I think the simple answer here is that what was created was pleasure, and people are willing to pay for that. It brings to mind "the world's oldest profession."

Per a separate post that hasn't appeared yet, I'm not going to weigh in on the moral implications of gambling. Personally, I hate it. But from a simple wealth creation standpoint, I don't see much difference between a Casino and Disneyland. Both relieve people of their money in exchange for activities they deem to be pleasurable. Both have dozens if not hundreds of anciliary economic spin offs – air transportation, food service, lodging, rental cars, apparel and salons, souvenirs, etc.

But how would you ultimately argue that Disneyland creates wealth while the casino does not? Or would you argue that neither one creates wealth? If so, then doesn't this essentially render the entertainment industry as a non-industry?

I'm no proponent of gambling even though I live in Nevada. In fact, I'm a pretty staunch opponent because I see the spin-off effects (just take a look at Nevada's stats for high school dropouts, average wages, alcoholism and substance abuse, etc. It's way out of whack on a per capita basis). Not paying state income tax is nice, but we still have sales taxes at the register and all things being equal, I'd rather pay my own way that relying on an "industry" like gambling to fund schools, roads, etc.

But if you are going to single out the gambling industry as not producing any tangible wealth and really only being the exchange of currency, then you need to also single out any other "product" where the thing being produced is an intangible known as entertainment.

What, aside form the moral issues, is the difference between a casino and Marine World, Legoland, or Disneyland in terms of wealth creation?

"Your example, just as the previous example you used, is fallacious because you are creating a false transaction that cannot ever take place in a casino. The two gamblers were wagering against one another and nothing was provided to the two participating gamblers by a third party."

I posed a simple scenario of a bet by two people, decided by a random event, and asked if wealth had been created; and if so, what was it. You keep introducing the additional factor of a casino and the activities of its employees who facilitate gambling. I conclude your position is that gambling must always take place in a casino in order for wealth to be created and that the wealth is created by the activities of the facilitators and not the actual gambling itself.

You have fallen into the classical Marxist belief/postulate that the value of something is determined solely by the cost of labor to produce it. Seen any flying automobiles lately?

In addition to that, you claim that gambling creates wealth through related jobs. I could say the same thing (as others have) about a natural disaster, crime, and people on welfare. They all require an infrastructure that costs the rest.

Look, I’m not making any moral judgement here. In my original question, there was $20 before the hypothetical bet and $20 after the hypothetical random event (which could be something as simple as which of two birds on a fence flew away first – no casino, no staff, no capital required). In my opinion, wealth did not get created. You say it did. If so, what was it?

Let me ask you some more questions: Does a bartender deserve his salary? Does the money he accepts for his salary create wealth? How about the bar owner? The manager? The accountant? Does their industry justify a salary? How about the entertainment industry? Does the kid selling movie tickets at the theater not deserve his salary because he's facilitating a transaction for an intangible good that some people find morally repugnant and which carries no guarantee of satisfaction? Does a broker deserve his salary when all he's effectively doing is facilitating a transaction that one could negotiate oneself and taking a fee for it? Like I said before, I've never understood the moral and ethical argument that you're trying to make. Because the morals and ethics used to make it appear to be applied selectively and exclusively to this particular industry. Even secular liberal people have a very strange and ironic contempt for gambling. It's even more ironic in the case of liberals, of course, since they believe in passing out birth control to 11 year olds in junior high because "it's their choice when and where they want to have sex", but they don't believe that anyone is responsible or accountable enough to decide to spend their money on that evil, evil gambling. It's lunacy.

"A portion of every bet (or an hourly fee, depending on the casino) is removed for the casino. That money is paying somebody’s salary. It’s going into one bank account or another. So has wealth been created?"

In my opinion, no. What did that "somebody" produce to justify his salary?

You've set up a false transaction there. There is no table game anywhere in any casino where pure chance will rob one person of his money and transfer it to another. Ever hear the saying, "The house always wins"? Well that's because they do. There is no casino game besides poker that pits people against each other for their money. And even in poker the house gets their take. A portion of every bet (or an hourly fee, depending on the casino) is removed for the casino. That money is paying somebody's salary. It's going into one bank account or another. So has wealth been created?

More importantly: why is it wrong, in your opinion, to allow people to spend their money on gambling? Because they might become addicts? Do you have any idea how many people are addicted to alcohol? Tobacco? Shopping? Food? Pornography? They all have higher numbers of addicts than gambling. Are those people also being preyed upon and taken advantage of by greedy businessmen who just want to steal their money? Or is it okay to provide those products to the public? Studies indicate that 4% of people who gamble will become compulsive or "problem" gamblers. On the other hand, 1 in 12 people (8%) in the entire nation (bear in mind that not everyone in the entire nation gambles – that's 4% of those who do) abuses alcohol or is alcohol dependent. This issue with conservatives has always been befuddling to me. People who purport to believe in free markets, personal liberty and personal accountability, to the point of defending other industries like alcohol and tobacco, believe that the government has a moral responsibility to put a stop to gambling. It's the one area where the government should intervene. Makes a lot of sense. To that end, I had a difficult time understanding the author's argument in this article. First, casinos are sanctuaries of evil, where poor people lose their kids' college tuition because they have no choice in how they spend their money, of course. But at the same time, there should be more of them so that there's an increase in competition because it isn't right that the tribal casinos have a monopoly? It's an odd argument coming from that perspective. Not incorrect or fallacious, just odd.

by the mid 1800's when they actually counted the pequots, the average "pequot" was at least half non-pequot…by the time this scam took off a bunch of "pequots" were maybe 1/16th "pequot"…which means more like 1/32nd or 1/64th or less…

so at supposed pequot tribal meetings you see a bunch of white people and some black people playing indian…and who can blame them? they got it good! what a scam!