General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
BBC Three tonight @ 9pm.
Not sure whether this will be much good but saw a clip this morning where they were talking to a bloke who had a FOBT problem.
.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01dk5s7
Star of BBC Three's hugely popular The Real Hustle, Alexis Conran is definitely someone you don't want to be playing cards with. An expert poker player and a man thoroughly at home in a casino, Alexis enjoys the thrill that comes with gambling. But what for Alexis is a pleasurable pastime and part of a lucrative career, ruined his father. Alexis's Greek father was a gambling addict who committed fraud to get money for betting and went to prison for his crimes.
Alexis has become increasingly interested in exploring the tipping point that turns the odd flutter into something darker and more dangerous. Why can most people place one bet and then walk away when some men and women are compelled to lose their shirt, their house and their families on a losing streak?
In this documentary, Alexis travels around Britain, to Las Vegas and to Athens, meeting gambling addicts, experts and members of his own family to try and understand what makes gambling, for some, a compulsion that can end in ruin.
Not sure whether this will be much good but saw a clip this morning where they were talking to a bloke who had a FOBT problem.
.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01dk5s7
Star of BBC Three's hugely popular The Real Hustle, Alexis Conran is definitely someone you don't want to be playing cards with. An expert poker player and a man thoroughly at home in a casino, Alexis enjoys the thrill that comes with gambling. But what for Alexis is a pleasurable pastime and part of a lucrative career, ruined his father. Alexis's Greek father was a gambling addict who committed fraud to get money for betting and went to prison for his crimes.
Alexis has become increasingly interested in exploring the tipping point that turns the odd flutter into something darker and more dangerous. Why can most people place one bet and then walk away when some men and women are compelled to lose their shirt, their house and their families on a losing streak?
In this documentary, Alexis travels around Britain, to Las Vegas and to Athens, meeting gambling addicts, experts and members of his own family to try and understand what makes gambling, for some, a compulsion that can end in ruin.
Show More
Ironically, Alex's dad looks like Alex wearing a disguise!
It still blows my mind when I see someone sucked into the FOBT's. I once watched a distraught woman sitting with her reusable grocery bags while her partner sat at the machine, the total going from 300+ quickly down to sub 30. I could see that their food money had gone into the machine and they were on the verge of going hungry for the week.
He lucked in and drew it up to just under 70 and her relief when he pushed the button and headed for the counter.
I've seen one person go up to around £800, the shop forming a semi-circle living through their success only to watch it drop down to £200 then eventually the final spin and the zero on the screen, the crowd of strangers drifting away.
I've always wondered if someone from the government spent a day watching the machines, how would they react?
Or if there was a law passed that a sign above the machines stated how much went in and how much went out, would the public use them less (I doubt it. Everyone assume
From my own perspective, there are certain aspects to my personality that are compulsive but those were channeled into 'perfection and detail' or simply a 'creature of habit'
Despite that,I am surprised that gambling is something that I am able to turn on and off at any time.
Perhaps it comes from the background of being a promoter where the moment you put 2,000 tickets on sale at $20/per you are risking around $30,000.
But I think it's because I strive to better myself as a punter which makes me more selective.
Plus, an afternoon kicking the ball around with shapeshifter jr is a better high than anything these pixels can offer me.
Perhaps my 'luck' is the ability to walk away when I want.
It still blows my mind when I see someone sucked into the FOBT's. I once watched a distraught woman sitting with her reusable grocery bags while her partner sat at the machine, the total going from 300+ quickly down to sub 30. I could see that their food money had gone into the machine and they were on the verge of going hungry for the week.
He lucked in and drew it up to just under 70 and her relief when he pushed the button and headed for the counter.
I've seen one person go up to around £800, the shop forming a semi-circle living through their success only to watch it drop down to £200 then eventually the final spin and the zero on the screen, the crowd of strangers drifting away.
I've always wondered if someone from the government spent a day watching the machines, how would they react?
Or if there was a law passed that a sign above the machines stated how much went in and how much went out, would the public use them less (I doubt it. Everyone assume
From my own perspective, there are certain aspects to my personality that are compulsive but those were channeled into 'perfection and detail' or simply a 'creature of habit'
Despite that,I am surprised that gambling is something that I am able to turn on and off at any time.
