Meta
-
Recent Posts
- Interview with Adam Lashinsky — [VIDEO]
- Why some people are more innovative — [VIDEO]
- Forbes editor deciphers Steve Jobs’s Apple. — [VIDEO]
- Jason Ruspini rebuts Eric Zitzewitz on the regulation of political prediction markets. — [COMMENT]
- Eric Zitzewitz petitions the CFTC in favor of real-money prediction markets about politics. — [TEXT]
- Global warming is a big scam. — [LINK]
- A Swarm of Nano Quadrotors — [VIDEO]
- The Tragedy of the Commons — [VIDEO]
- Guy Kawasaki on Steve Jobs — [VIDEO]
- Inside Apple — [VIDEO]
- Mitt Romney’s taxes — [LINKS]
- A critique of Apple’s multimedia iBooks. — [LINK]
- Does Apple lack “generosity”? — [LINKS]
- Apple Education Push — [LINKS]
- Water Crystals — [DOCUMENT]
- Apple’s e-book software will allow publishers to make textbooks more interactive. — [LINKS + VIDEO]
- Alain Soral is France’s most dangerous intellectual… (dangerous for the French plutocrats, that is). — [VIDEO]
- Computers thru time — [CHART]
- NASA has finally understood the theorical basis of LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions). — [VIDEO]
- Why Samsung is no Apple — [VIDEO]
Could think tanks impact the socially valuable prediction markets?
This entry was posted in Analysis (Market Proposals), Analysis (Meta), Collective Forecasting, Exchanges & Markets and tagged big donors, big money, manipulation, manipulations, prediction markets, think tanks. Bookmark the permalink.
2 Responses to Could think tanks impact the socially valuable prediction markets?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I started to comment on this and it turned into a longish post on my own site. Here it is:
http://torontopm.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/use-and-abuse-of-public-policy-prediction-markets/
Essentially, Matt does not believe that public policy markets will be free of manipulation. Robin thinks that manipulative effects will be eliminated by the informed traders. I examine some of the assumptions built into Robin’s public prediction market framework, and come to the following conclusion:
In theory, it is a nice idea to try and accurately aggregate as much information as possible in order to determine the best course of action in public policy decisions. Most public policy decisions are remarkably complex with numerous tradeoffs among competing interests. All decision-making benefits from more information that is more accurate and more timely. Unfortunately, simply inserting a prediction market framework into the decision-making process does not eliminate the political biases that have been, and will always be, there.
While it may be possible to operate public policy prediction markets for some issues, their use in the climate change or global warming debate is questionable. Not only can there be no guarantee of manipulation-free markets, we wouldn’t even know if market predictions had been manipulated. If actual public policy were to depend on false readings from such markets, the potential for significant misallocation of resources is immense. It is simply too great a risk to consider at this time, in my opinion.
I made a correction to my post. If the traders are *informed*, it should make no difference whether the noise trade comes from a manipulator or an uninformed trader. I had previously said that it did matter.
Robin suggested that I read his papers before popping off with a few thoughts. So, I’ve completed reviewing the technical paper, “A Manipulator Can Aid Prediction Market Accuracy”, and have added my comments here:
http://torontopm.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/is-it-enough-to-provide-incentives/