Steve Levitt of Freakonomics: I WON’T SIGN YOUR PETITION, BOB.
Chris F. Masse May 8th, 2007
Steve Levitt of Freakonomics makes sense on prediction markets.
—
Prawf Steve Levitt explains on his blog, Freakonomics, why he declined to sign the economists’ petition on prediction markets:
[...] I didn’t think the letter went far enough. It attempts to draw a sharp distinction between prediction markets created by academics for research and other kinds of markets. A subtle implication of that distinction is that the government has some legitimate role in restricting access to prediction/gambling markets more generally. To me, there is no difference between a “prediction” market and a “gambling” market. If there is demand for people who either want financial risk surrounding an event or want to hedge risk, why should the government get in the way? It doesn’t matter whether it’s the value of a bond, a share of stock, a presidential election, a firm’s likelihood of hitting its quarterly numbers, or the chances that the White Sox will win the pennant. In general I am not much of a libertarian, but our government’s policy towards gambling is completely idiotic and rife with internal contradictions. (Case in point: A state run lottery that pays out fifty cents on the dollar is okay, but U.S. casinos are prohibited from being involved in internet gambling sites).
- Steve Levitt is 100% right here. (The Midas Oracle readers remember that I have expressed similar ideas, and that I have been accused of mixing the noble prediction markets with “gambling” operations.)
- By the way, Steve Levitt is the only blogging economist I know who favors the suppression of tenure for the US academics.
- Robin Hanson, Justin Wolfers, Eric Zitzewitz and the others would be better off following Steve Levitt’s wisdom.
Next: Chris Masse’s comment on the Freakonomics’ blog post about the legality of US prediction markets
—
UPDATE: Robin Hanson…
Signing a proposal to legalize A but not B, where both A and B are now illegal, does not mean that one would not favor legalizing B.
- All Best Posts Ever , Analysis (Industry) , Analysis (Meta) , Regulations
- Comments(4)
Great minds, Mr. Levitt. Great minds
Signing a proposal to legalize A but not B, where both A and B are now illegal, does not mean that one would not favor legalizing B.
The fact is that you *have* signed a somewhat dubious petition and that you have *not* signed a Levitt-compatible, free-gambling-for-all petition.
Economists Speak Out on Prediction Markets
by Steven D. Levitt on 08 May 2007
http://www.freakonomics.com/bl.....n-markets/
Chris Masse’s comment on the Freakonomics blog post about the legality of US prediction markets
http://www.midasoracle.org/200.....n-markets/
PREDICTION MARKET PETITION: Robin Hanson vs. Steve Levitt
http://www.midasoracle.org/200.....ve-levitt/
The limitations of logic (and the need for passion)
http://www.midasoracle.org/200.....r-passion/
TechDirt
)
Economists Want Legal Protection For Prediction Markets
http://techdirt.com/articles/20070507/115848.shtml
10 comments (including our Mike Linksvayer
Safe Harbor Letter too Timid - by Chris Hibbert
http://www.midasoracle.org/200.....-big-wins/
Bob Hahn turns the PETITION into a CONSENSUS.
http://www.midasoracle.org/200.....consensus/
Squawk on Prediction Markets
http://www.midasoracle.org/200.....n-markets/
[...] Freakonomics, the famous blog on economics, is powered by WordPress, which is known [*] to have grave security vulnerabilities. Yesterday, a dangerous hacker managed to get access to their blogging software, and published an opinion on the regulation of prediction markets, which represents the total opposite of what Steve Levitt believes in. No doubt the hacker (who signed as “The Australopithecus“) will get caught by the Police. No doubt Steve Levitt will get out of his torpor soon and re-establish the truth. We will then give airtime to Steve Levitt’s arguments, on Midas Oracle. We’re with you, doctor Levitt. [...]