Perhaps it comes from the background of being a promoter where the moment you put 2,000 tickets on sale at $20/per you are risking around $30,000.
But I think it's because I strive to better myself as a punter which makes me more selective.
Plus, an afternoon kicking the ball around with shapeshifter jr is a better high than anything these pixels can offer me.
Perhaps my 'luck' is the ability to walk away when I want.
I thank god I have never been interested in slots or the new bookie machines, I have heard some awful stories
Slots are awful for so many folk whop are addicted ,many in dire straits already.
I'm in a mildly similar situation to this bloke in that i love the gamble and thankfully profit unlike my dad before me - he put tens of thousands into these things - maybe £100,000 or more over his lifetime in todays value , so this programme will ring a bell or two no doubt . Just wondering if gambling is a genetic trait .
Cheers Gin for this info - will watch that tonight
I'm in a mildly similar situation to this bloke in that i love the gamble and thankfully profit unlike my dad before me - he put tens of thousands into these things - maybe £100,000 or more over his lifetime in todays value , so this programme will ring a bell or two no doubt . Just wondering if gambling is a genetic trait .
Cheers Gin for this info - will watch that tonight
I rememeber as a 8/9 year old standing in a greasy spoon cafe with a milk shake in hand ,listening to cries of - 'i can't believe it's robbed me again ,2 Bars and a bleedin' cherry ' 
Those old machines as bad as they were though didn't rob you as much as today's .
Those old machines as bad as they were though didn't rob you as much as today's .
Looks interesting, thanks for posting.
I wonder how much in 'economy' dissappears into these machines, food for thought today of all days.
I wonder how much in 'economy' dissappears into these machines, food for thought today of all days.
People spending money (generally) is good for the economy especially in a recession. It doesn't vanish, it keeps the wheels turning.
There's a saying which goes something like this... "If everybody did what was best for themselves, everybody would be worse off"
Not fully sure of that one CB - spending money in the bookies doesn't really mean the money travels much further than the bookies' profits. If they spent the same money somewhere else perhaps different.
Was a little disappointed with the program, all seemed pretty obvious that the problem gamblers were, well, just that. The shock of the 'near miss' phenomena in problem gambling....hmmm, haven't slot machine makers known that for about 80 years already? Seemed more about his relationship to his dad's memory. An ok watch, but no real insights that aren't already obvious.
Was a little disappointed with the program, all seemed pretty obvious that the problem gamblers were, well, just that. The shock of the 'near miss' phenomena in problem gambling....hmmm, haven't slot machine makers known that for about 80 years already? Seemed more about his relationship to his dad's memory. An ok watch, but no real insights that aren't already obvious.
It was okay, just a few interviews with folks who couldn't help but drop all their cash in FOBTs and a quick game of Backgammon with his mum.
They should've focused a bit on gambling in which there is a possibility you actually have an edge. I'd rather have a problem with the geegees than a FOBT, at least you might be backing an edge you aren't aware of.
They should've focused a bit on gambling in which there is a possibility you actually have an edge. I'd rather have a problem with the geegees than a FOBT, at least you might be backing an edge you aren't aware of.
CLYDEBANK29
People spending money (generally) is good for the economy especially in a recession. It doesn't vanish, it keeps the wheels turning.
CLYDEBANK29
There's a saying which goes something like this... "If everybody did what was best for themselves, everybody would be worse off"
I don't understand the point you're making?
In any case I think that people spending money being good for the economy is complete bullcrap (although I know my opinion on this is an unusual one).
What I mean is this: spending money is fine, but the way politicians try to stimulate spending as if increasing spending indiscriminately can only be a good thing has to be nonsense (although it does make sense for politicians to do this, as it does make things seem better in the short term).
What would really be a good thing for the economy in the long run is if more people spent their money (and used all their other resources) more efficiently.
If I went out and spent a lot of money ordering 1,000,000 pairs of shoes and then destroyed those shoes upon receipt, some people would have you believe that I have done a good thing, because the money I have spent stimulates the economy, and creates jobs for people in shoe factories, and after I have paid for the shoes I can do what I like.
Here's how I would describe what's actually happened if I did this: I have wasted the shoe factory workers' labour, I have wasted the materials used for the shoes, I have wasted all the other resources that go into making the shoes. The fact that money changes hands doesn't change the fact that value has been destroyed rather than created in this transaction, even if the shoe workers and factory owners don't care (they've been paid after all).
People spending money (generally) is good for the economy especially in a recession. It doesn't vanish, it keeps the wheels turning.
CLYDEBANK29
There's a saying which goes something like this... "If everybody did what was best for themselves, everybody would be worse off"
I don't understand the point you're making?
In any case I think that people spending money being good for the economy is complete bullcrap (although I know my opinion on this is an unusual one).
What I mean is this: spending money is fine, but the way politicians try to stimulate spending as if increasing spending indiscriminately can only be a good thing has to be nonsense (although it does make sense for politicians to do this, as it does make things seem better in the short term).
What would really be a good thing for the economy in the long run is if more people spent their money (and used all their other resources) more efficiently.
If I went out and spent a lot of money ordering 1,000,000 pairs of shoes and then destroyed those shoes upon receipt, some people would have you believe that I have done a good thing, because the money I have spent stimulates the economy, and creates jobs for people in shoe factories, and after I have paid for the shoes I can do what I like.
Here's how I would describe what's actually happened if I did this: I have wasted the shoe factory workers' labour, I have wasted the materials used for the shoes, I have wasted all the other resources that go into making the shoes. The fact that money changes hands doesn't change the fact that value has been destroyed rather than created in this transaction, even if the shoe workers and factory owners don't care (they've been paid after all).
^^ Not exactly, those shoes you wasted, you wasted yourself, your hard earned labour or whatever. That money is gone to them and those shoes are considered consumed. All you did was speed up the process, which benefits the economy.
Hard earned labour is all that is spent by you really, and what I mean by speeding up the process is that those shoe factories have now sold more because of you and you may need more new shoes since you destroyed them all. 
Surely the economy benefits and you're much worse off? Know nowt about economics though!
Ah I never saw yazza's responses so no need for my post!
I'm studying Finance and Economics, you are perfectly right Cosmic!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
I think the 'shoe' example makes the point that it isn't all just about money, it is also about what is the result of money....i.e better food, resources etc.
When you spend money on food, goods etc, it also has the effect of adding something to the world (via the person spending that money) as well as stimulating the businesses that produce those goods. When you spend money in a bookie's FOBT it will mostly only stimulate a bigger house for the bookie owners and more FOBTs!
When you spend money on food, goods etc, it also has the effect of adding something to the world (via the person spending that money) as well as stimulating the businesses that produce those goods. When you spend money in a bookie's FOBT it will mostly only stimulate a bigger house for the bookie owners and more FOBTs!
Cosmic, yazza,
I'll give another example, this time quoting famous investor Warren Buffet (which is what my idea above is based on):
The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It is like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GNP would go up. But the utility of the product would be zilch, and I would be keeping those 10,000 people from doing AIDS research, or teaching, or nursing.
So by me putting money into the pockets of the shoe workers and factory owners, I am benefitting them, but robbing society as a whole. Why? Because those factory workers (who's labour is wasted) could be doing something useful!
That useful work could be making shoes for people who actually use them, or any other work that has utility.
I'll give another example, this time quoting famous investor Warren Buffet (which is what my idea above is based on):
The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It is like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GNP would go up. But the utility of the product would be zilch, and I would be keeping those 10,000 people from doing AIDS research, or teaching, or nursing.
So by me putting money into the pockets of the shoe workers and factory owners, I am benefitting them, but robbing society as a whole. Why? Because those factory workers (who's labour is wasted) could be doing something useful!
That useful work could be making shoes for people who actually use them, or any other work that has utility.
Unfortunately GDP (gross domestic product) has become the only measure that is being discussed when politicians and journalists (often with very limited understanding of economics) try to determine if the economy is going in the right direction. Producing and then immediately destroying a million pair of shoes might increase GDP that year and I'm sorry but you have to be a bit dumb to think that we at the end of the year are better off as a result of that. GDP does not take into account depreciation (or harm to the environment or to the people who consume the goods). Destroying something upon receipt equals instant 100% depreciation. We only become wealthier if our production is greater than the depreciation (duh). Not considering depreciation is a bit like being happy with a 3% interest rate on your savings when inflation is 4%.
