Carl Icahn
Read the previous blog posts by Chris. F. Masse:
Well…- if the embedded video works fine. (If not, go to the site, and click on “-MSNBC live feed”-.)
MSNBC
Read the previous blog posts by Chris. F. Masse:
Over the years there has been a lot of talk in this community about how prediction markets could be “-socially valuable”-. The discussion has often focused on the value of the information and/or predictions that the markets could generate, especially in a political context. Election-based decision markets a la Hanson are thus being held as the highest form of “-socially valuable”- prediction markets, and our best bullet aimed at a possible legalization of real-money markets.
However, just in time for Super Tuesday, I’-ve finally stumbled onto a totally different, and to my mind much more compelling societal benefit of political prediction markets (the real-money kind, like Intrade or Bet2Give). It’-s based on sound science, but has nothing to do with information, prediction accuracy, or the usual economics/decision-support suspects:
Participating in political prediction markets may be good for your health by virtue of reducing the killer stress caused by aggravating political outcomes over which you have very little control as a voter. In essence, you can hedge against despair, and thus reduce your political “-learned helplessness”-. I present this idea more completely, and the science behind it, in NewsFutures’- blog.
The interesting thing is that it should be relatively easy to test, say as a senior psychology research project, but the consequences of a positive result would be huge. Who could argue against the legalization of something that saves lives?
So let the word go forth on this day that if there’-s someone out there who would like to run such an experiment, the industry would gladly help out, either through the PMIA, or through individual stake holders like NewsFutures. And if you’-re in an economics department, please reach out across the social sciences aisle to your psychology colleagues and spread the word! This, by the way, is especially aimed at Justin Wolfers who happens to share the U. Penn campus with Martin Seligman, the founder of Positive Psychology himself, and the inventor of “-learned helplessness”-.
The blogs won the bet.
In a Google search of five keywords or phrases representing the top five news stories of 2007, weblogs will rank higher than the New York Times’- Web site.
The bet has been expired on the “-YES”- side. Dave Winer (representing the bloggers) won —-and Martin Nisenholtz (representing the New York Times —-at the time, in 2002) lost.
We decided that a weblog had to be something that would have been recognized as a blog in [2002]. This includes ad supported blogs and commercial blogs like those of the NY Times. While the bettors argument in this case discusses why non-commercial content will beat out commercial content, Winer never provides a definition of a weblog. As it turns out, including major news source blogs like those of the NY Times or sources like Wikipedia do not affect the ultimate outcome in the case of this bet, but they certainly could have.
Hummm…- How come Long Bets could have let people register a not-so-well-defined bet? Long Bets does not seem to be a serious organization to me.
As for what it all means: The blogging software packages are better content management systems than the other, older CMS packages. The blogging software and their specific usage (free access, content parcelisation, dates and keywords inserted in the URLs, peer linking, open comments, etc.) fit better in the Google super system.
Psstt…- One idea for the prediction exchanges like NewsFutures or InTrade would be to open prediction markets on Long Bets topics just weeks before the expiration dates. The event derivative contracts would say that the expiry judge is Long Bets. Emile Servan-Schreiber and Michael Giberson, any thought? 
External Link: TechCrunch on what is a blog.
It’-s like taking the two guys who finished second and third in a 100-yard dash and tying their legs together and asking for a rematch, believing that now they’-ll run faster.
Fake Steve Jobs
The cultures will never fit together. And the deal is too big. It’-s not manageable. And it’-s completely anathema to Microsoft. It’-s totally out of character for them. It goes against everything the company has ever stood for.
—-
Psstt…- On a related note…- If you haven’-t seen yet the Fake Steve Jobs address at the Crunchies 2008, (an “-acceptance speech”- he gave coz Apple didn’-t send any representative at the event), you should. Hilarious.
Previous blog posts by Chris F. Masse: