"Larson's first mistake is claiming Indian gaming is a monopoly. It isn't....he's missed all the casinos in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, the Gulf Coast, Reno, and elsewhere. Whoops."
OK. Does this mean that old Ma Bell was not a monopoly because you could go elsewhere (Mexico or Canada) to escape it if you wanted to make a phone call?
"Are paid-for politicians preventing non-Indian casinos from opening in Minnesota?"
Perhaps? There was a ballot initiative to open state racinos in Michigan a few years ago. The tribal casino organizations were a part of the coalition organized in opposition to the ballot.
"So where's the monopoly—in Pennsylvania or anywhere else? Nowhere, that's where. It doesn't exist except in Larson's imagination."
I think it does exist in Michigan. I am not aware of any non-Native casinos.
Most states have racetracks or card clubs. You also can travel to casinos in nearby states and provinces. And states can reverse a so-called monopoly whenever they want.
So Larson would be more correct to say Indians have a monopoly on a certain kind of gambling establishment with certain geographical and political constraints. It's not an unqualified monopoly by any means.
Opposing a state's plan to open racinos isn't the same as preventing racinos. And it doesn't mean tribes have bought the politicians who also oppose the plan. Politicians often oppose gaming expansions for a variety of reasons.
Two of the three casinos in Detroit aren't Native-owned: MGM Grand Detroit and MotorCity Casino. How did this come about? According to Wikipedia, "In November 1996 Michigan voters approved Proposal E which authorized three casinos to be built and operated in the City of Detroit."
If there was a Native monopoly before then, that ended it. The monopoly ended the way I said these monopolies end: by the will of the majority. If the people don't want a Native monopoly, there won't be one.
To use your analogy, a state with a Native "monopoly" is like a state with one Bell company where the public and the competition decline to challenge it. In technical terms, a monopoly requires an impervious barrier of entry to other competitors. The actual barrier is substantial but it isn't impervious.
I made the mistake that those two Detroit casinos were connected to a tribe, but yes, they are not.
The argument over monopoly is one of semantics. If something can't be a monopoly because you can travel for alternatives, then I suppose that nothing is really a monopoly, is it?
"Opposing a state's plan to open racinos isn't the same as preventing racinos."
But if the opposition was important in preventing racinos, there is some relation, even if it is not the "same".
Writerfella here -- Not to mention all the non-Native horse racing, dog racing, state-owned 'racinoes,' legalized card parlors, and most glaring of all, THE LOTTERIES!! Even sports betting monumentally is organized in the 'sports books' in Las Vegas and other non-Native venues! Oh, by the bye, the Oklahoma Lottery is failing miserably in providing all the 'pizza-in-the-sky' forecast funding for state education and two matters will be debated later this year by the Oklahoma legislature: either reduce the percentages promised to education AND thence increase the prizes available to increase sales, or otherwise prohibit and abrogate the lottery entirely. No one is saying as yet what the latter would mean to Native gaming and casinoes in Oklahoma, as it was the implementation of state lottery that let Oklahoma Native gaming out of its Bingo bottle in the first place... All Best Russ Bates 'writerfella' All Best Russ Bates 'writerfella'
Whether an out-of-state casino breaks a so-called monopoly depends on how far away it is. If it's farther than a one- or two-hour drive, it probably serves another market. It's not real competition for a nearby casino.
Yes, tribal opposition can be significant even if it doesn't prevent the opening of a competitor. But note: California's tribes didn't come close to passing Proposition 70 in 2004, even though they spent millions on it. Money can influence an election, but it can't buy it.
"Larson's first mistake is claiming Indian gaming is a monopoly. It isn't....he's missed all the casinos in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, the Gulf Coast, Reno, and elsewhere. Whoops."
ReplyDeleteOK. Does this mean that old Ma Bell was not a monopoly because you could go elsewhere (Mexico or Canada) to escape it if you wanted to make a phone call?
"Are paid-for politicians preventing non-Indian casinos from opening in Minnesota?"
Perhaps? There was a ballot initiative to open state racinos in Michigan a few years ago. The tribal casino organizations were a part of the coalition organized in opposition to the ballot.
"So where's the monopoly—in Pennsylvania or anywhere else? Nowhere, that's where. It doesn't exist except in Larson's imagination."
I think it does exist in Michigan. I am not aware of any non-Native casinos.
Most states have racetracks or card clubs. You also can travel to casinos in nearby states and provinces. And states can reverse a so-called monopoly whenever they want.
ReplyDeleteSo Larson would be more correct to say Indians have a monopoly on a certain kind of gambling establishment with certain geographical and political constraints. It's not an unqualified monopoly by any means.
Opposing a state's plan to open racinos isn't the same as preventing racinos. And it doesn't mean tribes have bought the politicians who also oppose the plan. Politicians often oppose gaming expansions for a variety of reasons.
Two of the three casinos in Detroit aren't Native-owned: MGM Grand Detroit and MotorCity Casino. How did this come about? According to Wikipedia, "In November 1996 Michigan voters approved Proposal E which authorized three casinos to be built and operated in the City of Detroit."
If there was a Native monopoly before then, that ended it. The monopoly ended the way I said these monopolies end: by the will of the majority. If the people don't want a Native monopoly, there won't be one.
To use your analogy, a state with a Native "monopoly" is like a state with one Bell company where the public and the competition decline to challenge it. In technical terms, a monopoly requires an impervious barrier of entry to other competitors. The actual barrier is substantial but it isn't impervious.
I made the mistake that those two Detroit casinos were connected to a tribe, but yes, they are not.
ReplyDeleteThe argument over monopoly is one of semantics. If something can't be a monopoly because you can travel for alternatives, then I suppose that nothing is really a monopoly, is it?
"Opposing a state's plan to open racinos isn't the same as preventing racinos."
But if the opposition was important in preventing racinos, there is some relation, even if it is not the "same".
Writerfella here --
ReplyDeleteNot to mention all the non-Native horse racing, dog racing, state-owned 'racinoes,' legalized card parlors, and most glaring of all, THE LOTTERIES!! Even sports betting monumentally is organized in the 'sports books' in Las Vegas and other non-Native venues!
Oh, by the bye, the Oklahoma Lottery is failing miserably in providing all the 'pizza-in-the-sky' forecast funding for state education and two matters will be debated later this year by the Oklahoma legislature: either reduce the percentages promised to education AND thence increase the prizes available to increase sales, or otherwise prohibit and abrogate the lottery entirely. No one is saying as yet what the latter would mean to Native gaming and casinoes in Oklahoma, as it was the implementation of state lottery that let Oklahoma Native gaming out of its Bingo bottle in the first place...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Whether an out-of-state casino breaks a so-called monopoly depends on how far away it is. If it's farther than a one- or two-hour drive, it probably serves another market. It's not real competition for a nearby casino.
ReplyDeleteYes, tribal opposition can be significant even if it doesn't prevent the opening of a competitor. But note: California's tribes didn't come close to passing Proposition 70 in 2004, even though they spent millions on it. Money can influence an election, but it can't buy it.
Writerfella here --
ReplyDeleteYes, only EuroMan can buy such elections because he is the one who holds them...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'