Latest news with #BRN
The Sun
a day ago
- Politics
- The Sun
‘Act as facilitator to resolve southern Thailand conflict'
PETALING JAYA: Deep-rooted divisions and political instability in Thailand could hinder efforts to end the decades-old insurgency in its south, analysts warn – even as Malaysia's Asean chairmanship gives Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim a rare opening to push for peace. International Islamic University Malaysia international relations expert Assoc Prof Dr Mohd Yazid Zul Kepli said Malaysia should position itself as a facilitator rather than an intervener to avoid breaching Asean's principle of non-interference. 'Malaysia can host talks, provide neutral venues and encourage dialogue if both Thailand and insurgent representatives agree,' he said. 'The emphasis should be on voluntary engagement, not imposing solutions. This will still be difficult as the conflict has been ongoing for a long time.' Yazid said Malaysia could also use upcoming Asean meetings to hold informal side discussions, invite peace process experts and integrate the conflict into wider conversations on regional security. 'These efforts can help build trust between the two sides, framing it as a security concern that affects the whole region, not just Thailand,' he said. 'Malaysia can promote dialogue, encourage confidence-building, and provide platforms for discussion, but it cannot force negotiations or interfere in Thailand's internal affairs without consent.' He said Anwar's track record in personal diplomacy, including his role in mediating the recent Thailand–Cambodia ceasefire, lends credibility to Malaysia's offer. On Aug 9, Anwar said Malaysia was ready to mediate the conflict in southern Thailand and to help end tensions. While calling it an internal matter for Bangkok, he said Thai authorities had shown willingness to continue efforts to stop violence on both sides. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia political analyst Assoc Prof Dr Mazlan Ali expressed similar confidence in Anwar's ability to handle sensitive regional issues, citing his involvement in peace efforts in Myanmar, southern Thailand and the Thai–Cambodian dispute. 'Anwar is trusted not only in Asean but also on the world stage,' Mazlan said. 'US President Donald Trump acknowledged his diplomatic skills in the Thai–Cambodian conflict. He is also seen as a charismatic and trustworthy leader in handling complex issues such as Palestine.' Mazlan said regional states have more confidence in Malaysia's foreign policy direction under Anwar than in previous administrations. 'There is no risk in Malaysia's role as a peace mediator. In fact, it enhances global respect for the country because our foreign policy is flexible and non-aligned.' Nusantara Academy of Strategic Research senior fellow Prof Dr Azmi Hassan said Bangkok also trusts Malaysia to remain neutral but warned that the main obstacle lies in the Thai government's relationship with the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN), an Islamic militant group in southern Thailand. 'BRN does not represent the entire spectrum of Islamic militancy and people in the south. It is only a small part of a much larger issue,' Azmi said. 'Malaysia has leverage, as shown in our role in creating the Bangsamoro in the Philippines. But that case was different as in Mindanao, the separatist group represented the entire militant movement. 'In southern Thailand, BRN does not speak for all militant groups or the entire Muslim community.' Azmi said Bangkok has few options but to work with Malaysia, given their shared border and Malaysia's strong ties with the Muslim population in the region, many of whom feel closer to Malaysia than to the Thai capital. He added that Thailand's political turbulence further complicates the peace process. 'Even their prime minister is serving in an interim capacity. Negotiations between Bangkok and BRN have been inconsistent, starting and stopping depending on who is prime minister at the time. 'We want to see the conflict resolved, but progress remains difficult.' With several high-level Asean meetings scheduled in the coming months, observers say Malaysia could use its role as chair to quietly prepare the ground for renewed talks, but lasting peace will demand patience, trust and sustained political will from all sides.
