As the big water churns toward the Gulf news reporters where shown at casino’s that would have to close because of the high water. The network reporters said that lay-offs and lost revenue would be the result. The state of Mississippi would be the poorer due to this “lost revenue” There was similiar reporting when Katrina washed away casino’s in the Gulf.
The reports got me to thinking about the economics of the flood as it pertained to casino’s only. In gambling if the “house” or casino lose revenue; someone else will gain revenue. Gambling just moves money around, usually from various soci-economic classes of “poor” people to the parasitical elements of society. The “house” don’t provide food, shelter, products, or even much entertainment for their collected revenue. They just take the money from the ignorant and vulnerable.
It was a sad day for Mississippi when they opened up the state to gambling. It was also uncharacteristic because Mississippi is a better state than a so-called gambling state. It is a shame the flood waters are not discriminate, and could focus on the casino’s only ! Then “revenues ” could be better directed to more beneficial areas of the economy. With the added revenue in circulation the casino employees could find better paying jobs in more productive areas.
Of course, there is a moral issue to legalized ambling that transcends the economic reasons to abolish gambling. The surest badge of societal degeneracy is state permitted gambling or quasi-government sponsored gambling. Maybe Mississippi will wake up to see the advantages of not having gambling, even if disrupted for only a few months.