Online gambling a threat to global economy, U. of I. expert says

Posted In: General Sciences

By University of Illinois

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Loading...

Legalized online gambling would fuel an epic surge of betting in the U.S., leaving lives in tatters and the world’s economy in jeopardy, a University of Illinois professor and national gambling critic warns.

John W. Kindt says U.S. Rep. Barney Frank’s renewed push to overturn the decades-old ban on online gambling would put the nation at risk of an economic collapse rivaling the 2007 sub-prime mortgage crisis that sparked a deep and lingering global recession.

“Barney Frank has been railing against the lack of regulation on Wall Street and now he’s trying to create an even more dangerous threat by throwing the prohibition against Internet gambling into the toilet,” said Kindt, a professor of business and legal policy who has studied gambling for more than two decades.

Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, resumed hearings Thursday on legislation he sponsored that would lift the longtime ban on Internet gambling, allowing the Treasury Department to license and regulate online gaming companies that service American customers.

Legalizing online gambling and the firms that run it would create a potentially disastrous speculative bubble in U.S. financial markets similar to the sub-prime mortgage crisis, spawning fast-growing companies with exaggerated earnings expectations that far outstrip real value, Kindt said.

“I actually think a speculative bubble on Internet gambling would be worse because it’s based on nothing,” Kindt said. “With the sub-prime crisis, there was at least some real property involved. With online gambling, there’s nothing but people dumping money into their computers.”

Global markets have already seen the consequences, Kindt said. The London Stock Exchange, which permits trading of online gaming company shares, saw its value plunge by $40 billion in one day after the U.S. strengthened its ban on Internet gambling in 2006.

Online gambling also would “throw gasoline” on a recession that has already cut deeply into Americans’ savings and put more than 7 million people out of work, Kindt said.

“Money that should be spent on cars, refrigerators and other goods that build the economy and create jobs would instead be wasted on Internet gambling in every living room, at every work desk and at every school desk,” he said.

Kindt says Frank’s bill flies in the face of research that supports maintaining a ban that traces to the 1961 Federal Wire Act, pushed through by then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to curb the flow of money for organized crime.

“In today’s world, that money-laundering threat also applies to terrorist organizations,” said Kindt, a contributing editor and author of the United States International Gambling Report Series, a 3,000-page collection released this year that includes hundreds of pages on the perils of online betting.

He says online gambling also would yield steep social costs, including gambling addiction, bankruptcies and crime.

The threat of addiction is especially high among younger people, who studies show are already twice as prone to gambling problems as older Americans, Kindt said. Studies estimate that about 4 percent of young people are addicted to gambling and 8 to 12 percent are problem gamblers.

“It’s getting worse and worse as gambling spreads and would soar if online gambling is legalized,” he said. “Internet gambling is known as the crack cocaine of creating new, addicted gamblers because it’s so accessible.”

Kindt says bankruptcy and crime rates also would balloon as people deplete family finances or raid their employers’ accounts to cover online gambling debts.

Thursday’s hearing on Frank’s bill comes less than a week after the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve postponed the effective date of new regulations that would strengthen the existing ban.

The new rules, which had been set to take effect Dec. 1 but were pushed back until June 1 of next year, would prohibit U.S. financial institutions from accepting payments from credit cards, checks or electronic fund transfers to settle online wagers. U.S. bettors have been estimated to supply at least half of the revenue of the $16 billion online gambling industry, which is largely hosted overseas.

Frank said the delay will give Congress time to overturn the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. He also sought to repeal the act but failed in 2007, just a year after Congress approved the measure.

He argues that online gambling should be legal as a matter of personal liberty and that the federal government could gain tax revenues if Internet gambling is allowed and regulated.

Kindt disagrees, saying the costs far outweigh the benefits.

“Online gambling should not be legalized for the same reasons that hard drugs remain banned,” he said. “The social and crime costs are enormous and if gambling is easy to access more and more people will get hooked.”

