GoofyGoose
4mo ago
GoofyGoose
7mo ago
And they only ended up paying for it because of pressure by the Fed. So much for the free market!
GoofyGoose
8mo ago
I don’t understand the american obsession with entrapment. In other countries the definition is more lax and sting operations are used to greater effect.
Can you explain why the fence is there, beyond ‘a cop forced me to do it’?
GoofyGoose
8mo ago
- I still don’t understand your point of view on this. Why is there a difference between acquiring a real asset versus a financial asset (that is someone else’s liability? You mentioned wealth creation, but trading financial assets/securities creates wealth. Trading happens under mutual agreement which means both parties are better off.
- Using that segue, prediction markets create value in the same way that any trading creates value. What gives rise to two people wanting to trade with each other? Different situations in or different beliefs about the future. This is the simplest libertarian argument for freedom to trade with each other.
GoofyGoose
8mo ago
-
This makes no sense to me. What is the key difference that matters in your opinion? Is it the probability of payoff? Prediction shares are binary, so if one side has low probability, the other one has high probability. Start-up equity has low probability of success: are they in the same category? Is the issue that they hold your money until the event? We could imagine a type of prediction markets where we put shares of VOO instead of cash. Would that change your view on them? The shares are going to be held anyway, so there is no inefficiency there.
-
You don’t need to assume that perfect information is good to think prediction markets are good. That’s a strawman if I ever saw one. You might be able to make a strong case for banning prediction markets based on negative effects of too much information, but it won’t be a strong case unless you explain why it wouldn’t be better to, say, have their players contracts prohibiting this and enforcing it.
GoofyGoose
9mo ago
You can also make exams open book or allow cheat sheets. It might be hard to believe but there are cases of open book exams where the questions were previously solved in class or recitation.
GoofyGoose
9mo ago
Why? You can have beliefs and they can be irrational. If the situation calls for symmetry, but your prior is asymmetric because “something tells you it can’t be otherwise” then irrational could be a good descriptor.
In your link, you had other, more seemingly valid, complaints which people addressed well. This one feels like BEC.
GoofyGoose
10mo ago
FATF delenda est
GoofyGoose
10mo ago
Science is naturalist, rather than materialist. To a naturalist, the existence of non-material entities or phenomena does not invalidate science. There might still be laws that govern those entities; independently of our ability to learn those laws.
Science appears materialistic because of a desire for parsimony and the extraordinary success of materialist theories. But the principles of science do not depend on a materialist world.
GoofyGoose
10mo ago
Would it? Or would they just blame them even more?
In any case, I don’t understand why they should help. Help me or I’ll envy you and make things difficult sounds like extortion.
GoofyGoose
11mo ago
I agree, although I understand how “Genetic Sexual Attraction” (wikipedia, SFW) might make it seem like a kink.
Probably politics first, with GSA helping implementation.
GoofyGoose
1yr ago
Maybe if we didn’t keep increasing the minimum wage and other benefits to workers, we could have nice things. That’s the price we pay for equality. Although people will still complain.
Limited liability is just freedom to contract. We write a contract where I owe you something, but with conditions that it can only come from this venture. You don’t need the government to do anything special other than respect property rights and the sanctity of contracts.
More options
Context Copy link