–
Measured Enthusiasm for Prediction Markets – (PDF file) – by Jason Ruspini.
–
My thoughts:
- Peter McCluskey thinks they are “-futures”-.
- PAM was only extremely marginally about “-terrorism and assassination futures”-.
- Even though they don’-t do much more than discounting known information, “-prediction markets”- is not a misnomer, since the term means that each prediction (in the form of an event derivative contract) is traded on a market.
- “-Decision-aid markets”-, not “-decision markets”- —-I’-d leave that last denomination for Robin Hanson’-s original idea, when the decision applies automatically, after the trading.
- And what was Justin Wolfers’- reasoning? Might we know? (And why did you swallow it?)
- Which are the manipulation papers making “-unrealistic assumptions”-? Names, please.
- Tax futures are great. But, who else in the world, other than mister Ruspini, believes that they can be fiscal hedging vehicles? (Not doubtful. Just asking. External links, please.)
–
Jason Ruspini on the regulation of US event derivative markets:
CFTC-like regulation would save these markets from having to navigate national and state gambling laws, but would come at the cost of flexibility. Some contracts would not be approved for political reasons even if they had demonstrable hedging utility and “economic purpose”.
What you are looking at is a bunch of bullet points for a talk. It took an hour to get through half of the presentation so there was a lot of context that you didn’t see, and context is the reason why I choose certain terms or stress different ideas at certain times.Justin Wolfers wasn’t making an assertion about Giuliani. It was just an example for a general comment about interpreting implied conditional probabilities.I was referring to at least one of Robin Hanson’s papers, but did mention other mitigating factors, and CFTC regulation would be one.
@Jason Ruspini: Typical excuses. Do as Bo Cowgill did, release the video, if you’re a real man.