Extra Credits
Published on 28 Feb 2015Support us on Patreon! http://bit.ly/EHPatreon
____________When Robert Harley steps in as England’s new Chancellor of the Exchequer, he discovers that not only is the government deeply in debt, but no one knows quite how much debt it owes. Because vicious political infighting between the Tory and Whig politic parties made it difficult to pass new tax laws, Harley turned to a private financier named John Blunt to help find enough money for England to keep up with its expenses for the year. Using Harley’s government resources, Blunt instigated a series of get-rich schemes that drove artificial demand for unsustainable land and lottery investments with tremendous short term gains. Before the year was done, Blunt had successfully covered the shortfall for the government that year – albeit at the cost of driving England’s already outrageous debt even higher.
November 25, 2018
England: South Sea Bubble – The Sharp Mind of John Blunt – Extra History – #1
March 14, 2018
QotD: Lotteries
I am not a fan of the scratch-game lottery. It does not provide the same amount of amusement as burning a one-dollar bill. Time it, if you doubt me. You can scratch off a card in three seconds: scritch scritch scritch, ah crap. Please play again! But a dollar bill gives you at least 17 seconds of entertainment — more, if you set off the smoke alarm. Otherwise it’s the same effect: One dollar has passed from your hand into the great chain of being, and whether it subsequently manifests itself as a Trix bar in the pocket of a state employee or acrid smoke in the kitchen, it’s all just molecules in the end. And you’re out a buck.
But! Now the lottery has decided to give you a second chance. You mail in your losing lottery tickets — at least five duds, please — and they hold another drawing to confirm that you’re not only still a loser, but now you’re out 37 cents for postage.
James Lileks, “Backfence: A second-chance column for you”, Star Tribune, 2005-02-01
November 28, 2017
A Tax on the Poor – The Lotto and the Surprisingly Common Sad Aftermath of Winning
Today I Found Out
Published on 1 Jun 2017In this video:
It’s been called a voluntary tax on the poor and under-educated, with people spending a whopping $60 billion a year in the United States alone on lottery tickets, most of which are purchased by low income individuals. (All total, about 20% of Americans play the lotto). Despite the high number of lotto tickets purchased annually, when playing the lottery (in all its forms), you’ll win an average of just 53 cents for every $1 you spend, making it one of the lowest return rates of any form of commercial gambling, and thus extremely profitable for the various government bodies who run the lotteries.
Want the text version?: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/12/on-average-people-who-earn-less-than-13000-a-year-in-the-u-s-spend-5-of-their-gross-earnings-on-lottery-tickets/
September 22, 2014
Here’s a Senate reform that would vastly improve the institution
At Gods of the Copybook Headings, Richard Anderson proposes a brilliant reform to a Canadian institution that has never actually had a function — the Senate.
I’ve often argued that the appointment of Senators should be done through a national lottery. All Canadian citizens would be eligible to buy a $10 ticket into what would be called The Red Chamber Sweepstakes. Each April 1st a draw would be held for 20 Senators. The 20 lucky winners would get an appointment to the upper house lasting no more than five years. If the politically correct crowd complained you could screen the winners by region and ethno-cultural background. If done properly the whole Senate could become self-financing.
Now tell me gentle readers what would be wrong with this simple idea? Would the quality of Senators decline? Nope. Would the process be more corrupt that it is at the moment? Other way around I should think. Would it generate tremendous and positive interest in the Senate? Yes. It would also mean doing away with a pricey communications budget. There would be no need to rationalize the conduct or purpose of the Senatorial class. We know how they got there and we know what they’re made of. Heck the whole exercise could be spun as an act of democratic enfranchisement. Ordinary people, not party hacks, deciding on the great questions of the day. Or at least pretending to do so.
There are those, of course, who would object and say that holding a national Senate lottery would be an embarrassing travesty for the nation. Yes it would be. But given the state of Canadian politics what else is new?
April 14, 2013
Alternet: Ten facts about state lotteries and the poor
While I don’t object to lotteries existing, I still don’t think governments should be running them, but they’re involved in most states and provinces:
State lotteries amount to a hidden tax on the poor. They eat up about 9 percent of take-home incomes from households making less than $13,000 a year. They siphon $50 billion a year away from local businesses — besides stores where they’re sold. And they are encouraged by state-sponsored ads suggesting everyone can win, win, win!
State lotteries, which once were illegal, now exist in most states. What many people don’t know about lotteries is that they prey on those who can least afford it; most people never win anything big; and 11 states raise more money from lotteries than from corporate taxes. Beyond the moral, mental health or religious debates over gambling, lotteries are another example of how society preys on the poor and the working-class.
Let’s look at why state lotteries do far more harm than good — especially at the bottom of the economic ladder.
[. . .]
