God damned I will bomb bryssel if they make us stop monopoly. Phil you are naive american who thinks politicans are corporates are always bad. They are not like that in Finland.

If Casino RAY has a bad year, do you actually think some schools will be strapped for cash and start shutting down?

WHO ELSE. And not some fucking schools, it’s sports and poor healthcare stuff and other shit that gets the money.

I think the RAY monopoly is a pretty good thing. Even if you loose, you know someone else will have use of the money.

I really suggest that you do some research before you go and talk about things. RAY does a lot of good with their money, without their funding many health and social organizations wouldn’t be able to continue. And that’s a fact.

Oh, Phil’s mom is back with the jammed Caps Lock key.

Phil, haven’t you learned by now that the government always knows best in Finland. Think of what horrible things would happen if people could sell wine in their own stores, keep them open on Sundays or even worse, have a non-RAY slot machine. All hell would break lose. Finnish people just can’t be trusted. Stuff like “freedom” and fair competition may work in other countries but Finland just isn’t yet ready for such crazy ideas.

Offtopic, but interesting offtopic: http://blogit.hs.fi/tiede/?p=95

Now, I’m not sure exactly how fluent Phil and Finnpundit are in Finnish, but I can try and summarize the main points of this text.

“The socialist healthcare system of US doesn’t work”

“Depending on your personal views, you can either praise or criticize the US system.
Supporters’ arguments: Cutting edge equipment, well trained staff and so on – they are all advantages of free market and slim government.
Critics’ arguments: some Americans have practically no guarantee of treatment, and for those who are part of Medicare or Medicaid programs the treatment is still worse than for those who have medical insurance, either their own or their employer’s – that’s why our Nordic Social Democratic system is so much better.

Both sides make a false assumption about US not spending much money for its healthcare. Actually the costs of US system are bigger than Finland’s, both absolutely and relatively compared to GNP.(Source = Duodecim, Jussi Huttunen’s column) On top of that there’s of course also the private funding, but based on this comparison of government spending the US welfare state is actually bigger on healthcare than the Nordic model.

The US model, besides being socialistic, is not working. According to Huttunen, US is both losing health and the costs are growing unmaintainable. — Also the superliberal The Economist advised US to learn from Europeans and move from system funded by insurance companies to system based on government taxation.”

Phil is wrong here. Ray is one of the very few monopolies that have deserved support here. Almost 70% of the revenues in fact goes to supporting for example NGOs in the social and health services. See for example http://www.ray.fi/inenglish/raytietoa/medianurkka/tiedote.php?id=56&l1=1 for more details. Also note that an important part of the remaining 30+% actually goes to the businesses on whose premises slot machines are located as commission. I see both causes are good.

Moreover, the Ray monopoly has wide backing here. If you see the surveys to be found on the Ray website, for the past ten years the percentage of citizens in favour of the monopoly has constantly been 71-75%. Even the majority of the entrepreneurs on whose premises the machines are located support the monopoly, i.e. don’t want several companies competing for space on their premises which might even lead to more profit for the rented space.

Phil, one more thing: Ray’s revenues don’t go straight to the state budget, they go to financing concrete projects in given social sectors. Of course this doesn’t mean all the projects are worth the financing or that they’d create good results.

The Ray monopoly shouldn’t be mixed with other things Phil (and I) is against: retail trade opening hours, for example. This is a completely different issue.

Again, checking facts would be good. RAY does not finance the welfare state as such. Nor does the money go to pensions. (Explaining the Finnish pension system here is not relevant, is it?) RAY finances projects and organisations in the health and social welfare sectors.

Now would I rather occasionally lose a couple of euros for that purpose than to finance someone’s yacht? You bet.

If you just want to gamble and couldn’t care less where the money goes, you should be fine with RAY. If you do care where the money goes, then in most cases RAY will suit you fine as well. If you don’t like RAY, don’t gamble. If you want to finance someone’s yacht, donate the money for it. If you want to finance someone’s yacht and experience the excitement of gambling at the same time, go to Monaco. No-one’s stopping you.

Now, I understand quite many liberal arguments about freedom, and share them too. But this one I don’t really get. Why is it that the noble idea of freedom gets twisted into “I should be able to do every single idiotic/insulting/immoral/self-harming thing should I just want to, because that’s my sacred right as an individual, and society and its rules/conventions/common sense is just a socialist lie.” That’s not exactly emancipation for me.