Investor it's all about keeping the wheels turning smoothly. It's a complex model that no one has the perfect anecdote for else we wouldnt have recessions.
The world is in debt, actually generally countries are in debt to financial institutions and are having trouble making the repayments, (which is kind of ironic since govertments have been bailing out banks). Money has no worth intrinsically so why are we all worse off? Because confidence is crucial and because production and enterprise depends on consumption and if people are cutting back on consumption production suffers, and expertise, plant and machinery lies idle, and in the case of recession it can have an ever increasing domino effect.
Your example of shoes is actually a good one, since it is a good example of consumers not doing what is best for themelves (i.e. shopaholics getting into debt buying countless pairs of shoes that they don't need) helps drive production.
If everyone did what was best for themselves on here, Betfair wouldn't exist and Britain wouldnt have a niche global leader. It's a perfect exanple. The country would be in a right mess if everyone did whats best for themselves.
The world is in debt, actually generally countries are in debt to financial institutions and are having trouble making the repayments, (which is kind of ironic since govertments have been bailing out banks). Money has no worth intrinsically so why are we all worse off? Because confidence is crucial and because production and enterprise depends on consumption and if people are cutting back on consumption production suffers, and expertise, plant and machinery lies idle, and in the case of recession it can have an ever increasing domino effect.
Your example of shoes is actually a good one, since it is a good example of consumers not doing what is best for themelves (i.e. shopaholics getting into debt buying countless pairs of shoes that they don't need) helps drive production.
If everyone did what was best for themselves on here, Betfair wouldn't exist and Britain wouldnt have a niche global leader. It's a perfect exanple. The country would be in a right mess if everyone did whats best for themselves.
Destroying a million pairs of brand new shoes will never be good for the economy. It just won't. Giving the shoes to people who actually would use them would be far superior.
Buying the shoes and giving them away would be far superior. The shoes would never be made in the first place if someone wasn't buying them.
CLYDEBANK29
Date Joined: 10 Jan 02
Add contact | Send message
When: 22 Mar 12 14:21
Joined:
Date Joined: 10 Jan 02
| Topic/replies: 2,482 | Blogger: CLYDEBANK29's blog
Investor it's all about keeping the wheels turning smoothly. It's a complex model that no one has the perfect anecdote for else we wouldnt have recessions.
The world is in debt, actually generally countries are in debt to financial institutions and are having trouble making the repayments, (which is kind of ironic since govertments have been bailing out banks). Money has no worth intrinsically so why are we all worse off? Because confidence is crucial and because production and enterprise depends on consumption and if people are cutting back on consumption production suffers, and expertise, plant and machinery lies idle, and in the case of recession it can have an ever increasing domino effect.
Your example of shoes is actually a good one, since it is a good example of consumers not doing what is best for themelves (i.e. shopaholics getting into debt buying countless pairs of shoes that they don't need) helps drive production.
If everyone did what was best for themselves on here, Betfair wouldn't exist and Britain wouldnt have a niche global leader. It's a perfect exanple. The country would be in a right mess if everyone did whats best for themselves.
But that goes exactly counter to Adam Smith's invisible hand right?
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
It seems to me the exact opposite of what you say is true: If (virtually) everyone does what is best for themselves (only with regard to economic incentives), that makes the economy work more efficiently.
Regarding Betfair, you could argue it would still exist. If everyone did what was best for themselves, only the problem gamblers would dissappear. Everyone that loses that bets for fun, gets entertainment in exchange for the money they spend.
Date Joined: 10 Jan 02
Add contact | Send message
When: 22 Mar 12 14:21
Joined:
Date Joined: 10 Jan 02
| Topic/replies: 2,482 | Blogger: CLYDEBANK29's blog
Investor it's all about keeping the wheels turning smoothly. It's a complex model that no one has the perfect anecdote for else we wouldnt have recessions.
The world is in debt, actually generally countries are in debt to financial institutions and are having trouble making the repayments, (which is kind of ironic since govertments have been bailing out banks). Money has no worth intrinsically so why are we all worse off? Because confidence is crucial and because production and enterprise depends on consumption and if people are cutting back on consumption production suffers, and expertise, plant and machinery lies idle, and in the case of recession it can have an ever increasing domino effect.