Miami Herald
03-08-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
BRN: The Social Security COLA and what it means
Since 1975, Social Security general benefit increases have been cost-of-living adjustments or COLAs (8%). Many people were disappointed when Social Security benefits only rose 2.5% at the start of the 2025. And, so far, next year's Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) does not look to be much higher. TheStreet's Maurie Backman joins Broadcast Retirement Network host Jeff Snyder to talk about the annual increase. Transcript: Jeff Snyder: This morning on BRN, the impacts of the 2025 Social Security COLA. Joining me now to discuss this and a lot more, Maurie Backman is a senior financial journalist. Maurie, happy new year. Great to see you. Thanks for joining us on the program this morning. Maurie Backman: Thanks so much for having me. I'm really excited to talk about Social Security because, you know, a new year means changes to the program, as always. Snyder: Yeah, let's talk about that, Maurie. And, you know, I think our audience is very familiar with your work because you've been on the program numerous times before. Let's talk about the cost of living adjustment or COLA for 2025. What is it and what does it mean? Backman: Sure. So years back, lawmakers decided that Social Security benefits were going to be eligible for automatic COLA. The COLA was going to be pegged to inflation so that, you know, inflation rises, benefits get a little bit of a boost. And when you think about it, I mean, it makes sense to have COLAs be automatic as opposed to needing, you know, Congress to vote in a raise to Social Security benefits year after year. It just makes the process a lot more seamless. And logically, you know, there are people who collect Social Security for 15, 20, 30 years, and the value of a dollar is going to get eroded over a period that lengthy. So we need Social Security COLAs to enable seniors to be able to maintain their buying power as living costs go up. So every year, Social Security gets a COLA. Well, actually, I shouldn't say that. Every year, Social Security is eligible for a COLA. When inflation remains flat, Social Security benefits remain flat. When there's a decrease in inflation from one year to the next, Social Security benefits also remain flat. Luckily, there's no such thing as a negative COLA. So you're not going to see your Social Security benefit decrease, thankfully, from one year to the next, even if inflation goes that route. You're only going to see your benefit stay the same or go up. Snyder: Yeah. And can you imagine, Mark, if there was a negative COLA and they started trying to reclaim Social Security benefits? Can you imagine all the people that would be lined up at the Social Security Administration? Good for them that they don't have a negative COLA. Maurie, let's talk about inflation because we have seen over the last year plus food prices increase, gasoline prices increase, other prices increase. How does this COLA factor that in and how does it compare maybe to previous years? Backman: Sure. So, you know, thankfully, inflation has cooled pretty nicely over the past year. We're not seeing the same levels of inflation that we did back in 2021 on the heels of all those stimulus policies. We're not seeing the same level of inflation as 2022. The funny thing about Social Security COLAs and inflation is that, you know, the way I've always tried to explain it is they sort of cancel each other out. So this year's COLA is 2.5%. Benefits are rising 2.5%. And a lot of seniors are, frankly, bummed about that because when we look back to recent COLAs, the year before benefits went up 3.2%. Before that, we had some of the largest COLAs in history. We had 8.7%. We had 5.9%. These were the COLAs that came about following that period of real rampant inflation that we saw following the pandemic. So, you know, a lot of people are pretty up in arms about this 2.5% COLA. Oh, it's not enough. It's such a measly little raise. But the thing to remember is that because COLAs are tied to inflation, when you have a not so generous COLA, it also means that inflation hasn't been all that bad. You kind of can't have one without the other. Right. So, you know, when seniors were seeing their benefits rise almost 6 percent or close to 9 percent, I mean, all those COLAs did was match inflation. So what you gain in one regard, you gain a higher boost, a larger boost to your Social Security benefit. You lose in the form of prices really going up a lot significantly from one year to the next. So in the past year, what we've seen is, yes, we have seen costs continue to go up. And look, I'm not retired, but I've seen my own bills increase exponentially. And I've got a family to feed. And it's stressful. It's stressful going to the supermarket and buying like six yogurts and a jug of milk and a loaf of bread. And it's like, that'll be $22.50. And it's like, what? This was like, these are groceries that I'm carrying out in my hand, you know, and a week's worth of food for my family. I mean, it seems like I'm paying more than ever. So I'm definitely sympathetic to seniors who feel