Tim Worstall rightly points out the idiocy of Lord Hattersley's piece today. Here's the Lord H: To make casinos profitable, new gamblers have to be attracted to their tables. It will be gullible local citizens from Wolverhampton and Hull, not Hong Kong millionaires and the Las Vegas super-rich, whose money the casino owners take home......And who would benefit? Not the citizens of Sutton Coldfield, Bath, Dumfries or any of the other chosen locations. Only the gambling tycoons have anything to gain. And here's what Tim says: Only the tycoons, eh? So the gamblers, the punters, they don't gain anything? No pleasure? No amusement as they pass their time? No jolt of adrenaline as they win or lose? Stephen might have a word or two to say about that.
What Roy doesn't get is that the only reason people go to casinos is because they perceive that they get something out of it: it's the same with any other trade or purchase. Voluntary exchange only happens if, as and when both parties gain from it.
What Hattersley means, of course, is that he doesn't get anything from gambling. Well la-di-dah. I don't gain anything from reading his columns, but I wouldn't dream of stopping other people from so doing.
I have no idea how much I lose overall from gambling. In the couple of years I kept a book, I was up, but they were freak years when I had a massive series of wins on Best Mate ante post in the Gold Cup three years running, starting off at 16/1. I guess I must be down overall, but I couldn't care less because I only bet what I can afford to lose without noticing. I find it pleasurable backing horses, and I pay for that pleasure, just as I would if I was paying for the pleasure of a coffee or to go to a football match.
It's one thing arguing against the extension of casinos - I happen to be in favour but it's of course perfectly legitimate to be opposed. But Hattersley seems to be opposed to gambling per se and appears unable to conceive that there are people who gamble for pleasure rather than because they are addicts wasting away their money.Indeed, it's worse than that - he thinks: At a time when the Home Office proposes another