The possible link between casino gambling and suicide rates has been the subject of much investigation.
Retrieved 22 January Industry trends and impacts PDF. Retrieved 17 January Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority. Retrieved 29 January The Gaming Technologies Association. Central Coast Gambling Help. Retrieved on 10 September Retrieved on 9 September The Conversation. Final Report. Parliament of Tasmania. Retrieved 11 January Tables 6— Gambling by country. Retrieved from " https: Gambling in Australia.
Hidden categories: Use Australian English from March All Wikipedia articles written in Australian English Articles to be expanded from February All articles to be expanded Articles using small message boxes All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from January Use dmy dates from January Namespaces Article Talk.
There is widespread dissatisfaction with the outcomes of unregulated financial and commodity markets, which fail to transmit reliable price signals for commodity producers. In recent years, the global economic policy environment seems to have become more favorable to fresh thinking about the need for multilateral actions against the negative impacts of large commodity price fluctuations on development and macroeconomic stability in the world economy.
Countries in Asia are increasingly worried about what is happening in the West. A number of nations urged the US to provide meaningful assurances and bailout packages for the US economy, as that would have a knock-on effect of reassuring foreign investors and helping ease concerns in other parts of the world. Many believed Asia was sufficiently decoupled from the Western financial systems. Asia has not had a subprime mortgage crisis like many nations in the West have, for example.
Many Asian nations have witnessed rapid growth and wealth creation in recent years. This lead to enormous investment in Western countries. In addition, there was increased foreign investment in Asia, mostly from the West. However, this crisis has shown that in an increasingly inter-connected world means there are always knock-on effects and as a result, Asia has had more exposure to problems stemming from the West.
Many Asian countries have seen their stock markets suffer and currency values going on a downward trend. Asian products and services are also global, and a slowdown in wealthy countries means increased chances of a slowdown in Asia and the risk of job losses and associated problems such as social unrest. Much of it is fueled by its domestic market. Although this is a very impressive growth figure even in good times, the speed at which it has dropped—the sharp slowdown—is what is concerning.
However, China also has a growing crisis of unrest over job losses. Both have poured billions into recovery packages. With China concerned about its economy, it has been trying to encourage its companies to invest more overseas , hoping it will reduce the upward pressure on its currency, the Yuan. China has also raised concerns about the world relying on mostly one foreign currency reserve, and called for the dollar to be replaced by a world reserve currency run by the IMF.
Of course, the US has defended the dollar as a global currency reserve , which is to be expected given it is one of its main sources of global economic dominance. Whether a change like this would actually happen remains to be seen, but it is likely the US and its allies will be very resistant to the idea. Japan, which has suffered its own crisis in the s also faces trouble now.
While their banks seem more secure compared to their Western counterparts, it is very dependent on exports. A rise in industrial output in April was expected, but was positively more than initially estimated. However, with high unemployment and general lack of confidence, optimism for recovery has been dampened. Towards the end of October , a major meeting between the EU and a number of Asian nations resulted in a joint statement pledging a coordinated response to the global financial crisis.
This is very significant because Asian and other developing countries have often been treated as second-class citizens when it comes to international trade, finance and investment talks. This time, however, Asian countries are potentially trying to flex their muscle, maybe because they see an opportunity in this crisis, which at the moment mostly affects the rich West.
Asian leaders had called for effective and comprehensive reform of the international monetary and financial systems. For example, as IPS also noted in the same report, one of the Chinese state-controlled media outlets demanded that We want the U. Whether this will happen is hard to know. Similar calls by other developing countries and civil society around the world, for years, have come to no avail. This time however, the financial crisis could mean the US is less influential than before.
A side-story of the emerging Chinese superpower versus the declining US superpower will be interesting to watch. It would of course be too early to see China somehow using this opportunity to decimate the US, economically, as it has its own internal issues. China has, however, used this opportunity to attempt to attract neighboring nations into its orbit by attempting to foster better economic ties.
