Residents of Ohio voted to approve the construction of casinos in a few of the large cities. Some people oppose this. Some folks in Columbus in particular point out that the majority of voters in Franklin county voted against the issue. They tend to ignore or rationalize the question of why all of Franklin county should have a say, but not all of Ohio. Granted, giving a casino monopoly to one or a few companies is less preferable than letting anyone open a casino, but I don't think they're really worried about monopolies.
http://cfcolumbus.com/research-document/
Some of the claims as to why a casino should be prohibited:
There are also ways that building a casino could result in no increased benefits for the region: Local residents who used to go to restaurants now spend their money in the casino. Then the casino has no net economic benefit. Tourists who used to spend money on other activities within the region now go to a gambling facility within the region. Constructing a casino could hurt a region if either of the following occurred: Locally-owned businesses go bankrupt because consumers have changed their expenditures to casinos that happen to be owned by out-of-state interests. Casinos buy more products from out of state than the businesses they replace. Casinos result in increased social costs including police and other public services as well as the costs of pathological and problem gamblers.
There are also ways that building a casino could result in no increased benefits for the region:
Constructing a casino could hurt a region if either of the following occurred:
They don't seem to think too highly of consumer choice. They also worry about the costs of alleged social ills that are blamed on casinos (increased welfare expenditures and lower tax revenues because people may working less and instead spend time enjoying themselves).
Social Costs The social cost of casinos include crime, business and employment costs such as lost time on the job, bankruptcy, suicide, illness, direct regulatory costs, family costs such as child neglect and abuse. Additionally, there are social costs borne by business and families. These include loss of productivity on the job, lost time and unemployment, bankruptcy, suicide, illness, divorce, separation and abused dollars.
I don't know what an "abused dollar" is, but I guess it must be pretty bad. The brutal wear and tear to FRNs caused by the money-counting machines, maybe?
Anything else I'm missing here in their economic arguments?
geniusiknowit: Some of the claims as to why a casino should be prohibited: There are also ways that building a casino could result in no increased benefits for the region: Local residents who used to go to restaurants now spend their money in the casino. Then the casino has no net economic benefit. Tourists who used to spend money on other activities within the region now go to a gambling facility within the region. Constructing a casino could hurt a region if either of the following occurred: Locally-owned businesses go bankrupt because consumers have changed their expenditures to casinos that happen to be owned by out-of-state interests. Casinos buy more products from out of state than the businesses they replace. Casinos result in increased social costs including police and other public services as well as the costs of pathological and problem gamblers.
Just your usual protectionist fare, but here in the context of a town and a casino. "Local residents who used to go to restaurants now spend their money in the casino. Then the casino has no net economic benefit." By this same logic they should ban any new restaurants from opening as well. Not to mention roller coaster parks, concert halls, cinemas, etc.
Stranger: A casino sells an exciting way for people to lose their money. It doesn't add to any productive capital and does not improve the economy of a region, unless it's turned into an entertainment destination that attracts tourists with shows and other traps, but Las Vegas has that business cornered.
A casino sells an exciting way for people to lose their money. It doesn't add to any productive capital and does not improve the economy of a region, unless it's turned into an entertainment destination that attracts tourists with shows and other traps, but Las Vegas has that business cornered.
?
You can't sell something if you don't produce it first.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
The act gambling itself doesn't provide anything productive, but operating a casino requires the construction and upkeep of real property. Casinos also sell food and drinks. The same goes for theaters, concerts, and sports venues.
geniusiknowit: The act gambling itself doesn't provide anything productive, but operating a casino requires the construction and upkeep of real property. Casinos also sell food and drinks. The same goes for theaters, concerts, and sports venues.
Yet that is consumption, not production. It is not good regionally. The region's wealth is consumed in the casino, but it must still earn that wealth with exports.
Aren't all products just consumption, on a long enough time scale?
Food and drinks often are things that are produced regionally. Is a grocery store not beneficial to the regional economy?
Is the manufacture of durable goods the only thing beneficial to an economy?
And how does one entertainment venue not benefit a region, but a collection of them do?