Tomo wrote:Ahh man kids who set up a band are so blind and stupid, the chance of them suceeding is so minor.
Yes, kids who set up a band in the hopes of becoming a rock star (or to get rich) are blind and stupid.
Kids who set up a band to have fun, or to learn music, or ... are not.
And those people going into scientific research, ha, totally blind and stupid, what are the chances of them discovering anything.
Low. But unlike lotteries, it is a positive-sum game.
Oh wow don't get me started on trying to be a professional sportsman, blind and stupid, do you know how many of them succeed?
Yes, being a professional sportsman is a really poor career.
The fact that you are comparing the above to lotteries indicates you don't understand how different they are. Even the foolish things above (careers in acting, sports or music) are ridiculously less stupid than sending anywhere near a similar amount of resources at a lottery.
Don't get me wrong: the illusion that you too can be a major rock star is very similar to the reason why lotteries are popular.
And everyone who enters into a relationship, lol! the chances are completely against it lasting, it's bound to end in heartache. Blind and stupid.
The odds of winning the jackpot there is ... a completely different kind than the odds of winning a jackpot at the lottery.
You seem to not understand the fundamental difference between a negative-sum and positive-sum game.
In essence, I have an almost undetectably equal chance as you do at winning the lottery. And I don't buy lottery tickets, nor do people buy me them. My chance of having a lottery ticket blow into my face
and then noticing it is a winning one is practically impossible to distinguish from your chance of buying a lottery ticket and winning.
To increase my chances, I'm in a pool -- if that happens to me, or to someone else I know, we have agreed to split the winnings.
Now, lotteries are really addictive games (especially for how simple they are). But that is what they are - a crack dealer who is stringing you along in order to drain your resources. They are trying to addict you, they are trying to get you to think that you will win, and they are taking your hope and abusing you with it. If they succeed in addicting you, they want you to fall into a deeper spiral of spending more and larger amounts on your hopeless illusion of hope, in order to get yet more money from you. People, just like you, have walked down the path they want you to walk down, and ended up a broken mess at the bottom (do you really think that addicts -- and you are an addict, quite possibly! -- plan to go down a spiral of destruction?)
Now, as it happens, the government tends to be a bit less nasty with this pattern of behavior than the old school "numbers game" type things mafia was (prior to prohibition and the drug trade, the mafia sold illegal lottery tickets -- same game, addict suckers and then bleed them dry) playing. So I'm all for the government lottery existing -- I'd rather you be crack addicts to the government than crack addicts to a criminal organization. The government is less efficient at exploiting crack addicts.
Much like state-owned liquor stores, I'd prefer if it wasn't nearly as promoted or optimized to get you to "play even more!": I'm talking cigarette-style labels telling you that playing this game is stupid, and education in elementary/high school about how stupid adults play those games and the government soaks them for money. I'd also rather, ethically, if it was closer
to revenue-neutral, instead of being the cash cow that it is.
Note that there are high-risk games that are not as evil as the lottery is. Day trading, for example, is a gambling game that has at least a near-zero expected return (instead of the 50%-odd that lotteries have). Or even buying risky stocks and reading the financial paper each day to see how they are doing... (less addictive, better returns)