Where’s my previous comment?

Damn, it wasn’t there a minute ago, I swear!

Phil,

In 2005 RAY and Veikkaus together gave around 800 million euros to different Finnish state-run and non-governmental organisations in all walks of life, Veikkaus through the Ministry of Education and RAY through it’s own member organisations. This does not even include the over 100 million euros they paid “lottery tax” directly to the state. As X-RAY pointed out above, RAY donates 70% of its yearly profit whereas Veikkaus seems to give around 80% percent of it’s profits to the MoE. If these figures seem skewed, somebody please correct me.

I am a great supporter of the liberalization of gambling in Finland. Veikkaus offers poor odds for sports and there is very little variety in RAY’s slot machines. But the problem is that the gaming monopolies are giving huge aid the Finnish society year after year. If the market is taken over by foreign companies, they will take their profits away from Finland, to pay better dividents to their stockholders or to invest elsewhere etc. The closed system will change into one that is constantly leaking money.

The way I see it, the only viable option for liberalization without loss of funds for junior sports, veteran homes, anti-drugs work and soforth would be to require all companies willing to enter the Finnish market to also give say 80% of their Finnish profits to Finnish charities or to raise the “lottery tax” to 90% of the yearly profit. Of course in such a case there would not be very many companies willing to enter the Finnish gaming market, but hey, at least everyone would be equal and the national monopolies gone…

RAY does a lot of good with their money, without their funding many health and social organizations wouldn’t be able to continue. And that’s a fact.

Then why doesn’t the state just run everything? Surely that’ll bring in more tax money for “good things”, right?

First of all let me clarify that I am a leftie when it comes to cherishing the public sector and many state funded programs. Yes, I’m a social weasel who sees for example the progressive income taxation as a vital thing for the society’s well-being.

The probem is here: I simply can’t see why libertarians on this very comment section make an political exception considering RAY’s position as a state monopoly.

“Well, the money is spent on a good cause, so I guess it’s fine” While I absolutely agree, I just can’t see why Alko’s monopoly position -for example- isn’t tolerated among the same people. The booze monopoly also enables many of these “good things” you seem to appreciate.

Or is some of you Pro RAY right-wingers also Pro Alko?

The basic idea of the nordic model is a mixture of state-run things and privately run things. That’s why the state doesn’t run everything. The reasoning for the state-run alcohol and gambling business is that in the ideal protestant-Kantian world we wouldn’t have neither, but as we are destined to have them anyway, they should benefit the common good (and not the yacht of some mulquist).

At the time of the creation of these monopolies, this ethical justification was very strong. In Denmark they took this so far that they even had a municipal brothel institution (The services were, of course, comparable to Alko service in earlier times, not for fun, just for those with a real need.)

It all comes down to question, does the state represent the common good. The axiom in the nordic model is that it does, because it is supposed to be so transparent, democratic and close to the people, that it is merely their extension. How does it work in practice is up to the debate, but that’s the “culture” behind it.

The state-monopolized vice business is perhaps a bit like the left-side traffic in Britain. It could be a relic, but everybody has got used to it.(The brits surely think it’s wrong side on the continent.)

At least on the Finnish pages you can see who is applying for the money and how much they actuall get.

Click on the link:
http://www.ray.fi/avustustoiminta/avustuskohteet/avustus2006.php?l1=8

Then choose:
» Kaikki avustusta hakeneet järjestöt

What? Nothing for Greenpeace.

I have to say, there are a ton of entities. I think this can be more cost effective if things were consolidated. How much duplication of administration is there in all of this.

Gambling is a stupid way to fund ‘social welfare.’

Someone should talk about Norway. The following is from this article.

Slot machines had been the privilege of Red Cross and a few other humanitarian organizations.[...] The NGO [private lottery organizer] lobbied intensely for an alternative source of income, and were allowed to participate in the slot machine market. [...] With a population of 4.5 million, we now have 30 000 slot machines. [...] They are not restricted to certain areas, but are everywhere – in grocery stores, restaurants and other public places. [...] During the 90ies, the expenditure on slot machines was multiplied by a factor of 47.

“Then why doesn’t the state just run everything? Surely that’ll bring in more tax money for “good things”, right?”

