Can Wall Street figure out the cause of a space shuttle crash faster than NASA's experts?

On 10 Aug 2003 05:35:28 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jim Davis
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Interesting Slate article at:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086811/

Very interesting, in light of the asinine decision to shut down the
DARPA initiative of a futures trading market on such events, due to
bloviations on the floor of the Senate of people who are utterly
clueless, but are ostensibly "leaders" of our nation...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Rand Simberg wrote:

On 10 Aug 2003 05:35:28 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jim Davis
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Interesting Slate article at:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086811/

Very interesting, in light of the asinine decision to shut down the
DARPA initiative of a futures trading market on such events, due to
bloviations on the floor of the Senate of people who are utterly
clueless, but are ostensibly "leaders" of our nation...


Sorry, but that international terrorist futures trading market should
have been seen as idiotic from the start.

The Senators who objected were quite wise to kill it.

It has international diplomatic problems that should be
apparent to almost everyone, except possibly Poindexter.

Mike Walsh

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 01:48:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Very interesting, in light of the asinine decision to shut down the
DARPA initiative of a futures trading market on such events, due to
bloviations on the floor of the Senate of people who are utterly
clueless, but are ostensibly "leaders" of our nation...

Sorry, but that international terrorist futures trading market should
have been seen as idiotic from the start.

I strongly disagree.

The Senators who objected were quite wise to kill it.

In my experience "wise Senators" is an oxymoron.

It has international diplomatic problems that should be
apparent to almost everyone, except possibly Poindexter.

They're not apparent to me, and even if they were, it's not obvious
that negatives overcome the positive value of having a better handle
on the probability of future events.

I've no interest in defending Poindexter, who should never have been
hired in the first place, but the comments coming from the floor of
the Senate were what were idiotic. There is no more moral hazard in
this than in the stock market. All it does is eliminate the proxy,
thereby making the prediction much more transparent.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Michael Walsh wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
Jim Davis glowed:
Interesting Slate article at:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086811/

Very interesting, in light of the asinine decision to shut down the
DARPA initiative of a futures trading market on such events, due to
bloviations on the floor of the Senate of people who are utterly
clueless, but are ostensibly "leaders" of our nation...

Sorry, but that international terrorist futures trading market should
have been seen as idiotic from the start.

The Senators who objected were quite wise to kill it.

It has international diplomatic problems that should be
apparent to almost everyone, except possibly Poindexter.

Despite which, the method may in fact be the most consistently
accurate predictor.

It is horribly un-PC. And several other things.
Letting people bet on events they could concievably
influence is a major problem. Concept needs a
thorough review, at least.

But... there are a lot of horrifically un-PC things
which people have come to live with because they
are effective, including things like the nuclear
deterrent force. Are you *sure* you want to rule
out a terrorist/disruptive event futures market if
it turns out to be the best predictor for such
events happening? I am not...


-george william herbert

On 11 Aug 2003 00:07:36 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(George William Herbert) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

It is horribly un-PC. And several other things.
Letting people bet on events they could concievably
influence is a major problem.

Unlike, say, life insurance, which also used to be horribly un-PC...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

George William Herbert wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
Jim Davis glowed:
Interesting Slate article at:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2086811/

Very interesting, in light of the asinine decision to shut down the
DARPA initiative of a futures trading market on such events, due to
bloviations on the floor of the Senate of people who are utterly
clueless, but are ostensibly "leaders" of our nation...

Sorry, but that international terrorist futures trading market should
have been seen as idiotic from the start.

The Senators who objected were quite wise to kill it.

It has international diplomatic problems that should be
apparent to almost everyone, except possibly Poindexter.

Despite which, the method may in fact be the most consistently
accurate predictor.

It is horribly un-PC. And several other things.
Letting people bet on events they could concievably
influence is a major problem. Concept needs a
thorough review, at least.

But... there are a lot of horrifically un-PC things
which people have come to live with because they
are effective, including things like the nuclear
deterrent force. Are you *sure* you want to rule
out a terrorist/disruptive event futures market if
it turns out to be the best predictor for such
events happening? I am not...