SOURCE

JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Rate Article:  Average 2 out of 5
Register or log in to comment on this article!

2 Comments

  • Oh my. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and those who have anti-gambling opinions often have valid reasons for feeling that way, but articles like this make me want to punch kittens.
    I don't mind when people disagree with me, but please do not spew out asinine assumptions and flat out falsehoods. Do some people feel that they have a right to say whatever they please so long as it supports their personal position? Do reporters no longer vet their sources or otherwise verify statements?
    "John W. Kindt says U.S. Rep. Barney Frank’s renewed push to overturn the decades-old ban on online gambling..."
    "Kindt says Frank’s bill flies in the face of research that supports maintaining a ban that traces to the 1961 Federal Wire Act, pushed through by then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to curb the flow of money for organized crime."
    The Internet did not exist in 1961, and there is no "ban" on Internet Gambling. Numerous courts have ruled that the Wire Act does not apply to Internet gambling. Washington state has an anti-online gambling law on its books, a handful of other states have laws on the books that are generally unfriendly to it, and there are some federal statutes that restrict fund transfers between Internet casinos and financial institutions. All of these laws have come to pass within the past few years, which hardly makes them "decades" old.
    Talking heads, please get your facts straight if you are going to argue a counterpoint with me. Reporters, please stop just repeating whatever is said to you.

  • Are you kidding me? Why would you reprint this teetotaler's "expert opinions" like a press release rather than do any investigation?
    "The London Stock Exchange, which permits trading of online gaming company shares, saw its value plunge by $40 billion in one day after the U.S. strengthened its ban on Internet gambling in 2006."
    The LSE has an estimated value of 2.9 Trillion Pounds. That makes this "plunge" roughly 1%, even if I give the best currency conversion rate possible. The DOW and S&P 500 fluctuate more than that on a daily basis, off little more than individual earnings statements, or less. The DJIA is set to gain about 1% today as I type this. Not exactly earth-shattering.
    The summary of this "expert opinion" is that investors are too stupid to value gaming companies correctly, and investing carries risks, so the gov't should keep us from hurting ourselves. Plus it completely ignores the fact that you can already invest in gaming companies on the NYSE and NASDAQ. Some examples: WYNN, LVS, MGM, MPEL, BYD, CNTY, PNK, need I go on?
    Professor Chicken Little should try some objective economic and financial analysis (that don't include purposefully misleading numbers like that debunked above) instead of relying on paternalistic puritanical social reasons for the supposed evil of online gaming.

Add Comment

Text Only 2000 character limit

Page 1 of 1

New To Market

more

P2i showcases liquid repellent nano-coating for hearing aids
P2i showcases liquid repellent nano-coating for hearing aids

At the AudiologyNOW! 2010 show in San Diego next month, UK-based coatings company P2i will display their relatively new Aridion liquid-repellant nano-coating. Designed for exposure to humidity or sweat, the polymer layer is applied by a pulsed ion gas process that lower’s the hearing aid’s surface energy, coaxing water away from delicate components.

Submersible FlowCAM catches particle images and data in-situ and real-time

Fluid Imaging Technologies recently introduced its Submersible FlowCAM particle and cell imaging and analysis system at Ocean Sciences 2010 in Portland, Ore. The remote sensing platform can be used for continuous, unattended monitoring tethered to research vessels or autonomous submersibles.

Tools & Technology

more

Benchtop NMR analyzer
Benchtop NMR analyzer

Oxford Instruments America, Inc.’s Magnetic Resonance Group released the second generation of its MQC analyzers.

Software solution for microarray image analysis

BioDiscovery Inc. released ImaGene 9.0 for microarray image analysis. The new features include improved memory performance for the latest high density arrays, streamlined processing pipeline focused on image quantification and intensity extraction, and new modular design with options to add modules for analysis of gene/miRNA expression or CGH data.

Advertisement

Advertisement