Phil, probably the explanation is that the state and municipalities run things that are obligatory for them to run, things that are fixed by law. RAY on finances services that are not fixed by law but that are regarded as beneficial and like x-ray says, that are concrete projects.

Some Finns might not like the idea of paying an increasing amount of taxes, which would be likely to happen if the state and municipalities would start taking new obligations.

Actually cities like Helsinki seem to reduce some services quite happily, rather than start new ones, which means that for instance old people who rely on outside help are not too well off. That is, if they don’t happen to have a pension good enough to pay for private services. I believe some are beginning to be dependant on charity organizations in quite basic things – such that used to be taken care of by the municipality still ten years ago.

Although I’m not very familiar with the topic, I see RAY as a practical way of collecting some extra money for good purposes without harming anybody, nor upsetting anybody who doesn’t like paying taxes – it directs money that would be spent anyway (meaninglessly spent, in my opinion…) to places where it is of beneficial use.

Phil, I urge you to give up your rightwinger’s naivete and forget the idea about completely self regulating market. Not everything in economy could exist in self regulating form. There will be exceptions. Always. Live with it.

I don’t think real gaming addicts give a damn about where the money goes. At least I hope there aren’t too many samaritans gambling with RAY charity projects in mind.

Occasionally RAY runs tv ads about helping young drug addicts, alcoholics and the likes. That they do it by creating more gambling addicts reminds me of Alko donating money to help gamblers. It’s a skewed world.

Well, I don’t know if Phil’s right or wrong here… all I know is I’ve seen plenty of kids sitting in the corner stores in Finland, gambling. I don’t think it was mentioned in the article, but I don’t think the kids should be allowed to (meaning, have the chance and ability to gamble at all), cuz it’s just kind of sad to watch… that’s all.

Well fuck the gambling, how about the alcohol monopoly??? Or the car tax and the non-VAT????

Passer-by

Everyone forgets the cost in US healthcare. Insurance against litigation. In Finland you can come to the ER with an axe in your head and not die and live your life as a happy lobotomy retard. In the USA the manufacturer of the axe, the ER and anyone remotely affiliated including the hackney driven the bloke to the hospital is sued to boocoo milliongazillion dollars. Even if I fart in an elevator and some old ladys poodle gets asphyxia my company will need insurance…

Mo,

In RAY’s casinos and “minicasinos” (Täyspotti etc.) the minimum age for playing the slots is 18 and it is -I think- enforced reasonably well. For the slot machines in shops, kiosks etc. the minimun age is 15, and I think these are the real problem because shop owners and employees usually don’t have enough time (and/or motivation) to keep the kids away from the machines, though they would of course be required to do so.

I say bring the minimum age to 18 across the board and concentrate the machines to easily controlled areas with someone tasked to monitor them. I would keep them in small cafes, kiosks and “real” casinos, where an employee is nearby, but get rid of them altogether in more “public” places like malls and supermarkets.

Drakon?… I like your way of putting it better. Good plan.

Mo, I liked my plan too. Now lets see if will appear back soon, because I’m starting to ferget it already…;)

And there it is. Strange things happening in this here blog…

5. Passer-by, if you are going to cite sources critiquing US free-market health insurance systems, I would avoid quoting doctors from welfare states like Finland who have an interest in maintaining the status quo in welfare states. They are already biased.

I would also avoid The Economist, which is about as pro-business as Time Magazine is profound; in other words, very little. The Economist represents Econ 101 lite, and The Financial Times is not that far behind.

For a real authority on the issue the best source is The Wall Street Journal, which is the most pro-business newspaper in the world, and which, as the saying goes, is read by “people who run the country”. Unfortunately, since it is such a capitalist tool, its best articles are available by subscription only.

But here’s a little taste:

…The idea behind the legislation, sponsored by GOP Representative John Shadegg of Arizona, is disarmingly simple: Allow Americans to buy health insurance from vendors in any one of the 50 states.

How expensive? A 2004 study by eHealthInsurance.com found that a typical insurance policy ($2,000 deductible, 20% co-insurance) for a family of four could be had for as little in as $172 per month in a reasonably regulated locality like Kansas City, Missouri. But in New York that family’s only option — managed care — would run $840 per month, and in New Jersey family policies run a whopping $1,200-plus….

