Wait, per $ spent luxury clothes are generally as practically useless as skins in a game. And, people who sell them do it by tapping into social status instincts. So whether tangible, or not, I don't see much difference
Gambling engages the brain's reward system, releasing neurotransmitters like dopamine, creating a pleasurable experience. This reinforcement mechanism, coupled with the unpredictable nature of wins, contributes to the development of addiction. The element of chance activates cognitive processes that can lead to irrational beliefs, such as the illusion of control or the gambler's fallacy. Factors like accessibility, environmental cues, and social reinforcement further shape addictive behavior. Unlike purchasing goods, where the exchange is tangible and predictable, gambling introduces a unique set of psychological stimuli, risk factors, and reinforcement mechanisms that can lead to addictive patterns and challenges in self-control.
Thanks, this explanation makes much more sense. However, it's still misses the fact that dopamine involved in our lives very widely, and addictions can be developed to practically anything. "Normal" games are a good example, as well as obsessive buying, or aesthetic procedures, caffeine, sugar. All this things (and many more) can become uncontrollable, and dangerous to the point of death. When people demand something to be prohibited because they got moved by a story of a poor soul destroyed by addiction they must realize logical implications. Like way more people affected by alcohol than by gambling, and yet at this times most people would point you that prohibition didn't work.
I can agree with reselling part (not sure if it works for every luxury item, but I guess in general it should). But economically it's still the same. Revenue makes salaries, taxes, it contributes to specific research areas (as other commenter noted bot detection got funded by this induatry) etc.