Economist Michael Giberson:

It would be a real public service to run well-conceived prediction markets based on the grandiose political pronouncements of the ‘chattering classes.’ Get the book author to cooperate in specifying a handful of significant, meaningful, testable claims that are discussed in the book. Get the publisher to subsidize the market maker (on the theory that the resulting publicity will sell more books). Let the author put his money where his mouth is. Assume Buchanan expects to make in excess of $100,000 in royalties from his book. Can he find 10 well-defined claims that he is willing to bet, say, $2,000 on? Even if his book is complete nonsense and he turns out wrong on every single one of his 10 claims, he’d still have over $80,000 in income from his nonsensical ramblings about “loss of sovereignty” and manufacturing jobs “vanishing”.

If I understand well, Mike Giberson is talking here about subsidized prediction markets. One could go further with decision-aid markets or decision markets…

UPDATE: Mike Giberson comments…

To be clear, when I refer to “his nonsensical ramblings about ‘loss of sovereignty’ and manufacturing jobs ‘vanishing’ “, I am speaking hypothetically (I.e. subsuming the “nonsensical ramblings” description under the “Even if…” clause at the beginning of that sentence. I haven’t read the book under discussion, and so am not (at this time) claiming Buchanan’s latest book is in fact nonsensical rambling. The point is that the offers implicit in a well-defined prediction market provide the opportunity for pundits of all stripes to “put their money where their mouth is” and thereby provide a test of the strength of their commitment to their claims.