That’s the blurb that Robin Hanson wrote up for “Predictocracy“, Michael Abramowicz’s book. I don’t believe a single word of it. If prediction markets and decision-aid markets were so powerful, we would have had the evidence under our very nose, since everybody and his sister are experimenting with prediction markets since 2003.
Find here a good review of “Predictocracy” —via Daniel Horowitz.
Robin Hanson, is what I would term a market fundamentalist – somebody who believes that markets are the primary mechanism for achieving the public good. Recent events have demonstrated that this creed is morally bankrupt. We are, in the words of Michael Sandel “at the end of an era of market triumphalism”.
I deny the accusation, though I’m not sure why I should have to. Having a high opinion of the eventual info power of decision markets is very different from saying “markets are the primary mechanism for achieving the public good.” Shouldn’t you have to first provide support for your accusation, rather than me somehow having to first prove bald accusations wrong?
There is some truth in that. However, Robin Hanson is, at other times, a pragmatic. He is driven by both ideology and pragmatism. He is a dual person.
Chris had argued that the bust somehow would have no effect on prediction market reception. I think he has changed his mind.
Jason, yes, the financial “bust” of Wall Street is having impact on the prediction market field.
Robin,
I am not sure which line of thought it is that you find most contentious; my assertion that you are what “I would term a market fundamentalist” or, indeed, the notion that a market fundamentalist is somebody who “believes that markets are the primary mechanism for achieving the public good.” Or perhaps it is just an amalgam of both.
Having read many of your writings it was my belief that you have on occasion argued that that speculative/decision markets had the potential to close “a gaping hole in our collective ability to share information”.
Is one wrong to assume that the purpose of closing this gap is to advance the cause of the public good?
Is one also wrong to assume that somebody who argues that “Decision markets will one day “revolutionize governance”, both public and private” is not a market fundamentalist?
You say; “Having a high opinion of the eventual info power of decision markets is very different from saying “markets are the primary mechanism for achieving the public good.â€
If markets are not the primary mechanism for achieving the public good, what is? And, moreover, is there not a large leap between somebody who (has) a high opinion of the eventual info power of decision markets, and somebody, who argues that “Decision markets will one day “revolutionize governance”, both public and private.” Revolutionise is a big word…to whose benefit will this revolution be?