So there you have it: the correct analysis as to why costs are so high (state government interference), and a suggested remedy (allow competition between state systems). Oh, and keep the federal government out of it, of course.

Yeah, I noticed that too, Drakon.. I posted my response to it, and when the page refreshed, your post completely disappeared and I still don’t see it… Phil, any comment on that one? lol

State-run gambling — tax on stupid people.-

One big problem with the US health-care system is called “moral hazard” in the economist talk. Patients and doctors feel that they don’t have to save – think economically – because they are “covered”. The insurance companies don’t really have an effective way to prevent this; nobody wants to be “the company which doesn’t pay”. (In a public system this is a problem, too, but a far smaller one.)

Another problem is that the insurance companies don’t really have the incentive or means to advance the common good, that is, prevent health risk in advance. This is called an externality in the economist talk.

Yet another problem is that when you have to pay for your health care the quality depends on how much you pay. This results to the poor getting poorer care. This is an ethical problem (unless you happen to be poor – or even lower middle class, or even just unlucky – yourself) and as such it really don’t interest economists

I’m sure that the Wall Street Journal article above is not altogether nonsense, but in my opinion it mostly looks like typical semi-religious market fundamantalism: “Increased market forces have to be the answer, never mind what the econmics theory or common sense actually says.”

The reasoning for the state-run alcohol and gambling business is that in the ideal protestant-Kantian world we wouldn’t have neither, but as we are destined to have them anyway, they should benefit the common good

That’s interesting, I never thought of it that way.

Everyone loves Ray,

I guess you address people with opionions like mine. I’m no way a libertarian and supporting things like freer opening hours doesn’t make me one, neither am I a hardcore pro-Nordic welfare state fanatic, yet I think the Ray monopoly is better than any alternative to it.

Alko’s monopoly is different. Alko’s revenues, as far as I know, don’t usually go to financing concrete projects and programs, and that makes the difference. I don’t support Alko’s monopoly myself. We must have reasonable taxation on alcohol but where that alcohol is sold – Alko, restaurants, groceries – doesn’t matter to me. Now, one could also argue that if there was no Ray monopoly but free competition, the revenue would be higher. Yes, very probably, but how would that revenue be used in that case? I seriously doubt an offshore gambling company registered in Jersey or something would be the best expert in donating money to charities even if freer gambling would come together with an obligation for the gambling businesses to donate most of the revenues to good causes.

Like someone wrote here earlier, gambling is a good way to both finance good causes and do that without direct taxpayer money. Real gambling addicts of course don’t care where their money goes to but myself, I’m happy to support Ray every time I use their slot machines which means something like playing the pajazzo once in a year.

The American system bought here would perhaps mean two huge casinos in Northern Lapland owned by the Saami with money going to them. I guess this wouldn’t be as beneficial as the current system we have.

I wonder. Is RAY needed in Finland because Finns don’t donate money or donate their time? Looking at the list of organizations getting funds, many of these organizations should be supported directly by the people either financially or physically. This way, those organizations that do not really benefit people just don’t make it. Instead, this way, all you need is a good plan to present and you get funds to operate.

Who donates money to charities directly? Sure there is Amnesty International and the Finnish Red Cross out on the streets, but do you transfer money out of your bank account to them?

Fred Fry,

That’s just it, charity is not the main channel through which social problems are dealt with ideally in Finland.

I’m not sure I like the opposite either (“please call 0800 xxxxxx and give 5 pounds a month so we can save more cute bambies and you can feel better about yourself” etc). It’s kinda disturbing really, making money on guilt and cute fluffy animals.

Once again I am eager to make a comment, only to realise just how many other comments I would have to wade through first and pretty much giving up on the matter. However, I will say this:

What is the profile of the gamblers in Finland, particularily those who use RAY slot machines and the like? At least in Britain, such gambling is the province of the poor, i.e. those who can least afford to lose the money they pour into these machines.

It’s one thing to discuss where the money goes, but doesn’t anyone wonder where the money comes from?

(And no, I don’t beleive removing gambling machines would only make them gamble in other ways, any more than banning cigarettes would make people move on to crack cocaine).

-BM

Oh, I did find this funny as well:

I would also avoid The Economist, which is about as pro-business as Time Magazine is profound; in other words, very little. The Economist represents Econ 101 lite, and The Financial Times is not that far behind.