According to an IPS analysis, this has been a goal for a while, but the recent financial crisis has provided more opportunities for China to step up to this. An improved investment deal between China and Taiwan maybe one example of this improving engagement in the region. The economic crisis may also be encouraging greater ties in this manner, as it would be important for Taiwan in particular as it has been in recession since the end of Asian nations are mulling over the creation of an alternative Asia foreign exchange fund, but market shocks are making some Asian countries nervous and it is not clear if all will be able to commit.
What seems to be emerging is that Asian nations may have an opportunity to demand more fairness in the international arena, which would be good for other developing regions, too. The wealthier ones who do have some exposure to the rest of the world, however, may face some problems.
In recent years, there has been more interest in Africa from Asian countries such as China. As the financial crisis is hitting the Western nations the hardest, Africa may yet enjoy increased trade for a while.
These earlier hopes for Africa, above, may be short lived, unfortunately. The IMF has promised more aid to the region, importantly with looser conditions, which in the past have been very detrimental to Africa. Many will likely remain skeptical of IMF loans given this past, as Stiglitz and others have already voiced concerns about see further below.
In the long run, it can be expected that foreign investment in Africa will reduce as the credit squeeze takes hold. Furthermore, foreign aid , which is important for a number of African countries, is likely to diminish. Effectiveness of aid is a separate issue which the previous link details.
African countries could face increasing pressure for debt repayment, however. As the crisis gets deeper and the international institutions and western banks that have lent money to Africa need to shore up their reserves more, one way could be to demand debt repayment.
This could cause further cuts in social services such as health and education, which have already been reduced due to crises and policies from previous eras. Much of the debts owed by African nations are odious, or unjust debts, as detailed further below, which would make any more aggressive demands of repayment all the more worrisome. Some African countries have already started to cut their health and HIV budgets due to the economic crisis.
Their health budgets and resources have been constrained for many years already, so this crisis makes a bad situation worse. As IPS reports,. Already, large percentages of households in Sub-Saharan Africa are poor, and the large number of people on treatment means ever-increasing treatment program costs.
Yet, Sub-Saharan Africa only accounts for one percent of global health expenditure and two percent of the global health workforce. IPS adds that even international donor organizations have started to feel the financial crunch:. As such Latin America will also feel the effect of the US financial crisis and slower growth in Latin America is expected. Due to its proximity to the US and its close relationship via the NAFTA and other agreements, Mexico is expected to have one of the lowest growth rates for the region next year at 1.
A number of countries in the region have come together in the form of the Latin American Pacific Arc and are hoping to improve trade and investment with Asia. Diversifying in this way might be good for the region and help provide some stability against future crises. For the moment, the integration is going ahead , despite concerns about the financial crisis. However, the problems of a regional blocs, Mercosur the Southern Common Market , shows that not all is well.
While Mercosur is its relevance being questioned, an IPS overview of its recent challenges also highlights that a number of South American countries are raising trade barriers against their neighbors as the crisis starts to bite more. Rather than regional integration and a unified position to present to the rest of the world, concerns of fragmentation are increasing. This also affects Brazil, as the regional economic superpower; more bickering within its sphere means distraction from the global scene.
While much mainstream media attention is on the details of the financial crisis, and some of its causes, it also needs to be put into context though not diminishing its severity. Taxpayers will be bailing out their banks and financial institutions with large amounts of money. Much more. Even the high military spending figures are dwarfed by the bailout plans to date.
Almost daily, some half of humanity or more, suffer a daily financial, social and emotional, crisis of poverty. In poorer countries, poverty is not always the fault of the individual alone, but a combination of personal, regional, national, and—importantly—international influences. There is little in the way of bail out for these people, many of whom are not to blame for their own predicament, unlike with the financial crisis.
There are some grand strategies to try and address global poverty, such as the UN Millennium Development Goals, but these are not only lofty ideals and under threat from the effects of the financial crisis which would reduce funds available for the goals , but they only aim to halve poverty and other problems. While this of course is better than nothing it signifies that many leading nations have not had the political will to go further and aim for more ambitious targets, but are willing to find far more to save their own banks, for example.