Your example of shoes is actually a good one, since it is a good example of consumers not doing what is best for themelves (i.e. shopaholics getting into debt buying countless pairs of shoes that they don't need) helps drive production.
If everyone did what was best for themselves on here, Betfair wouldn't exist and Britain wouldnt have a niche global leader. It's a perfect exanple. The country would be in a right mess if everyone did whats best for themselves.
But that goes exactly counter to Adam Smith's invisible hand right?
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
It seems to me the exact opposite of what you say is true: If (virtually) everyone does what is best for themselves (only with regard to economic incentives), that makes the economy work more efficiently.
Regarding Betfair, you could argue it would still exist. If everyone did what was best for themselves, only the problem gamblers would dissappear. Everyone that loses that bets for fun, gets entertainment in exchange for the money they spend.
Who was that guy in the 50s advocating consumerism and suggesting manufacturers should deliberately make their products break after a certain time. It all started before that with a deliberate attempt by light bulb manufacturers to make them less durable.
It's what they do with printers, washing machines etc.
When the power connector on my laptop broke and I had it fixed, they told me it wouldn't happen again because it was much stronger now. I asked why they didn't make it strong in the first place, and the answer was that the manufacturer doesn't want a laptop to last 10 years.
The whole thing makes sense from the point of view of the manufacturer. But I believe progress for mankind as a whole is slowed down by this kind of deliberate waste of resources.
The difficulty we face is this: From the point of view of the consumer, the problems that these minor inefficiencies introduce are fairly trivial: spending a little extra on equipment, 5p more for sugar, £20 a year extra on tvs etc. They don't notice. In aggregrate it's a problem for society that no individuals are affected by badly enough for them to act. Yet the beneficiaries of these inefficiencies are very heavily motivated to keep them in place by the large monetary rewards.
If consumers acted in there own interest when it comes to this kind of stuff, rather than not caring/not understanding the problem, things would get better. One way of doing this would be to pay a large premium for more durable products (saving money in the medium to long term). This would be the exact opposite of buying stuff on 30% interest store cards and not paying them off.
It's what they do with printers, washing machines etc.
When the power connector on my laptop broke and I had it fixed, they told me it wouldn't happen again because it was much stronger now. I asked why they didn't make it strong in the first place, and the answer was that the manufacturer doesn't want a laptop to last 10 years.
The whole thing makes sense from the point of view of the manufacturer. But I believe progress for mankind as a whole is slowed down by this kind of deliberate waste of resources.
The difficulty we face is this: From the point of view of the consumer, the problems that these minor inefficiencies introduce are fairly trivial: spending a little extra on equipment, 5p more for sugar, £20 a year extra on tvs etc. They don't notice. In aggregrate it's a problem for society that no individuals are affected by badly enough for them to act. Yet the beneficiaries of these inefficiencies are very heavily motivated to keep them in place by the large monetary rewards.
If consumers acted in there own interest when it comes to this kind of stuff, rather than not caring/not understanding the problem, things would get better. One way of doing this would be to pay a large premium for more durable products (saving money in the medium to long term). This would be the exact opposite of buying stuff on 30% interest store cards and not paying them off.
Peru and Mexico were rich countries in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, far richer than the USA for instance. They 'kept the wheels turning' by spending lots of money in non-productive ways like building lavish buildings instead of investing in things like factories and infrastructure to facilitate long term prosperity.
They should of course kept the wheels turning quicker and spent money on both. In any case spending money on lavish buildings = doing what is best for the individual is it not? which supports my argument.
Well I would say spending/squandering money is not best for the individual. There needs to be balance between consumption and saving. From an economically rational selfish point of view, spending on consumption should not exceed the point where you become poorer over time rather than richer.
So someone that has a £10M net worth spending a £100k on a car is fine, but someone that has a £50k net worth spending £100k on a car is not doing something in their own interest I would say.
A country that squanders its resources is going to fall behind other countries. It's not in their self interest.
So someone that has a £10M net worth spending a £100k on a car is fine, but someone that has a £50k net worth spending £100k on a car is not doing something in their own interest I would say.
