\Robin Hanson wrote:
The question is how to choose, on matters of fact as opposed to value, when
disagreement persists, even after substantial discourse. Whose estimate
should determine actions? A vote among everyone? A vote among a random
jury? Administrative agency experts? A panel of
How is this: "If agreement X is signed into law during time period Y, what will be the
change in sea level between Jan. 1 2000 and Jan. 1 2030?" And "If agreement X is not
signed into law?" And the payoff is in 2030.
One problem: Agreement X must be specified precisely in order to satisfy
OK, your proposal and Sagoff's views on discourse are not mutually exclusive. In
practice, however, I suspect that publicizing the ongoing status of a betting game
would tend to interfere with discourse just as constant opinion polling does to our
elections and repeated straw votes would do to a
Let me see if I understand. Take the case of rising sea levels as a function of
CO2. How exactly would you organize a betting market for this? (a) What
precisely would people bet on? Could you provide a sample question? (b) How,
and at what time, would you adjudicate the winner?
It seems to
Peter Dorman wrote:
Let me see if I understand. Take the case of rising sea levels as a function of
CO2. How exactly would you organize a betting market for this? (a) What
precisely would people bet on? Could you provide a sample question? (b) How,
and at what time, would you adjudicate
At 01:13 PM 11/30/00 -0500, you wrote:
Whose estimate should determine actions? A vote among everyone? A vote
among a random jury? Administrative agency experts? A panel of
distinguished academics?
a vote among everyone seems needed to decide general principles. Experts
and academics can
I had earlier written :
... if progressives accepted that betting markets were as good at estimating
as other known institutions, they might serve as a neutral forum for
deciding
many other important policy questions.
Peter Dorman wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a while ...
I've been thinking about this for a while (thanks!), and here's what I've come up with:
Betting markets make sense when (a) there are severe problems of incentive
compatibility among analysts, or (b) the problem is essentially one of aggregating vast
amounts of private information. (This
Michael Perelman wrote:
Robin, I have several questions about your scheme. 1. I mentioned before about the
apparent irrationality in both stock markets is in foreign exchange markets. 2. In
those markets, you have people with training and with access to enormous amounts of
information.
Robin Hanson wrote:
Iowa Electronic Markets (http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/) ...
Does that market predict better than the polls?
Yes, it predicts substantiallly better than polls. Follow URL for refs.
As they say in physics, don't believe an observation until it's
confirmed in theory. Why
Is it not the case that the Iowa market had
Gore in the lead until just about a week ago or so?
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, November 03, 2000 12:59 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:3895] Re:
Michael Perelman wrote:
Robin, we have discussed your question quite a bit in the past. ...
A few people on the list are sympathetic to the Hayekian view of markets. We
exhausted that discussion, so much so that I called a halt to the discussion.
I know that at one time your colleague, Don
In my Natural Instability book, I made the case that foreign exchange markets are
perhaps the purest markets that exist, yet they are perhaps the most unstable.
did not mean to say anything ill about Don. I only met him once although I had
corresponded with him for a while. My experience
An example of what you are talking about is Domenico Nuti's idea of a "pari-mutual"
stock market: people would buy and sell stocks in socialist firms, and even make (or
lose) money off the transaction, but there would be no ownership rights or (if I recall
correctly) dividends. The whole point
I asked:
What do progressive economists think of how well speculative markets
aggregate information, relative to feasible alternatives?
Jim Devine responded:
have you read Doug Henwood's book, WALL STREET? ...
Yes.
Iowa Electronic Markets (http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/) ...
Does that market
At 09:57 PM 11/02/2000 -0500, you wrote:
Let's say I want a probability estimate right now of the chance Bush will win.
What specific library or conversation should I go to get get a better estimate
than I could find at Iowa Electronic Markets?
can't it be said that the chances are 100% that
16 matches
Mail list logo