that, you know, their 2.5 percent COLA is not really going to cut it for 2025. I can see where they're coming from because costs are still high. But things could also be worse. Related: Secretary Bessent's Social Security remarks spark AARP outcry Snyder: Well, they could be worse. Maurie, they could be a lot worse. I want to ask you about taxation, because how does taxation or does taxation factor into this cost of living adjustment? Does that mean anything to those directly taking Social Security? Backman: So it's a funny thing. So seniors are often shocked to learn that Social Security benefits can be taxable at the federal level. There can also be state taxes on Social Security, actually, depending on the state you live in and the amount of your total income. But the federal government can tax a portion of your Social Security benefits. And that doesn't sit well for a lot of seniors. It almost feels kind of like a double taxation, right? Because throughout our working years, we're all paying into Social Security on our wages. And, you know, the promise is that you're going to pay taxes, you're going to pay into Social Security, but then when you're older and retired, you're going to get a monthly benefit. And then it's like, hey, guess what? You're not necessarily going to keep that monthly benefit in full because once your income exceeds a certain threshold, a portion of your benefits can be taxed. Now, here's the problem. Social Security is eligible for an annual COLA, which means that benefits historically have risen from one year to the next. There have been a few years in history with a zero COLA. But for the most part, we have seen benefits rise from one year to the next. The problem is that the income thresholds that determine whether you're going to pay taxes on your Social Security benefits, those income thresholds have not increased since 1984. That's a long time ago. Snyder: I was 12. Backman: I was around. It was a long time ago. So, you know, when you kind of just then logically put those two pieces together, it's like, well, wait a minute, you know, Social Security benefits rise every year, and Social Security benefits are calculated in the formula that determines your income and that determines whether your income is high enough to have your benefits taxed, if you get what I'm saying. Basically, it's a concept called combined income. It's a factor of your adjusted gross income. It throws in any tax-exempt interest income you receive, like if you're a municipal bond investor, you might get some tax-free income. That's counted into your combined income and then also half of your annual Social Security benefit is factored into your combined income. And basically, if you're single, once your combined income is $25,000 or higher, you're going to be paying taxes on a portion of your Social Security benefits. Now, let's think about that. $25,000. I mean, you know, yes, that's factoring in half your annual Social Security benefit, but even if we want to pad that by another $10,000, $12,000, let's talk about $37,000 a year, $40,000 a year. Are you like rolling in dough at $40,000 a year? I'm not. Snyder: No, you're typically, you know, especially if you're a retiree, you're at a fixed income. And so, you know, one of the things I want to ask you about, I want to kind of close on this, is you talked about taxation now during the campaign, we're not a political show, but, you know, there were some policy preferences or suggestions about eliminating the tax on Social Security. First, Maurie, is that possible? And what would that mean to our conversation this morning about the cost of living adjustment? Related: Medicare beneficiaries quietly face looming crisis Backman: So, that's a tricky thing too, because so President-elect Trump had pledged to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. And a big part of me wants to say that that's a really good idea, because there's a lot of people whose income is really right above that threshold where they're liable for taxes, right? But since we just discussed that it was such a low threshold, these people cannot afford to lose some of their benefits to taxes. So, in that regard, I think eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits could be a positive thing. But then we also have to remember that Social Security doesn't just get funded by payroll taxes, it also gets funded by these taxes on benefits. Now, as it stands, we are already looking at a funding shortfall for Social Security. The program's combined trust funds are set to run dry in 2035. And at that point, benefit cuts could be on the table. So, now we have to balance the upside of not taxing Social Security so that seniors get to keep their benefits in full now versus the potential downside of, well, then what does that do to Social Security's overall financial picture? And what does that mean for benefit cuts down the line? It's a very tricky thing, and I do not envy lawmakers who have to make these decisions. And Jeff, to be clear, there's a push to not only end taxes on Social Security benefits, but also to change the way Social Security COLAs are calculated. That's a whole other issue