4. They hit the poorest the hardest. “Simply put, lotteries take the most from those who can least afford it,” wrote economist Richard Wolff. “Instead of taking those most able to pay (the principle of federal income tax in the U.S.), state leaders use lotteries to disguise a regressive tax that falls on the middle and even more on the poor.” A 2010 study found that households with take-home incomes of less than $13,000 spent on average $645 a year on lottery tickets, which is about 9 percent of their income. The reason people play lotteries varies, but it mixes hopes and dreams with desperation: poorer people see it as a slim chance to radically improve their standard of living.
5. Communities of color, less-educated spend the most. Numerous academic studies have found that non-whites spend much more on lotteries than whites, with one study putting the figure at $998 for African Americans and $210 for whites. Household with incomes under $25,000 spent an average of about $600 a year, while $100,000-plus earners spent about $300 year. People who never graduated from college spent the most, about $700 a year, while graduates spent under $200.
Of course, being Alternet, we have to have at least one of our traditional straw men to knock down:
7. They give the wrong message about solving poverty. Lotteries reinforce libertarian political messages, suggesting that everyone needs to take individual action in response to society’s inequities, even though the government has helped well-connected individuals, businesses and industries become rich for decades. This easy money for states diverts political debate away from society-wide analyses and solutions to what prevents people from moving up the economic ladder. Instead, it pushes individuals in marginal circumstances toward gambling as their hope for gain.
I’m not sure what is “libertarian” about corporate welfare, crony capitalism, and other economic distortions on the part of government to favour certain people over others, but setting aside the slur, this is otherwise a valid point. Encouraging people to take individual action? I don’t see buying a lottery ticket as falling into that category.
December 15, 2011
Google donates to the Bletchley Park restoration project
Google has made a significant contribution to the preservation and restoration of the famous WW2 codebreaking site:
The centre has won a £4.6million grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund but needs to attract £1.7million in outside funding before the big grant can be delivered and the next stage of the development kickstarted.
The £550,000 Google contribution is the biggest single donation that the Bletchley Park Trust has received so far. It was given by the search engine’s charitable arm, which donated a total of $100 million (£64.4million) in 2011.
“It would be wonderful if other donors follow Google’s example to help preserve our computing heritage,” said Simon Greenish, CEO of the Bletchley Park Trust. “We could then proceed as soon as possible with restoration of the profoundly historically significant codebreaking huts.”
October 5, 2011
The irony of Bletchley Park’s funding windfall
Cory Doctorow has the good news about Bletchley Park’s recent grant:
Bletchley Park, the birthplace of modern crypto and the home of the WWII codebreaking effort, has received a £4.6m Heritage Lottery Fund grant to fund restoration efforts and new exhibits. Bletchley was broken up after the war and its work was literally buried as part of the Cold War climate of secrecy that prevailed. In the years that followed, neglect and time led to the near-destruction of many of the historic sites. The Bletchley Park trust has since done amazing work on a shoestring budget to restore and preserve Bletchley, creating a fabulous museum and rebuilding some of the most beautiful electromechanical computers I’ve ever seen.
[. . .]
Ironically, the money to restore Bletchley has come from the lottery, a government-run system designed to reinforce and exploit statistical innumeracy of the sort that Bletchley’s cryptographers overcame in order to help win the war.
October 10, 2010
Calculate your odds of winning the lottery
By way of the ever-helpful Roger Henry, here’s a site that lets you simulate your lottery habits to determine how much you’ll win and how much it’ll cost:
Incredibly Depressing Mega Millions Lottery Simulator!
It is really hard to win the Mega Millions lottery. So hard that it can be difficult to comprehend what long odds confront its players.
Why not try for free on this Mega Millions lottery simulator? You’ll be able to try the same numbers over and over, simulating playing twice a week for a year or 10. You’ll never win.
I ran 1040 simulations. It would have cost me $1040. I would have won $243. Not a good return on investment. I actually “win” more by not buying a ticket at all: I avoid the loss of that $797 in ticket purchases.
July 22, 2009
Lottery winner receives extra prize
A recent lottery winner in Ontario got an extra on top of the multi-million dollar cheque: a free arrest:
Some guys have all the luck.
That’s what Barry Shell of Brampton likely thought Monday when he went to pick up his nearly $4.4 million jackpot at Ontario Lottery and Gaming headquarters on Dundas St. W.
But after a smiling Shell, 45, had posed for an OLG photo holding his cheque for $4,377,298, he was arrested outside the building on outstanding criminal charges and taken into police custody.
The most interesting part, however, was this statement from the lottery officials:
Asked how a lottery win could result in the discovery of outstanding warrants, Rui Brum from OLG said last night: “A rigorous investigation process is followed any time a prize is claimed.
“Any flags that are raised are immediately forwarded to the OPP Bureau attached to the AGCO (the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario) for further investigation.”
H/T to Jon, who said “come to attention in the media or in some other way, and the state starts looking into you.”
