My question to Jason Ruspini

No Gravatar

Jason, thanks for your hard work on this issue. Your 7-page letter to the CFTC is a master document. &#8212- (PDF file)

What makes you think that your proposals will create more freedom for our prediction exchanges than the CFTC&#8217-s proposals?

Could you point to specific instances to us where you think that your input is more libertarian than the CFTC way? After all, your proposals contain many &#8220-don&#8217-t do that, and forbid that&#8221- things. :-D

2 thoughts on “My question to Jason Ruspini

  1. Jason Ruspini said:

    Thanks. Do you mean “the economists’” instead of “the CFTC”?.  If so, I think our proposals are compatible.  In general, a public interest exemption is the most likely outcome since it’s the path of least resistance with respect to jurisdictional decisions by the CFTC.  Regarding the economists’ specific proposal, I have to say that I do not like their “other qualifications” suggestion as applied to non-profits and academics, nor their small-stakes recommendation as it does violence to large tax-related risks people already have.  In those ways my proposal is more comprehensive and less restrictive, though as a matter of pragmatism I do propose many restrictions. 


    Of course, things like manipulation would take care of themselves in the long run — the same way that replacing public with private police forces should, as David Friedman and others argue.  But I am a libertarian, but not an anarcho-capitalist.  Incidentally, I am tempted to argue that being able to hedge one’s taxes is a more relevant modern right, yet very much in the same spirit, as the second amendment.

  2. Chris F. Masse said:

    @Jason Ruspini: No, I didn’t mean the economists’ petition —I meant the CFTC’s opinion, if it’s possible to sense that at this point.

    But thanks for your comment.

    Next thing is to compare your proposals with Tom Bell’s ones.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *