dollar. By buying more tickets the only thing that you are doing is increasing the chances of winning at least one prize. > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry -- {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!utcsstat!anthony {ihnp4|decvax|utzoo|utcsrgv}!utcs!utzoo!utcsstat!anthony
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/13/85)
>>No, lotteries aren't immoral - but the people who participate in them >>to the point of financial strain are sick (exactly the same as compulsive >>gamblers (horse bettors etc.) similarly alcoholics) and should be treated. > >Well, yes, they're sick, but not in "exactly the same [way] as...". The >cure for their disease is a better life and more money. Most lottery-ticket >buyers -- and I believe the best surveys show this -- are people who aren't >very well off, have grungy jobs, and are middling desperate about their lives. >You're not a typical buyer. Most PEOPLE "aren't very well off, have grungy jobs, and are middling desperate about their lives. The unanswered question is: are such people more or less likely to buy lottery tickets (which they probably can't afford) than are people who are well off or are happy with their jobs or lives? I have no idea of the answer, but I doubt that people are as likely to be ruined by addiction to lotteries as they are by addiction to tobacco or alcohol. I don't think any of these things are immoral, just dangerous if carried to extremes (like drinking water). Also, to put some oil on troubled flames: is there anything so wrong with profiting from people's stupidity (if indeed lottery playing is stupid) when the consequences have been clearly pointed out to the victims? [Note: I'm not so sure the analysis from expected value is appropriate to the lottery situation. The variance of gain is very high in comparison to its expectation, since one can't buy enough tickets in a lifetime to smooth the statistics. Also, one big win more than compensates for all the tickets one could reasonably buy (or even unreasonably buy). This win could make a big difference in one's lifestyle, whereas all the losses combined are unlikely to make much of a change. The expected utility of the lottery may well be positive, even when the expected gain is negative. These two factors (high variance, and expected utility) make it far from obvious that playing lotteries is stupid. For the record, I buy lottery tickets for people at Xmas, and once or twice a year otherwise. So far, I guess the net gain is about minus a couple of hundred dollars over several years.] -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
cjbiggin@watmath.UUCP (Colin Biggin) (07/13/85)
> >Most PEOPLE "aren't very well off, have grungy jobs, and are middling >desperate about their lives. The unanswered question is: are such people >more or less likely to buy lottery tickets (which they probably can't >afford) than are people who are well off or are happy with their jobs >or lives? Perhaps the reason they buy lottery tickets is to become well off, quit their grungy job, and become hopeful and positive about their lives. Or is that just too obviously simple an explanation as to the motive why people buy lottery tickets. I personally buy about one lottery-type ticket about once every two months. It's usually when the pot in 6/49 goes to 6 or 7 million. I don't get any pangs of guilt when I buy it. I don't think it's immoral either. I seem to remember always having church raffles around Christmas time. Not to mention that churches in this country also run most of the bingo games. Obviously *anything* taken to extreme is not a good thing. But in mild doses, it's not such a bad thing either... To the poor and destitute of this country (which is far fewer than most other countries) lotteries might provide the only hope of a better existence. Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.... -- Colin Biggin University of Waterloo
lionel@garfield.UUCP (Lionel H. Moser) (07/15/85)
> > > Ah yes, but did you take into account the benifits derived from > the Wintario funded Pools, Arenas, etc. which have come about due to the > lottery? > > Mike Stephenson 1) Didn't governments build pools and arenas before Wintario? The Government of Alberta has argued many times that because of the Alberta Heritage fund they could do things like build convention centres, buy wheat cars, fund public transportation, fund public housing, build arts centres... Saskatchewan doesn't have a "Heritage Fund" and they also buy wheat cars. EVERY government in the country provides these services! They have nothing to do with lotteries. If they are paid for from lottery profits then the general revenues formerly allocated to these services is redirected or released. 2) (In response to other postings on the same issue.) "Most" people who buy lottery tickets are neither poor nor stupid. Last time I read the stats, the number of lottery tickets per capita in Canada was equal across income groups. Therefore, we can deduce that poor people spend, on the average, a larger part of their disposable income on lottery tickets. But they don't necessarily buy them more often. Lionel Moser Department of Computer Science Memorial University of Newfoundland UUCP: {ihnp4, utcsri, allegra} !garfield!lionel
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (07/15/85)
. . . > > Also, to put some oil on troubled flames: is there anything so wrong > with profiting from people's stupidity (if indeed lottery playing is stupid) > when the consequences have been clearly pointed out to the victims? > How about rephrasing the question as: Is there anything so wrong with conditioning people to behave in a certain way and then profitting from their inability to control the conditioned response after they have been warned of the consequences of the conditioned response? . . . > > Martin Taylor > {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt > {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman
clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) (07/15/85)
In article <15740@watmath.UUCP> cjbiggin@watmath.UUCP (Colin Biggin) writes: >> >>Most PEOPLE "aren't very well off, have grungy jobs, and are middling >>desperate about their lives. The unanswered question is: are such people >>more or less likely to buy lottery tickets (which they probably can't >>afford) than are people who are well off or are happy with their jobs >>or lives? > >Perhaps the reason they buy lottery tickets is to become well off, quit >their grungy job, and become hopeful and positive about their lives. Of course! My point is that that's NOT a reasonable way to improve your life, and (perhaps I didn't say this clearly) most people don't know enough about probability to know this. >I personally buy about one lottery-type ticket about once every two >months. It's usually when the pot in 6/49 goes to 6 or 7 million. >I don't get any pangs of guilt when I buy it. I don't think it's >immoral either. I seem to remember always having church raffles >around Christmas time. Not to mention that churches in this country >also run most of the bingo games.... Maybe I also didn't say clearly: I don't think it's immoral to gamble, drink or smoke, as long as you're not hurting someone else by doing it. I doubt that anyone who has commented on this issue hurts anyone else by buying lottery tickets at the levels being mentioned, unless there are programmers/computer scientists out there being paid at surprisingly low rates. Not everything churches do is right. (Let's not get into *that* argument!) Also, not all churches run raffles and bingo games. Example: the United Church. The UC won't even accept government help for its projects, if the money comes from lotteries. Sounds a little on the hyper-pure side, but I think they're right. >To the poor and destitute of this country (which is far fewer than >most other countries) lotteries might provide the only hope of a >better existence. Today's "opiate of the masses"? Maybe that's why the churches like them.
peterr@utcsri.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (07/15/85)
Consider the lottery in which: you spend time (= money!) you only rarely hit the jackpot and you usually get nothing you keep playing nonetheless Yes, folks, that's USENet. And it doesn't even help to build hospitals. Cynically yours, p. rowley, U. Toronto