because the reality is that the formula that's used now is not very beneficial to seniors. It really does not very accurately capture the costs that seniors specifically tend to incur. So, lawmakers really have their work cut out for them in the coming years with regard to Social Security. Snyder: They certainly do, Maurie. We've got a new Congress, a new president. Hey, look, they can't kick the can down the road too much longer because they're going to have to deal with other potential challenges. Maurie, it's always great to see you. Expert Analysis, as always. Thanks so much for joining us, and we look forward to having you back on the program again very soon. Backman: That's it. Snyder: And don't forget to subscribe to our daily newsletter, The Morning Pulse, for all the news in one place. Details, of course, at our website. And we're back again tomorrow for another edition of BRN. Until then, I'm Jeff Snyder. Stay safe, keep on saving, and don't forget, roll with the changes. Related: Jean Chatzky shares retirement tips on Social Security, Medicare The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Focus Malaysia
30-07-2025
- Politics
- Focus Malaysia
Safeguarding ASEAN peace amid superpower rivalry
THE recent ceasefire agreement between Thailand and Cambodia, brokered by Malaysia in its role as ASEAN Chair, is a critical step in regional peace-building. The deal, which took effect at midnight on July 28, 2025, was announced following high-level talks in Putrajaya, where Malaysia brought both parties together for urgent dialogue. This development comes as a much-needed de-escalation after renewed clashes along the Thai-Cambodian border, which have long been a flashpoint for nationalist tension and military posturing. Malaysia's leadership in the process has once again demonstrated its unique role in Southeast Asia as a credible mediator, committed to regional stability and peaceful dialogue. This role is not new as Malaysia has previously played a significant part in resolving long-standing internal conflicts in both southern Thailand and Mindanao in the Philippines. In southern Thailand, where ethnic Malay-Muslim insurgents have waged a low-intensity rebellion in the Patani region since the early 2000s, Malaysia has facilitated peace talks between insurgent groups such as the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN) and the Thai government. While these talks have not yet produced a final resolution, they have created channels of communication and periods of reduced violence. Malaysia's involvement is seen as both culturally and geographically appropriate, given its shared ethnic and religious ties with the southern Thai provinces. The Malaysian government has used this proximity to build trust with insurgent leaders while maintaining diplomatic relations with the Thai state. This balancing act has helped prevent further regionalisation of the conflict and reflects a model of conflict management that is pragmatic and sensitive to local dynamics. Similarly, in Mindanao, Malaysia played a pivotal role in the peace process between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). Acting as a neutral facilitator, Malaysia hosted peace talks that led to the signing of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro in 2014, ending decades of armed struggle. Malaysia also led the International Monitoring Team (IMT) that ensured compliance with the ceasefire and supported confidence-building between the parties. This initiative remains one of the most successful examples of ASEAN-led mediation, offering a model of how persistent diplomacy, regional ownership, and non-coercive facilitation can bring sustainable results. Malaysia's role in these peace processes gives it not only experience but also moral authority in mediating the current Thailand-Cambodia standoff. The ceasefire between Thailand and Cambodia, while bilateral in nature, has broader regional implications. It comes at a time when the Indo-Pacific is under increasing strain due to the strategic rivalry between the United States (US) and China. Their trade war and military posturing, especially in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, have heightened geopolitical tension across Southeast Asia. ASEAN, situated at the crossroads of these global currents, faces the real risk of its internal conflicts becoming arenas for proxy competition. Localised disputes like the one between Thailand and Cambodia can quickly draw in external powers, either through military cooperation, economic leverage, or political influence. This is why the question of whether the US and China should be included, at least as observers in ceasefire verification or implementation mechanisms is both relevant and delicate. On the one hand, ASEAN has always prioritised regional solutions to regional problems, emphasising non-interference and consensus. However, as seen during the Vietnam War and throughout the Cold War, Southeast Asian conflicts can easily be co-opted by larger global struggles. Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam all experienced devastating consequences when superpowers used their territory for ideological and strategic contests. The lesson for today's ASEAN is clear: excluding great powers entirely may not insulate the region; instead, it may create a vacuum that invites unilateral action or covert influence. Therefore, ASEAN should consider limited, clearly defined roles for external powers in regional peace processes. Their inclusion such as in observer or technical advisory capacities, can serve as a transparency mechanism that reassures all parties and limits behind-the-scenes manoeuvring. However, the process must remain under ASEAN's leadership to preserve regional autonomy. Malaysia, as Chair, must lead in crafting a ceasefire verification and monitoring system that includes input from ASEAN dialogue partners without ceding control. This balance is critical to ensuring that peace efforts are not hijacked by competing agendas. Malaysia's diplomatic credibility, built over years of involvement in Mindanao and southern Thailand, gives it a strategic advantage in guiding ASEAN through this challenge. Its current stewardship of the Thailand-Cambodia ceasefire provides a chance to set a precedent: regional conflict resolution must not only address immediate violence but also anticipate the strategic consequences of great power rivalry. The ceasefire monitoring mission, coordinated by Malaysia, should serve not only to ensure compliance but also to reaffirm ASEAN's role as a stabilising force in the Indo-Pacific. Ultimately, the Thailand-Cambodia ceasefire should be seen as more than a bilateral agreement as it is a test of ASEAN's ability to safeguard its region from becoming a pawn in a global contest. By learning from its own successes in Mindanao and southern Thailand, and by navigating the pressures of US-China competition with strategic foresight, ASEAN can protect its vision of a peaceful, independent Southeast Asia. Malaysia, with its proven mediation track record, must ensure that this vision does not falter under the weight of global tensions. ‒ July 30, 2025 R. Paneir Selvam is the principal consultant of Arunachala Research & Consultancy Sdn Bhd, a think tank specialising in strategic national and geopolitical matters. The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia. Main image: Reuters
Nikkei Asia
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Nikkei Asia
Violence in Thailand's deep south likely to escalate, separatist warns
Soldiers patrol Tak Bai town in Narathiwat province in Thailand's deep south region. Independent monitors say over 7,700 people have been killed in separatist-related violence since 2004. (Photo by Getty Images) AMY CHEW KUALA LUMPUR -- Violence in Thailand's troubled deep south is expected to escalate following the suspension of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra as peace talks are now "extremely difficult" to convene, a senior member of the separatist Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN) has warned. The deep south, which refers to the Muslim-majority southern provinces of Pattani, Yala and Narathiwat in predominantly Buddhist Thailand, has experienced a marked increase in violent incidents since early 2025 following stalled peace talks between the government and the BRN.
Miami Herald
13-07-2025
- Sport
- Miami Herald
BRN: The impact of sports betting is complicated
Transcript: Jeffrey Snyder: This morning on BRN, sports betting has yielded considerable revenue for states, but what's the impact on addiction? Joining me now to help break it all down is Dr. Michelle Malkin of East Carolina University. Michelle, great to see you again. Thanks for joining us in the program this morning. Michelle Malkin: It's great to be here. Thanks for having me back. Snyder: And since you're in an academic setting at a prominent university, tonight is the NCAA men's championship game. And I thought we would talk about sports betting, not betting that you and I will do, but the betting in general that goes on during March Madness. And by all accounts, Michelle, I think I read somewhere $3 billion will be bet online, or I could be wrong on that number, but it's still a significant amount of money that's changing hands. Malkin: Yeah. And I think there's a lot of losses out there because when you have the four first-seeded teams all making it to the final, it means that all the favorites that were probably not being bet on because everybody wanted the long shots and to make more money, those didn't win. And so people lost a lot of money this season for sure. But there's a lot of money exchanging hands, a lot of people able to do it very healthy within their own limitations. And some people probably are suffering from some substantial losses. Snyder: Yeah. So they're suffering from substantial launches. And we're going to talk about addiction in a few minutes, but, and you're right, I think, and I'm not a basketball guy. I wrestled in high school because I'm short statured, but they're all number ones, as you said. So probably, you know, if you're going to bet, you don't bet on the number one, you bet on the number one to lose. But my understanding in, well, let me take a step back and ask, since we last spoke, and I think it's been since probably