John Lepper

Testing NLCLiP: validation of estimates of rates of non-problematic and problematic gambling in a sample of British schoolchildren.

This paper reports on the results of applying a short screen for problem gambling, called NLCLiP, to a national sample of 8,958 British schoolchildren under the age of 16. It shows that, in its current form, NLCLiP can, with reasonable accuracy, be employed to estimate the rate of prevalence of problematic and non-problematic (i.e. gambling which does not lead to significant endorsement of DSM-IV-MR-J criteria) in a general population of children. However, NLCLiP does not reliably discriminate between problem and at risk gamblers. Moreover, it does not provide a reliable basis to identify cases of problem gambling. The main conclusion reached is that NLCLiP is a potentially useful tool for regulators to assess changes in the prevalence of problematic and non-problematic gambling among children over time.

Market Reality and Market Beliefs

We imagine a person who experiences only Market and ask: What concept of reality will she form? and What beliefs will she entertain?

Nature of Market

The simplest definition of Market is also the most common. In 1974, Robinson formalised it as follows: “The concept of the market in the economic theory … was primarily conceived as an exchange of goods for goods between individuals differing amongst themselves in their particular ‘endowments’ and their particular ‘tastes’ but standing in symmetrical economic relations to each other.” (Robinson, 1974/1980: 153).

Market and Law

The relationship of Market to law has two aspects. On the one hand, the coherence of Market requires widely accepted rules to govern the ownership and transfer of private property. Normally, the scope and wide acceptance of these rules is ascribed to their being part of common law. On the other, jurists argue that Market provides evidence and principles which can guide legal adjudication (Posner, 1986). Hence, legal adjudication based on Market precepts is dependent on the validity of the law of property and contract and Market is, in part, reliant upon legal judgements which are themselves the product of Market precepts.

Market As Science

The practice of science is complex.1 However, the idea of science is simply to ensure that statements about the world are borne out when compared with observed reality.2 The truth of a statement is judged by how well it accords with empirical evidence.

Mercantifers and Money

The Pure Theory of Money attempts to deduce the presence or otherwise of money from the premises of Market.1 The goal is to show that various states of money emerge as an unforeseen consequence of engagement in Market (Starr, 1972, 2003; Kiyotaki and Wright 1989, 1993; Kocherlotoka, 1996). Because it is not possible to permit monetary states to be imposed upon the citizenry, theorists have encountered exquisite difficulties in accounting for wide acceptance of states of money. As a result, the history of the so-called Pure Theory of Money consists largely of a parade of metaphors.

How Mercantifers Emerge and Function

Most socio-economic argument presumes that Market is always in one-to-one correspondence with a mercantifer. As a result, a seamless transition can be made between the two so that true statements about Market are also true statements about mercantifers.1 In economic discourse, examples of market places or market times are repeatedly used to illustrate theoretical arguments and to give them a sense of factual relevance. However, we can make no such supposition and can employ no such narrative device.

Types of Mercantifer

Mercantifers cannot be fully explored until we know what we are talking about.1 This chapter briefly reviews some of the approaches to mercantifer description that have been suggested and proposes an alternative approach.

Market Politics and Social Discourse

Market relies upon “political”1 processes to determine income distribution. The nature of politics consistent with Market can be identified with some accuracy by asking three questions: What is the general nature of the politics consistent with Market? How does the state emerge from such politics? What is the nature of the political dialogue that takes root?

Market Failure and Mercantifer Success

Market leads to outcomes which combine the highest possible utility for demanders and maximum profit for suppliers at the lowest possible resource cost. Market, therefore, achieves outcomes which are economically efficient — a notion which has been defined in a number of ways.1 However, this happens only under strict conditions (Debreu, 1959/1971).2 Mecuro and Medema (2006) summarise the conditions for Market efficiency as follows: Marginal Social Benefit = Marginal Private Benefit: The benefit to society of an additional private transaction is the same as the private benefit that the transactor enjoys; that is, there are no consumption externalities.3 Marginal Private Benefit = Price: The benefit arising from the last unit worth purchasing is the same as Market price; each demander maximises her own utility without reference to any other person and prices can be obtained for all commodities at all times. Price = Marginal Private Cost: price is equal to the private cost to producers of making the last unit worth producing; although firms maximise their profit there is no monopoly profit, market power does not exist and there are no impediments to entry to, or exit from, the industry. Marginal Private Cost = Marginal Social Cost: There is no difference between the social and private costs of producing the last unit worth producing; there are no externalities in production and no economies of scale or scope. Information: Demanders and suppliers enjoy essentially similar information about the nature, costs and impacts of things, actions and ideas on offer; there is no uncertainty. Property Rights: Demanders and suppliers are able to enjoy the full fruits of the property rights that are traded; property rights are unambiguous, enforced, alienable and enforceable.