Transcript of the above video: 

The thumbnail for this is actually a clip; it’s a bit obscure. It's actually a clip; I'll put the clip in the description below. It's actually from I believe a TV series, Netflix or something, SYFY, it might have moved over to Amazon. I think it was on SYFY and then went to Amazon or was on Amazon, it went to Apple or something, whatever, it's called The Man in the High Castle. Now it's based on a book by Philip K. Dick which I can't recommend enough. I loved the book; the series was okay, it was pretty good. I liked the first season because it kind of more closely tracked the book. As it goes on, it starts to kind of move away from sort of the source material more and more, but the underlying premise is there. It is an alternative universe where sort of the Axis powers won the Second World War. In this particular scene it is basically a situation where - I'll let you watch the scene - I'll just leave it at that. But there's a line in there and the scene is not completely, in fact it is not analogous to this situation regarding gambling, but the line that I paraphrased to make the thumbnail I think is very pertinent though, the notion. What am I talking about here? 

Well, I've been thinking more and more about this gambling thing. It hit me the other night. I had an almost epiphany. There was a case when I was in law school, Constitutional Law specifically back in the States, Washburn University - there you go, Ichabods - and I remember this case. If I remember correctly, I believe it was Con Law 1, it might have been, I think it was Con Law 1. Yeah it was Con Law 1, Professor Rich, Con Law 1, correct. There was a case in that course we went through wherein if I recall correctly, I think it was a case involving New Hampshire or Connecticut or Vermont, where basically the state had gotten into the cement business if I recall. In any event, the holding of the case was, when the Government - in an American context - when the Government engages in commerce directly - and governments can through various means, they can end up sort of being in private business for lack of a better term, in the United States - again I will get to the analogy to Thailand here in a minute, but this is US analysis for the moment. There is a different analysis with regard to things like privileges and immunities and things of this nature if the state is an actor. The reason I bring that up is I'm not saying those same regulations, or anything should apply here in Thailand, it was just the notion of the state becoming the actor with regard to casinos. Because the more I have been thinking of this, the more I realize that maybe going the Western model of just having like these private casinos and then they are regulated by the state, maybe that's not the way to go. What are we talking about? 

Well I got to thinking about it and I started thinking to myself, what happens if here in Thailand they started up, let's say they legalize gambling and then they started up a program where the state trained dealers, where the state trained slot technicians. It would move through like a Government Trade School. You go to a Trade School for Casino, Travel and Casino sort of services training, okay. Now this is going to be different than your standard hospitality training, although I expect it probably dovetails standard hospitality training, but anybody that has ever worked in a casino knows it's a totally different animal. I worked as a dealer for years; I had friends that worked in the casino as like waiters and waitresses, which by the way some days they would do better than us on the floor - not every day and not most days - but every once in a while, they would beat us. But like they would look over to us and they'd say, "I don't even know what you are doing over there". It's like yeah, you don't because you have to be trained for this stuff. Look, these are skill sets that are very portable, and they're not unlucrative. They don't lack a certain amount, these skill sets don't lack financial benefits, okay. If you're a journeyman dealer, if you can deal blackjack, baccarat, poker, roulette and you've been at it a year, year and a half, you can do that. It's like riding a bike. I remember dealing blackjack. The first six weeks is hell on wheels; you have literal blackjack dreams okay, when you're learning it because it's stressful. You're learning to deal it; you have players that have money on the line; you have got the box man behind you watching every little thing when you're new, that first 6 weeks is rough, but once you have it, that is a skill set that will walk with you, that will go with you wherever you go, around the world. I don't think it's in any way shameful for perhaps the state to engage in training people at this level. Then the question becomes, to what end? This is the point. I think Thailand if you will, I think it's worth exploring, let me put it this way. Thailand becoming the casino. 

Now what do we mean by that? What I'm saying is instead of designating Casino complexes that only in these areas can this be done, what if folks were trained through the state and then each individual vendor out there can apply for their own license with the state and then the state provides the employees so that they can be sure to get their cut of the tax money. You have got people from ground up that are going to be disinclined to operate against the state. They'll be trained by them and there should be a spectrum of licenses. If you own a major Casino complex, you're the Avani or you're JW Marriott or something here, and you say, "hey I want to go apply for a license. We have got a big hotel complex here. We can fit a casino in, no problem. I want to go apply for a license." And let's say that that particular facility wants to have 10 gaming tables and 50 slot machines, or something of this nature - again I'm just throwing out numbers - but let's say that they did, and they go to the government, they ask for a license. Well, that license is going to be a very different license than perhaps a little Bar and Grill that wants to go get a license to have say poker, just a one table license to put on a poker game. That's going to be a different license. But, when you apply for the license, and you have to pay these people a salary, but the state sends them as part of the licensing process. The state then sends them in and they work as if you will, state contractors; they're like independent contractors within your business. Technical proficiency if you will, technicians if you will, who are providing these Casino Services. That's their function. You pay them, there's some sort of State apparatus where you pay them sort of a fixed amount to the state, they get their salary from the state, they get state benefits as part of the pay in. They can also work for tips or not. Make the policy, decide if that's what we want to have in Thailand. My personal opinion is better dealers are tipped, so it's probably a good idea to allow them to keep their tips, but who cares if they do. They're operating independently; again they're not trying to make money off the house; nobody's trying to avoid taxation. It creates a very neutral individual to put on those services. But the point I'm trying to make is it doesn't single anybody out; it doesn't end up being unequal benefits to folks because there's only one Casino Complex. No, it would be across the board. Again I would see a spectrum of different kinds of licenses. If you want to go in and get a one card table, like a poker table license, they'll send you in dealers, designate somebody that has to be trained through the state apparatus, and then you have that person there. You pay them through the state and that all goes through your licensing. Those people go ahead and then are on the ground, reporting back regarding the practices of the intake and the revenue associated with the gambling, so that there can be no skim, so that the government can get it's cut. But more importantly, it's creating jobs; it's fair across the board and these are jobs with a skill set that give Thais upward mobility in an internationally portable sense, okay. If you are a Thai national that can speak Thai and English and you are a proficient table games dealer, Croupier you can go around the world with that skill set and you have two languages under your belt. If you have got three, if you have got like Chinese, Thai and English, and you can deal the spectrum of games on a gambling floor, you can go anywhere, I'm here to tell you - Vegas, Macau, South America, Monaco. You speak a Southeast Asian language, Chinese and English, you're going to write your own ticket. You’re going to make money; it's work; it's a job, but it's a good job.

So I have been thinking about this and I think maybe our paradigm today regarding the idea of gambling in Thailand is off. I'm not saying this is the end-all-be-all solution, but I think it's a solution nobody has really looked at and I'm hopeful that it is at least considered by lawmakers and policy makers here in the Kingdom of Thailand.