January when we last had you on the program, how has the expansion of sports betting gone across the United States? I think it was in 30 or some odd states. Has it been taken up by other legislatures and other states indulging in sports betting? Malkin: There are several states looking at more expansion. We're still at about 38 states that have legalized. There's still a lot of issues going on and even in courtrooms and things like that to figure things out. But for the most part, about two thirds of our country can bet legally in their state, usually from the palm of their hand. And even if they can't, they're accessing it through offshore illegal ways. So pretty much anybody in the is able to. Snyder: So why wouldn't a state, I'm thinking about the revenue implications, three billion dollars changes hands or more, it's probably going to be more by the time the final is over. And that's just the NCAA men's, there's going to be sports betting on NBA, on NHL, Major League Baseball just started. So why, what would the hang up be for a state when they look and say, all that money's changing hands, I want a bit of that tax revenue? Malkin: Yeah, I just want to put out that we also see growing demand of people sports betting on the NCAA women's and on the women's sports as well. So I just want to say it's not just the men's, even though we're seeing the more substantial wagers put down for that. But states have to kind of decide. They have the state revenue side of things, which always looks good. But depending on the state you're in, they have the idea of protecting the consumer. And some states just feel either ethically, morally, or because they don't feel like there's enough protection out there that gambling is not right. So, for example, the state of Utah and the state of Hawaii don't yet have most legalized forms of gambling. I say most because there is fantasy sports in Utah, but there's no legalized gambling right now in Hawaii, but Hawaii is actually considering it. So even the states that have traditionally not allowed for most forms of gambling or claim to only have something like the lottery are now looking at least at it. We see bills being introduced, but it all depends on if it's going to be a priority for that state. And part of the priority comes from, are they having shortfalls from other funding sources? Is this money going to help? And most states say yes. What they don't necessarily consider is what are the costs going to be on the state and how much are they going to put from that revenue back into the community to ensure that people can gamble in a healthy way and the resources are there for those who can't. Snyder: And, you know, let's talk a little bit about the addiction side. Let's talk a lot about it, though, because I think you bring up a good point, a very good point, obviously. I mean, it's a balancing act. You've got a pension. If you have a state pension for public sector workers, as an example, it might be underfunded. You might want revenue to do that. You might want revenue, for example, to fix roads that are not federal roads. But let's talk about the addiction side, because as more and more people get involved with this, look, I've seen the ads for Candy Crush, never play the game. That looks pretty addictive. Gambling, sports gambling has got to be addictive as well. Malkin: Well, yeah. And actually you brought up Candy Crush. Social games are actually one of the emerging forms of gambling or addiction type behavior that we're seeing in mobile apps. People are putting thousands of dollars into these social apps that have gambling-like behavior to them, even though all it does is stay in the game. You're never going to get anything back from it. But when we talk about sports wagering and addiction, what we have learned up to now, I mean, a lot of the research is still very young, is that it's the type of gambling that can lead to gambling-related harms faster. And the faster that it can lead to gambling-related harms, the more likely somebody can go down the pathway towards gambling disorder, which is the medical term for gambling addiction. And that is because people don't know what it looks like to experience a gambling-related harm. And therefore they don't know if they themselves or somebody they care about has that. If you have a gambling problem, call 1-800-GAMBLER. What does it mean to have a gambling problem? They don't know. We haven't done the outreach. We haven't done the education. And so people experience multiple types of gambling-related harms. Is it the first time they gamble more than they can afford to lose? Is it when they have a relationship issue because they're paying too much attention to the game or their phone? All these things are types of gambling-related harms that people don't know to recognize. Snyder: And Michelle, you talk about education. I just recall watching the NFL pregame. Like most sports now, they have a gambling segment. But this gambling segment is always led by some type of, I don't know, disclaimer or some type of education. That to me always felt like tongue-in-cheek, like talking out of both sides of your mouth maybe is the way I