Betting on assassinations and terror attacks

Two questions:

1) How much money would it take for you to kill someone or perform a terrorist act? (everyone has their price)

2) How much money would be riding on some of these market contracts?

Seems like a bidding system to me, rather than a social "prediction" system. If someone discovers the odds are against them surviving the next year, they could purchase some opposing contracts to change the odds and ensure their survival.

Okay -- after putting a good night's sleep between me and this thread, here is my revised take on things.

1) I stand by my original point: Just because scrat sees nothing wrong with futures markets in terrorism, it doesn't follow that he "fails to see anything that's wrong with the Bush administration". Just because Donald Rumsfeld thinks the idea has merit, it doesn't follow that he's mentally infected and should spend time as an inmate in a political asylum.

2) In pointing this out to au, I did overstate the New York Times' commitment to the idea. A better response would have been "If political bias is all there is to it, how come the leading liberal newspapers have published op-eds that agree with scrat and disagree with you?" But notice that this correction doesn't change the point I was trying to make. (See 1) )

3) Having observed that I'd overstated the New York Times' commitment, Frank could have concluded that there's a difference between German and American newspapers that merits explaining. (Mamajuana had the right instinct here and did just that. Thanks, Mamajuana!) Alternatively, he could have concluded that as a human, I'm quite capable of making honest mistakes that merit correcting. Instead, he concluded that I had mislead people to the point of dishonesty and was quick to make judgments about my character in the discussion that followed. Since I had no incentive to cheat in the first place -- the correction wouldn't have changed the conclusion, see 2) -- and since non-malicious explanations were readily available, Frank's reaction came across to me as an unfair and gratuitious attack on me as a person. Upon reflection, it still does.

4) Nevertheless, I shouldn't have lashed out at people. To the extend I did, I should have lashed out not at au but at Frank, the person I was actually angry with. Obviously that's not what I actually did, and I'm sorry about that. Please accept my apologies.

Yours in phony creepiness

-- Thomas

Based on hearsay, I believe the market price for contract killings is in the upper 5-digit dollar range. Terrorist acts should be more expensive, but still in the same ballpark. I like to believe my own price is higher, but have no intention of finding out.


Presumably much more than that. But the size of positions any individual can hold would be limited to much less than the market price for killing. And even if it weren't, you couldn't use this to turn terrorism into a profitable business without leaving a paper trail and attracting the attention of those who monitor the market for signs of insider trading.


No they couldn't, because changing the market's assessment of the odds doesn't change the actual odds. Instead, attempts to change the market price create a profit opportunity for people who know better. To the extent these people take advantage of the opportunity, the "someone" in your scenario loses money without changing anything else.

-- Thomas

My initial instinct was to just let Thomas off the hook with as much dignity as he could muster in that last post -- but instead of just admitting he was wrong, he took a couple unnecessary and unwarranted slaps at me, so I am going to respond.



Fine! And if you had said that, I would not even have commented. And I might even add, that if you had said that, I could easily agree with it. It does not logically follow - and you would have been correct to point that out.

But that was not what you wrote -- and I responded to what you actually wrote, not to what you are saying now that you meant when you wrote it.



And should I have also considered the protocols of Lithuanian newspapers -- or Peruvian newspapers? How the hell should I know you are writing from Germany -- or wherever you are writing from? And why do you assume I should take that into consideration?

You were writing in English -- excellent English!!! -- and I assumed you knew what you were talking about.

I was wrong. I admit that.

I acknowledge that you did mention the problem...



But that was information I received after I had posted my comments. I had no way of knowing any of that, and despite the fact that you seem to think I should have considered how these leading German newspapers work -- I think you are way out of line in that thought.

In any case, what I wrote was based on my thinking you knew what you were talking about and it read:

"The New York Times and the Washington Post both apparently published Varian's essay as an op ed piece. But to characterize op ed articles in those two newspapers with the words: "... how come the leading liberal newspapers of the country agree with Scrat and disagree with you?" borders on dishonesty. "

Since I was under the impression you knew what you were talking about -- that comment is correct.