The two are in fact inter-related issues, both have their causes rooted in the fundamental problems associated with a neoliberal, one-size-fits-all, economic agenda imposed on virtually the entire world. Human rights has long been a concern. Recent years have seen increasing acknowledgment that human rights and economic issues such as development go hand in hand. Long before the global financial crisis took hold, human rights concerns were high the world over, as annual reports from Amnesty International and other human rights organizations repeatedly warned about.
The global financial crisis has led to an economic crisis which in turn has led to a human rights crisis, says Amnesty in their report. They find that as millions more slide into poverty as a result of the current crisis, social unrest increases resulting in more protests. These protests are sometimes met with a lot of suppression.
Other times, people are exploited further. The World Bank agrees. When the G20 held a summit in UK in April , much was made by local media about the apparent use of excessive force by police against protesters , and even led to the death of a passer by mistaken as a protester a small minority of whom were also violent.
George Monbiot also raises concerns about how campaigners and protesters are being rebranding as domestic extremists. But as a news article accompanying the report from Amnesty summarizes, many nations have seen protests against economic decline and social conditions which have been met by violence, arrests and detentions without charge:. Across Africa, people demonstrated against desperate social and economic situations and sharp rises in living costs.
Social tensions and economic disparities led to thousands of protests throughout China. In the Middle East and North Africa, the economic and social insecurity was highlighted by strikes and protests in several countries, including Egypt. In Tunisia, strikes and protests were put down with force, causing two deaths, many injuries and more than 2, prosecutions of alleged organizers, some culminating in long prison sentences. The poorer countries do get foreign aid from richer nations, but it cannot be expected that current levels of aid low as they actually are can be maintained as donor nations themselves go through financial crisis.
As such the Millennium Development Goals to address many concerns such as halving poverty and hunger around the world, will be affected. Almost an aside, the issue of tax havens is important for many poor countries. Tax havens result in capital moving out of poor countries into havens. A UN-sponsored conference slated for November to address this issue is unlikely to get much attention or be successful due to the recession fears and the financial crisis.
This lost tax revenue is significant for poor countries. It could reduce, or eliminate the need for foreign aid which many in rich countries do not like giving, anyway , could help poor countries pay off legitimate debts, and also help themselves become more independent from the influence of wealthy creditor nations.
Politically, it may be this latter point that prevents many rich countries doing more to help the poor, when monetarily it would be so easy to do so. But public pressure has had an effect. Governments of the US, UK and others are slowly increasing pressure on tax havens, though with mixed results, and some tax havens are on the defensive, some trying to justify themselves.
Some havens, such as Jersey have been pressured into signing agreements that will increase their transparency. Whether it will work, or if it is just a token gesture is hard to say at this time, however. Crippling third world debt has been hampering development of the developing countries for decades. These debts are small in comparison to the bailout the US alone was prepared to give its banks, but enormous for the poor countries that bear those burdens, having affected many millions of lives for many, many years.
Many of these debts were incurred not just by irresponsible government borrowers such as corrupt third world dictators, many of whom had come to power with Western backing and support , but irresponsible lending also a moral hazard from Western banks and institutions they heavily influenced, such as the IMF and World Bank.
Despite enormous protest and public pressure for odious debt relief or write-off, hardly any has occurred, and when it does grand promises of debt relief for poor countries often turn out to be exaggerated. To achieve even this amount required much campaigning and pressuring of the mainstream media to cover these issues. The money then seemed easy to find.
Talk of increasing health or education budgets in rich countries typically meets resistance. Massive military spending , or now, financial sector bail out, however, can be done extremely quickly. And, a common view in many countries seems to be how financial sector leaders get away with it. For example, a hungry person stealing bread is likely to get thrown into jail.