-george william herbert


Well, first I rather doubt that a terrorist/disruptive event futures
market is likely to be the best predictor for such events happening.
I don't deny it could provide some interesting insights, but I
think the possible fall-out is too bad.

Not only is there the diplomatic what you call non-PC, but
what if the prediction is correct? Fine, if it enables prevention
of the incident, but it might lead to backlash if things go bad.

Mike Walsh

Rand Simberg wrote:

On 11 Aug 2003 00:07:36 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(George William Herbert) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

It is horribly un-PC. And several other things.
Letting people bet on events they could concievably
influence is a major problem.

Unlike, say, life insurance, which also used to be horribly un-PC...

Life insurance un-PC?

I like the idea of a major organization having a selfish interest in
keeping me alive.

Of course, that isn't to say that it might not work out the same
with family members.

Mike Walsh

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:35:35 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


I wonder what the reaction would have been if the French
set up a market where people could bargain about the
likelihood of an assassination of George Bush?

If we non-governmental Americans did this Homeland Security
would be right down on us.

One of the many bits of evidence that the Department of "Homeland
Security" is brain dead. Just like when the Secret Service
investigated a Michael Ramirez cartoon as being a "threat to the
president."

http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...3948-5351r.htm

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:35:35 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I wonder what the reaction would have been if the French
set up a market where people could bargain about the
likelihood of an assassination of George Bush?

It depends.

If that were the sole purpose of the market, I suspect that it would
be (appropriately) outrage. If, on the other hand, it included the
odds on the assassination of Chirac, and other world leaders, and a
large number of other unfortunate events (as was the proposal here),
I'm not sure what the beef would be.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Michael Walsh wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
[terrorist event futures trading market]
Despite which, the method may in fact be the most consistently
accurate predictor.

It is horribly un-PC. And several other things.
Letting people bet on events they could concievably
influence is a major problem. Concept needs a
thorough review, at least.

But... there are a lot of horrifically un-PC things
which people have come to live with because they
are effective, including things like the nuclear
deterrent force. Are you *sure* you want to rule
out a terrorist/disruptive event futures market if
it turns out to be the best predictor for such
events happening? I am not...

Well, first I rather doubt that a terrorist/disruptive event futures
market is likely to be the best predictor for such events happening.
I don't deny it could provide some interesting insights, but I
think the possible fall-out is too bad.

Not only is there the diplomatic what you call non-PC, but
what if the prediction is correct? Fine, if it enables prevention
of the incident, but it might lead to backlash if things go bad.

The single best value is that there is clear evidence that a
large group of people allowed to 'vote' in the manner of such
a trading market on what they think likely odds are of events
are often significantly more accurate at predictions than
the report structure that comes out of the same set of
people in any heirarchical intelligence analysis group.

Economics seems to be a much better filtering method than
bureacracy for finding reasonable consensus spreads and
odds on longshot events.

As such, it probably provides a *much* better predictor for
the return value in investments in foreign policy, counterterrorism,
and security measures. And as fun as it is right now to be
throwing enough money to go to Mars several times over at
NASA rates at our national security, that will end sometime,
and I want to see the spending there made in the most
optimal manner possible that still reduces the odds of
Al Qaeda hijacking the jet I'm on or flying a plane into
the building I am in or whatever to down in the noise.

If the risks of possible terrorist activity include
attacks on the US president, other western allies
executives, etc. ... don't you want those risks being
considered and analyzed in the process?

Having something happen as predicted is *good*,
in a sick way. It validates the predictive value
of the idea / futures exchange. Even stopping something
that was predicted is a validation, so spending some
attention on stuff that's coming up in the exchange
is a good idea.

All of that said, it still is a major deal ethical
problem of global porportions, and needs a *serious*
thinksee, and is still un-PC as hell, but if the
most serious criticisms are simply objectively moral
and complaining that it might work, I say we should
get back to trying it.

It might not end up working, but it's at the very
least seriously worth a look.


-george william herbert