would phrase it. Hey, before you do this, think about this. But that's probably not enough education for somebody. They're going to be like, OK, well, fine. But I'm going to bet on Derrick Henry of the Baltimore Ravens running for 200 yards. It's a sure thing, right? Malkin: I have the inside info, right? The reality is that gambling is always a risk. And people need to look at it as a form of entertainment that they would put the same money they can afford to lose by going out to dinner or going to a movie theater towards what they're wagering on. And when they lose, they have to be OK with that loss because that was part of the risk. Unfortunately, people don't see gambling funds as the same as their other entertainment funds. They see it as a way to gain more money and to get out of whatever financial stuff that they're in. And so there is just this overarching belief that, you know, it's going to be my turn. I'm going to be lucky and I'm going to win. And so people will chase that dream. And the worst thing is, is if they win really early, especially some of these long shot bets, maybe somebody had something that was like a huge win. Now they think I can do it again. And so they chase it. And so they lose everything they just won by trying to chase back that great feeling. But actually what they're doing is going down a really dangerous pathway because our brains are actually impacted by that. Our reward center, our neurotransmitters. And we can't reconfigure all that on our own. We need to actually get help for that. Snyder: No different, Michelle, than if you go to a casino and pull the slot machine, although you probably don't, they probably don't have the. Malkin: No, they just touch a button. Snyder: You just touch a button. It's probably easier now. Malkin: But it's actually the same technology. So a lot of psychology went into how to make the best experience for the slot machine player so that they will stay. So how often does it have to win? What does a win have to look like? How much, what percentage, what does it, what colors does it have? What, what tune does it do? What active is it in? Like all of that was done. And then they turned around and made that same technology, all that same stuff into these sports, mobile apps, and also the social games, as you mentioned before. And so that's what keeps you engaged an opportunity to totally zone out while also trying to win a lot. So you have both the potential for that big win, that excitement, but you also have this opportunity to just keep betting every second and constantly be looking and saying, did I have that bet? Did I not have that bet? In when it comes to the mobile apps, individuals are constantly just checking and checking and checking. And sometimes they have bets on so many different games. So they're just so into their phone. They're not even watching the game they used to love. Snyder: And Michelle, last question. How do we know, like the slot machine, I would think the slot machine is favored in the house favor. They're the ones that manage it. They're the ones that program it. Likewise, the sports app, how do we know that that is fairly adjudicated in terms of the odds and the rewarding of if you win? I mean, there's a lot of questions that I have. I mean, would that be a concern? Malkin: Well, the legal apps that we have that the state authorizes, those industry partners are upheld to very high standards. But they do do things that they're allowed to do, like betting boosts and parlays and things that are kind of really, really difficult to win. And that's where they make their edge. They're not making their edge on, you know, a plus minus 110 kind of bet. They're making their edge on the people going for the long shots. And they're getting people to do that by giving them free money to play with, which is not free money. It's only free money if you win. But to keep somebody engaged. And the more you play, the more bonuses and things like that you will get. So keeping you engaged, giving you these opportunities for a big win that if you get one, keeps you totally into that app or that activity for a much longer period of time. Snyder: Yeah, it almost sounds very analogous to the social media craze, too. You know, just keep pulling down, you get the next TikTok. Michelle, we're going to have to leave it there. I don't know if you'll be tuning into the basketball game. I know I will not. I'll be sleeping. But I guess we'll have to pick up the conversation next month to see the end result. And sure, we'll have baseball and other things to talk about as well. Great to see you. Enjoy the rest of your day. And we look forward to having you back on the program again very soon. Malkin: Sounds good. Thank you so much. Snyder: And don't forget to subscribe to our daily newsletter, The Warning Pulse, for all the news in one place. Details, of course, at our website. And your subscription helps support all this great BRN content. And don't forget, we're back again tomorrow for another edition of BRN. Until then, I'm Jeff Snyder. Stay safe, keep on saving, and don't forget, roll with the changes. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