For a real authority on the issue the best source is The Wall Street Journal, which is the most pro-business newspaper in the world
So, The Economist is to be avoided because it’s not pro-business enough? And the Wall Street Journal is to relied upon because its “the most pro-business newspaper in the world”?

Meh, pick your poison. All journalism has a bias, and if a “my company, right or wrong” bias is what you favour, so be it. Me, I prefer The Economist, admittedly probably because their bias is more in tune with my own worldview. I like that there is no assumption that the private/public sector is always right/wrong, but that different markets and different circumstances call for either of both as needed.

There is no simple rule for the best way to run the world; the Economist reflects that.

Feel free to disagree.

-BM

I wonder if the state’s monopoly is only making the situation worse. Here’s my theory: Everytime a Finn sticks a euro in the machines, he/she knows that a portion of that money will go back to the welfare state, right? You’re doing your “good deed of the day” everytime you drop a coin down the slot. Blow you’re entire paycheck at the machines and you’re practically a saint to society.

If free market works as it should, the consumer gets more goods for his one unit of money. In the world of gambling, this means having better chances of winning more money with that one unit of money – it’s more likely to make you richer. If it’s more likely to make you rich, it’s more seductive. If it’s more seductive, it’ll make people gamble more.

The other way around: As people usually are somewhat rational, they take calculated risks. Even when they gamble, most of them are like that. They are less likely to go for what they consider as a big risk. If there’s only a low chance of winning, there’s a big risk. So, less gambling happens if odds of winning are lower. And, your odds are lower if gambling is controlled by RAY.

Then why doesn’t the state just run everything? Surely that’ll bring in more tax money for “good things”, right? Phil, 11.

Because that would be socialism, and apparently that is such a bad thing that we’d get trade blocked, declared wars at and critisized for everything if we had a socialist system without nuclear weapons and an army of 100 million to back it up.

The mafia and other, similar organizations looking for extraordinary high profits will take over gambling (and some other areas) if the biggest mob of them all, the state, doesn’t step in. It may actually be better for the people for the state to overtake some businesses, despite the inherent problems of coordination without valid feedback. Centrally planned economies necessarily kill themselves because they cannot receive the necessary feedback that forces them to respond to changing conditions. Gambling is hardly changing much, some small bells and whistles.

“Now, if some evil capitalistic [gasp] foreign company was taking some of that money – would you be more or less likely to gamble?”

Your theory is wrong, because this doesn’t have so much influence as you think.

“Don’t be so naive and believe that this gambling money goes directly to schools and healthcare and wonderful state programs.”

Well actually some of the RAY slot machine and casino money goes to healthcare, for funding the rescue helicopters. And I am disgusted of it! Healthcare and schools are important, none of it should be funded with gambling.

“Those gambling profits go right into some slush fund that get divided up into all sorts of frivilous state projects.”

Stupid, stupid, stupid! Didn’t I tell you to go check out the RAY and Veikkaus web sites the last time you were moaning about this?

The money goes to support many organisations. I don’t think much of it goes to some dimsy “state projects”.

Once again Phil tries to bash down the evil welfare state with the great Libertarian logic: “It doesn’t work just perfectly, so let’s destroy it completely!”

Here you can see all the the things where RAY has gone, at accuracy of one euro:
http://www.ray.fi/avustustoiminta/avustuskohteet/avustuskohteet.php

Veikkaus (Lotto, betting) goes to art, science, sports and youth work. Not really “welfare”.
https://www.veikkaus.fi/info/yritys/edunsaajat/index.html

“Liberalized gambling in Finland would bring the customers more choices, better odds, and bigger payouts – why would the Finnish government want to shaft its citizens like that?”

I think some gamblers would indeed really begin to protest, if they weren’t allowed to have choices.

But Finnish state doesn’t prevent you from playing at the foreign gambling web sites! It’s legal. There’s even a Finnish choice, PAF from Åland Islands.

Of course advertising of these is not allowed, but they can still advertise for example on Music TV channel, because it’s still a foreign tv channel, although it’s MTV Finland now.

Every serios player knows about the choices, so I don’t think there’s any chance for the monopolies to go down.

And don’t other EU countries have gambling restrictions too?