A country that squanders its resources is going to fall behind other countries. It's not in their self interest.
We are talking about individual self interest not a country's self interest though.
Individuals squandering money is (generally) good for the country imo. There will be loads of examples where it isn't but generally it is and is based on the valid assumption that most people don't squander money. You just need a sufficient number of people that do to keep the right balance. Obviously if everyone squanders their money it isnt good.
Individuals squandering money is (generally) good for the country imo. There will be loads of examples where it isn't but generally it is and is based on the valid assumption that most people don't squander money. You just need a sufficient number of people that do to keep the right balance. Obviously if everyone squanders their money it isnt good.
You think that's true even long term?
I think that people doing something useful with their time and resources will benefit everyone in the long term. It seems like a no brainer to me as they are increasing the total value for society.
Create a simple model of a small island society with perhaps a few hundred isolated but intelligent individuals operating with abundant natural resources. They have their own currency. Do you think that this society will be more prosperous if everyone is doing something useful with their time and building up a stock of value, like producing food, housing, boats etc. or do you think they will do better if a small portion of the inhabitants pick berries and coconuts and then throw them away and chop down trees and burn the wood in a big bonfire?
Just because you change the scale and complexity to a society like ours doesn't change the soundness of the underlying principles I think.
I think that people doing something useful with their time and resources will benefit everyone in the long term. It seems like a no brainer to me as they are increasing the total value for society.
Create a simple model of a small island society with perhaps a few hundred isolated but intelligent individuals operating with abundant natural resources. They have their own currency. Do you think that this society will be more prosperous if everyone is doing something useful with their time and building up a stock of value, like producing food, housing, boats etc. or do you think they will do better if a small portion of the inhabitants pick berries and coconuts and then throw them away and chop down trees and burn the wood in a big bonfire?
Just because you change the scale and complexity to a society like ours doesn't change the soundness of the underlying principles I think.
I should say that I think that people squandering money is neither good nor bad. If anything it's bad, becasue it gives perverse incentives to the guy on the other side of this transaction.
It's squandering real resources and time that I think is bad.
It's squandering real resources and time that I think is bad.
Sorry for taking this off topic gin, interesting documentary by the way!
Next question must be: what goal for that society. Reactionary
as an Indian or radical as Stalin or something between.
as an Indian or radical as Stalin or something between.
TheInvestor2
22 Mar 12 20:50
Joined:
28 May 11
| Topic/replies: 1,249 | Blogger: TheInvestor2's blog
Sorry for taking this off topic gin, interesting documentary by the way!
No problem - I didn't see the documentary in the end but it sounds like this conversation is more interesting.
22 Mar 12 20:50
Joined:
28 May 11
| Topic/replies: 1,249 | Blogger: TheInvestor2's blog
Sorry for taking this off topic gin, interesting documentary by the way!
No problem - I didn't see the documentary in the end but it sounds like this conversation is more interesting.
No problem - I didn't see the documentary in the end but it sounds like this conversation is more interesting.
Much more.
Much more.
It was such a pity that Alexis's Dad never got his son's letter of understanding (of his gambling problem) and forgiveness (for leaving him and his Mum). Unlike many who commit white-collar fraud in our society, Alexis's Dad paid the price for his crimes.
Mar 22, 2012 -- 9:36PM, TheInvestor2 wrote:
You think that's true even long term?I think that people doing something useful with their time and resources will benefit everyone in the long term. It seems like a no brainer to me as they are increasing the total value for society.Create a simple model of a small island society with perhaps a few hundred isolated but intelligent individuals operating with abundant natural resources. They have their own currency. Do you think that this society will be more prosperous if everyone is doing something useful with their time and building up a stock of value, like producing food, housing, boats etc. or do you think they will do better if a small portion of the inhabitants pick berries and coconuts and then throw them away and chop down trees and burn the wood in a big bonfire?Just because you change the scale and complexity to a society like ours doesn't change the soundness of the underlying principles I think.
there is a limit to the level these people can consume considering they are self sufficent, as a result they have to produce just enough to cover their need. the rest of productivity is a waste of time and resource they could otherwise use to enjoy life whetehr by burnning or chopping down trees as long as these activities dont interfere with future or current productivity.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539