I can tell you this, Thomas. You were given two explanations of how the op ed section works - that they most definitely do not necessarily represent the views of the newspapers in which they appear. If after those explanations you had written: I did not understand that op ed pieces do not reflect the sentiments of the newspapers in which they appear -- and my characterization that the op ed piece which I submitted represented the views of the New York Times and the Washington Post WAS INCORRECT …

…I would have responded immediately with a "No problem, Thomas. I didn't know you were unaware of what op ed pieces are - and that they often represent views 180 degrees out of synch with the editorial views of the newspaper. I apologize for any inference of dishonesty on your part."

AND I WOULD HAVE BEEN GODDAM GLAD TO DO IT, Thomas, because I have had a very high opinion of you since our first conversation - and because your reaction and stonewalling on this issue has been one of the most disappointing things I've ever dealt with in any discussion forum.

You ought to be ashamed at the way you have conducted yourself in this thread on this issue.

BOTTOM LINE: Your original point -- the one with which I took issue -- was:

"...if you (au) are right and nothing except Scrat's alleged pro-Bush bias explains his favorable opinion of this futures market in terrorism, how come the leading liberal newspapers of the country agree with Scrat and disagree with you?"

You may want to convince people that your point was something else, but that is what you wrote.

Essential to that thought is that the two newspapers did in fact agree with Scrat and disagree with au. IT CANNOT BE READ ANY OTHER WAY!

You were NOT saying "it is unreasonable to suppose that Scrat has a favorable opinion of the futures market in terrorism idea only because of a pro-Bush bias."

Instead, what you wrote asks the question: "...if you (au) are right and nothing except Scrat's alleged pro-Bush bias explains his favorable opinion of this futures market in terrorism, how come the leading liberal newspapers of the country agree with Scrat and disagree with you?"

Come to grips with that!

And if you can't -- get out of it with any rationalization you choose -- but save your sanctimonious and gratuitous shots at me, because I have been correct in everything I've said on this issue with the exception of supposing you knew what you were talking about.

Whatever you say, Frank. I'll just give up now and leave the last word to you. Bye.

What if the guys running the futures info and betting program are also complicit in acts of terrorism?

That would have been covered under the section entitled: Insider Trading.

Frank -- I just posted something I heard in the news about half an hour ago in a new thread called "What's REALLY going on..." or something like that! Check it out. Think about the futures market...

Besides everything, the prognostic system is absolutely unreliable. People having profound knowledge of the subject usually have a good taste (just as a result of their education level) and do not to take part in such a lottery. And the ones that do, usually lack any serious knowledge and understanding of the subject... IMO, such a bets-based forecasting is useless and ill-tasted.

You know, I think they might have been trying to lure the actual terrorists to speculate on this market.

Any sane person wouldn't spend significant money on this because there is not enough data to analyze and predict a pattern.

Maybe the system was intended to lure people who are not speculating.

That is undoubtedly what they were hoping. It is the only way it works, really.

But wouldn't it figure that a person who makes a $25,000 investment in a particular embassy being bombed -- and the embassy is bombed three days later -- would have lots of questions come his way when he moves to collect?

And as Steissd pointed out -- the ones dumb enough to set themselves up are the least likely to have the skills to pull off a caper -- and the ones with the skills and brains to do so are not likely to fall for the scheme.

I think it was a loser from the start.

And even if a decent case could be made (I'm not saying it could) for it possibly working -- surely it was a loser from the "political fallout" perspective, which, loathe as I am to accept this, should play a part in every decision of this sort.

Well maybe they'd layer the investment. In any case I think it's a stupid idea that would ahve only worked once and I agree that the political ramifications of this should have been considered.

Kinda like a guy taking out a $1,000,000 life insurance policy on his wife -- and having her turn up missing a week later!

Really. I've watched enough "Law and Order" reruns to know what happens next!

Except sometimes Sam Waterston gets really righteous.

Craven, that's an aspect of it that puzzled me from the start.