I do. That's why I play poker. I don't do any of what I described because I think of myself as a good guy, I do it for selfish reasons, because I don't think it would make me happy to have lots of money. I think it would make me unhappy.

So you go around losing at poker to make sure you don't ever have a lot of money? Seems like it would be more fulfilling for you to do more charitable things with your money. You would help others and ensure you never have one of those dreadful large bank accounts.

In poker I win (played for a living for most of the last ~17 years). I try hard to avoid giving money away at the poker table unless as a loss leader.

Considering your superior poker skillset, I hope for your sake you don't enter any large field MTT with hefty buy-ins like the ME. Can't imagine how devastating it would be for you to have all that money. Ohh the misery!

I'm a Marxist in the US who plays poker for a living.

Gotta feed myself somehow. At least in poker, the rules are simple and universal; I can't exploit information asymmetry to coerce or exploit people out of their money, because, unlike in finance or something like this, everyone has access to any information I have (I mostly play anonymous Ignition zone games that don't even have HUD capabilities; although of course HUDs/trackers are available for a somewhat modest fee). There is a financial barrier to entry to some degree, which really sucks, but hey.

I mean, the only reason I do this for a living is because I was/am a gambling addict who played enough and thought about it enough until I was able to win. I stumbled into it.

In before a "And yet you still participate in society. Interesting!"

I've played the WSOP ME a few times, although like 99% of my play is online. I've binked some nice MTT scores, mid-five figure type scores. I'll have you know that I donate >90% of all winnings to antifa, Communist Party USA, and Hunter Biden's GoFundMe.

(9 handed live MTT poker is sooooo sloooooow)

Welcome Karl! To Gamblers Anonymous.

I take it by this part of your reply that you have no intention of providing a cite for your "stat"? or at least a "well maybe I exaggerated".

Are u QP?

The thread was doing fine until you made an outlandish claim.

I dont say any material difference between saying it was hyperbole and I exaggerated. But if you do, then I acknowledge I exaggerated.

But, the crux of the argument remains. The Mayor of Chicago acknowledges densely populated areas of the city are virtual food deserts that even Walmart has abandoned. And IMO most sensible people would conclude this is a direct product of policy decisions, and not because of "over-expansion" or systemic racism.

And the idea that the local govt is going to take over and provide functional Soviet style socialized markets without addressing the actual issues causing the dysfunction is laughable IMO.

And I think this actually touches on an important aspect of the never-ending Communism/Capitalism debate, which is why no matter how Communism sounds in principle, in practice it will always fail spectacularly; which is the former system is much more fragile and susceptible to falling apart due to abuse.

Is it so anathema to your way of thinking that having more money can make one unhappy? Mo money mo problems. Money is supposed to serve happiness, not the other way around.

I have entered the main twice and busted first day twice and I'm pretty happy with that as my hourly was always higher grinding cash games.

Yes, I completely disagree with your stance.

the "nefarious" intent is that calling the reasons they are closing stores shoplifting allows companies to publicly shift the blame outward towards communal "undesireds" rather than admitting they made poor managerial decisions in overexpansion or that they were to slow to adapt to online marketplaces and now have low return brick and mortar stores that are draining on their balance sheets.

So you think money makes one happy? There's some nuance required in this argument in that I'm not saying that it's easy to be happy or content or whatever under capitalism when you're having to work 60 hour weeks and don't have the energy for hobbies and family and you hate your work and so on; I mean that, above a certain point, money clearly doesn't make people happy. There is a LOT of research into this. The simple fact is that those who acquire a lot of money are not the type of people to ever be happy with what they've got, and always compare themselves to those around them who have more. Unless you're Musk, there's always someone around who has more money than you, and so by definition, these people cannot be happy.

Contrast that with someone who has a loving, stable family, who enjoys their work, has hobbies, eats healthy and exercises, but isn't concerned with making money, whether by exploiting others or not, and it's clear to see that money isn't what makes people happy, gives people meaning. It strips meaning.

Companies say that stuff all the time.

You seem to be putting all folks with money into a box. I have lived the 60-80 hour work week life and agree it is dreadful. However, in my case, it gave me the necessary savings to go out on my own (acquiring/operating RV parks). I now have the time to take my sons to school every day and pick them up, engage in hobbies (right now that hobby is F-class rifle. before it was POKER!. In about a month it will be quail hunting, then deer hunting, then quail hunting again), and spend about 90% of my weekly hours doing what is most important to my life at the time. Working all week is fine IMO until you have kids. Then it is important to be available and present for them. I do credit Poker for showing me how to make rational business decisions as they relate to investments heavily. But once I figured out how to play the game of capitalism, poker stopped feeling so fun. Now when I play, I get to be the degen. I find this far more entertaining so long as my table isn't trying to make a living off it. That is a buzzkill to me. Luckily, I have found a room of mostly degens in my area that is always around should I get the urge to play. I used to be a MTT nut, but can't ever find the time since having kids.

Money doesn't make you happy but in my experience, it sure doesn't make you unhappy.

That's great, and it sounds like you're living a good life. No, I'm not saying that all people with money are the same. Just that the more money people have, the more likely they are to have dehumanised themselves and dehumanised others in order to acquire it. Our culture venerates money, status and power. We can certainly agree that there is a minimum level of all those 3 things such that below that level we can experience extreme unhappiness. But equally clearly, attempting to achieve far more of those than we need directly leads to both our own unhappiness and that of those whose lives we touch.

It may not be the leading factor in these stores but there really isn't anything wrong in acknowledging that shoplifting played a legitmate role. Walmart specified security issues, loss of profits and theft all played a part.

A grocery store in my town started to disallow anyone under the age of 18 to enter without a adult guardian. They closed and while they may have been poorly run, they at least assumed theft was an issue worth addressing for them. It happens.

Or else it's a performative stunt some manager came up with to shift the blame off his management.

it's crazy to me how people dont see how this is the obvious most likely reason for these things..

some executive vp of something or other met with the strategy consultants and they see a way to deflect all blame to an "other".. lol but no it's some freaking high schoolers that simply thwarted a multimillion dollar corporation.

Stores close, they move to a better location, competition increases, economies change, technology evolves..leasing changes and such are all additional reasons why a retail business like a grocery store could close up. It isn't a big deal. It also isn't new for certain stores to not allow unaccompanied minors into their store at certain times. That's a policy that can come and go depending on a plethora of factors and you guys are certainly free to post some sources that that policy is most likely done collectively as a PR stunt.

Theft isn't going to thwart most businesses but it has certainly played a role in whether a business decides to leave or not.

I think it's possible that Walmart leaving that area could be a good thing. I can assure you that the local shops around Chicago are paying a lot more in taxes back to those communities, per dollar, than Walmart ever did - prolly 2/3rds more. Also, a portion of that money that Walmart took will being going back into the other businesses that Walmart tried to bankrupt. And those shops also don't have the luxury to just leave like Walmart did.

The mayor did everything but get on his knees and beg and plead Walmart not to leave. Obviously he doesn't share your beliefs. I wonder who is more likely to understand the situation and be wrong on this, you or him?

t doesn't seem like you all are really grasping what it means to have whole sections of a city be "food deserts" with no access to anything but liquor store junk food.

thats capitalism tho init