A financial sector leader, or an ideologue pushing for policies that are going to lead to corruption or weaknesses like this, face almost no such consequence for their action other than resigning from their jobs and perhaps public humiliation for a while. This problem could have been averted in theory as people had been pointing to these issues for decades. Yet, of course, during periods of boom no-one let alone the financial institutions and their supporting ideologues and politicians largely believed to be responsible for the bulk of the problems would want to hear of caution and even thoughts of the kind of regulation that many are now advocating.
To suggest anything would be anti-capitalism or socialism or some other label that could effectively shut up even the most prominent of economists raising concerns. Of course, the irony that those same institutions would now themselves agree that those anti-capitalist regulations are required is of course barely noted.
Such options now being considered are not anti-capitalist. However, they could be described as more regulatory or managed rather than completely free or laissez faire capitalism, which critics of regulation have often preferred. But a regulatory capitalist economy is very different to a state-based command economy, the style of which the Soviet Union was known for. The points is that there are various forms of capitalism, not just the black-and-white capitalism and communism.
And at the same time, the most extreme forms of capitalism can also lead to the bigger bubbles and the bigger busts. We had become accustomed to the hypocrisy. The banks reject any suggestion they should face regulation, rebuff any move towards anti-trust measures — yet when trouble strikes, all of a sudden they demand state intervention: The industry as a whole has not been doing what it should be doing … and it must now face change in its regulatory structures.
Regrettably, many of the worst elements of the US financial system … were exported to the rest of the world. Some of these regulatory measures have been easy to get around for various reasons. Some reasons for weak regulation that entrepreneur Mark Shuttleworth describes include that regulators.
It was all done in the name of innovation, and any regulatory initiative was fought away with claims that it would suppress that innovation. They were innovating, all right, but not in ways that made the economy stronger.
Unfortunately, they were far too successful, and we are all — homeowners, workers, investors, taxpayers — paying the price. The wasted capital, labor and resources all add up. British economist John Maynard Keynes, is considered one of the most influential economists of the 20th century and one of the fathers of modern macroeconomics. He advocated an interventionist form of government policy believing markets left to their own measure i. To mitigate against the worst effects of these cycles, he supported the idea that governments could use various fiscal and monetary measures.
His ideas helped rebuild after World War II, until the s when his ideas were abandoned for freer market systems. What creates a crisis of the kind that now engulfs us is not economics but politics. The triumph of the global free market, which has dominated the world over the last three decades has been a political triumph. It has reflected the dominance of those who believe that governments for which read the views and interests of ordinary people should be kept away from the levers of power, and that the tiny minority who control and benefit most from the economic process are the only people competent to direct it.
This band of greedy oligarchs have used their economic power to persuade themselves and most others that we will all be better off if they are in no way restrained—and if they cannot persuade, they have used that same economic power to override any opposition. The economic arguments in favor of free markets are no more than a fig leaf for this self-serving doctrine of self-aggrandizement. Furthermore, he argues that the democratic process has been abused and manipulated to allow a concentration of power that is actually against the idea of free markets and real capitalism:.
The uncomfortable truth is that democracy and free markets are incompatible. The whole point of democratic government is that it uses the legitimacy of the democratic mandate to diffuse power throughout society rather than allow it to accumulate—as any player of Monopoly understands—in just a few hands. It deliberately uses the political power of the majority to offset what would otherwise be the overwhelming economic power of the dominant market players.
If governments accept, as they have done, that the free market cannot be challenged, they abandon, in effect, their whole raison d'etre. Democracy is then merely a sham. Despite Keynesian economics getting a bad press from free market advocates for many years, many are now turning to his policies and ideas to help weather the economic crisis.
We are all Keynesians now. Even the right in the United States has joined the Keynesian camp with unbridled enthusiasm and on a scale that at one time would have been truly unimaginable. Economic theory has long explained why unfettered markets were not self-correcting, why regulation was needed, why there was an important role for government to play in the economy. But many, especially people working in the financial markets, pushed a type of market fundamentalism.
The moment of enlightenment came only when those policies also began inflicting costs on the US and other advanced industrial countries. The neo-liberal push for deregulation served some interests well. Financial markets did well through capital market liberalization.
Enabling America to sell its risky financial products and engage in speculation all over the world may have served its firms well, even if they imposed large costs on others. Today, the risk is that the new Keynesian doctrines will be used and abused to serve some of the same interests.
At the end of , Alan Greenspan was summoned to the U. Congress to testify about the financial crisis. His tenure at the Federal Reserve had been long and lauded, and Congress wanted to know what had gone wrong. Henry Waxman questioned him:. I found a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak. In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working.
That is precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well. And Greenspan is not alone. The only guy who really called this right was Karl Marx. One after the other, the celebrants of the free market are finding themselves, to use the language of the market, corrected.
Stiglitz observed this remarkable resignation at the annual Davos forum, usually a meeting place of rich world leaders and the corporate elite, who usually together reassert ways to go full steam ahead with a form of corporate globalization that has benefited those at the top. This time, however, Stiglitz noted that. In a widely attended brainstorming session at which participants were asked what single failure accounted for the crisis, there was a resounding answer: The so-called efficient markets model, which holds that prices fully and efficiently reflect all available information, also came in for a trashing.
So did inflation targeting: Perhaps their absence made it easier for those who did attend to vent their anger. A call for the repayment of past bonuses was received with applause. Indeed, some American financiers were especially harshly criticized for seeming to take the position that they, too, were victims … and it seemed particularly galling that they were continuing to hold a gun to the heads of governments, demanding massive bailouts and threatening economic collapse otherwise.
Money was flowing to those who had caused the problem, rather than to the victims. Worse still, much of the money flowing into the banks to recapitalize them so that they could resume lending has been flowing out in the form of bonus payments and dividends. And as much as this crisis affects wealthier nations, the poorest will suffer most in the long run:. Still, the worry at Davos was that there would be a retreat from even our flawed globalization, and that poor countries would suffer the most.
But the playing field has always been uneven. At least for the moment, financial market liberalization seems to be dead. Most economic regions are now facing recession, or are in it. This includes the US, the Eurozone, and many others.
At such times governments attempt to stimulate the economy. Standard macroeconomic policy includes policies to. Borrowing at a time of recession seems risky, but the idea is that this should be complimented with paying back during times of growth.
Likewise, reducing interest rates sounds like there would be less incentive for people to save money, when banks need to build up their capital reserves. However, as the real economy starts to feel the pinch, reduced interest rates is an attempt to encourage people to take part in the economy.
Tax reduction is something that most people favor, and yet during times of economic downturn it would seem that a reduction in tax would result in reduced government revenues just when they need it and then spending on health, education, etc, would be at risk. However, because higher taxes during downturns means more hardship for more people, increased borrowing is supposed to offset the reduction in taxes, hopefully affording people a better chance to weather the economic storm.
Finally it is at this time that public infrastructure work, which can potentially employ many, many people, is palatable. Often, under free market ideals, government involvement in such activities is supposed to be minimal. Even the other forms of interference is usually frowned upon. However, most states realize that markets are not always able to function on their own the current financial crisis, starting in the US, being the prime example ; pragmatic and sensible adoption of market systems means governments can guide development and progress as required.
Nonetheless, many governments have started to contemplate these kinds of measures. For example, South Korea reduced its interest rates , as has Japan , China , England , various European countries, and many others. Many have looked to borrow billions or in some way come up with stimulus packages to try and kick-start ailing economies.
While these might be reasonably standard things to do, it requires that during economic good times, a reversal of some of these policies are required; interest rates may need to increase one reason for the housing booms in the US, UK and elsewhere was that interest rates were too low during good times , borrowing should be reduced and debts should start to be repaid, infrastructure investments may not need to be as direct from government and private enterprise may be able to contribute, and most politically sensitive of all, taxes should increase again to offset the reduction in borrowing.
Some are also against government-based stimulus packages, arguing instead that tax cuts alone should do the job; individuals make better choices on consumption than governments. Nobel prize winner for economics, Paul Krugman addresses this noting the difference between private consumption and government stimulus:. And every Econ textbook explains that the provision of public goods is a necessary function of government.
Each of these measures should no doubt come under scrutiny from opposition parties and the media, to ensure they are appropriate, but some, such as tax hikes during good times can be so politically sensitive, that governments may be afraid to make such choices, thus making economic policies during bad times even riskier as a result.
Even then, the severity of these economic problems means that these strategies are not guaranteed to work, or it may take even longer to take effect. For example, as quarterly figures for various companies start to come out, more and more companies are announcing losses, closures, layoffs or other problems; people are becoming very nervous about the economy and spending less.
The automobile industry in the US, for example, is feeling immense pressure with some of the largest companies in the world facing huge problems and are asking the government for some kind of bailout or assistance. Yet, the US public generally seems against this, having already bailed out the banks with enormous sums of money.
If the automobile industry is bailed out, then other industries will all cry for more money; when would it stop? In addition, as Joseph Stiglitz warns, some nations are turning to the IMF which is prescribing the opposite policies:. The worry is that, at least in some cases, the IMF will go back to its old failed recipes: While developed countries engage in stabilizing countercyclical policies, developing countries would be forced into destabilizing policies, driving away capital when they need it most.
It would appear to be an example where high interest rates may be inappropriate. The economic problems have led to political challenges including protests and clashes. But as Krugman notes, capital controls may have also helped Iceland as well as having its own currency and making the banks pay for the problems rather than making the public pay , which is what has since happened in Ireland which now faces a massive bailout and very severe austerity measures.
It may be that this time round a more fundamental set of measures need to be considered, possibly global in scope. The very core of the global financial system is something many are now turning their attention to. Towards the end of September , the World Bank admitted that developing countries have come to the rescue of the global economy , picking up the slack of the advanced economies which were hurt the worst by the financial crisis. World Bank President Robert Zoellick noted that The developing world is becoming the driver of the global economy.
Led by emerging markets, developing countries now account for half of global growth and are leading the recovery in world trade. He also acknowledged that as economic power has shifted, a multi-polar world economy is emerging. Current growth trends in the developing world means the collective size of developing-country economies would surpass that of developed-country economies in , the Bank estimates. These factors further strengthen the long-time chorus of voices demanding Bank and IMF governance reform to share more power with developing countries who have long been side-lined by these influential international institutions, and is discussed further below.
Many people are now calling for fundamental reforms of the financial systems, internationally. This includes international banking and finance, to reform of international financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. Part of the reform suggestions also include giving more voice and power to poor countries, who typically have little say in how the global economy is shaped.
Traditionally powerful countries have resisted these calls—that have been voiced for decades, not just during this crisis. Contact Us. News in Focus Browse News Releases. Multimedia Gallery. Trending Topics. Business Technology. General Business. Consumer Technology. In-Language News. You just read:
This is a preview of Press; Business profitability versus social check access. The legalization of casinos: J. New York: Cambridge University Press. Examining the impact of casinos the casino industry. Tax incidence and price discrimination: recently, have been highlighted as:. Public policy and the displacement tax effects. Market-based "disaster relief": Katrina and. Acknowledgments Thanks to Elizabeth Mandell. The cross border impact of your specializations: Politics Urban Studies. The luck business: The Free Press; Hashimoto K, Fenich GG.Can gambling fix bad economy? Final Report of the Australian Institute for Gambling Research, University of Western Sydney July Jun 29, - Most of the research on the social and economic impacts of gambling dates back only to the early s. The development of this literature was. Social and Economic Impact of Gambling (SEIG). Show or in measuring and reporting on the social and economic costs and benefits of gambling in Canada. 31 32 33 34 35