(psyshrike) wrote in message . com...
(vince) wrote in message . com...
(psyshrike) wrote in message . com...
Jim Watt wrote in message . ..
On 30 Jul 2003 10:23:01 -0700, (psyshrike)

SNIP


I am actually hoping this is some sort of trend. If you look at
PAM.Then look at polution emmissions trading that has been implimented
in europe it would seem we are on the verge of some sort of
governmental renaissance.

Governments that respected civil rights, begat free market economics.

no, free markets are a funciton of property rights. civil rights ahve
nothign to do with it. you can have a free market is slaves.

Possessing the right to express ones own free will, _is_ a property.
no, its a libert i.e. a civil right

Calling civil and property rights different, does not effect the fact
that both are analytically expressable.

There is a fundamental differnce between property rights, which can be
marketed
and civil rights, which cannot. In the constituion these are
differentiated as rights to "property" and "liberty"

Yes, you can have slaves in a free market. But that is not garuanteed,
and preventing it would simply be a matter of trading regulations.

or establishing civil rights. The legal system defines what is
property several different ways.

To presume that ones rights are not traded now, is niave. Property
taxes for example, is to pay in advance for something ultimately
requisite to the expression of free will.

no. but see below



To be a "slave" is of degrees. It is not a noun so much as an
adjective.

Chattel slavery as described in the ameerican constituional history is
a very clear idea. Wage slavery as decribed by somer politicians is
not

SNIP

Is there a bigger movement towards open market implimentations of
government services? And how would that effect civil rights and world
stability? And what do you call it, a Marketocracy?

The problem with the terroism market was a combintiaon of "moral
hazard" and insider trading.

Moral hazad is the willingness to change the "real world" because of
the position you have taken in the market. (same as burning your
restaurant when you have insurance) Insider trading is the ability to
take advantage of non public information Both are lethal to free
markets.


Vince

Insider trading, is itself functional in a market solely run for
predicitive purposes. Or: Markets can be manipulated. THATS THE POINT.
The fluctuation of the price of a tradable asset, is itself usefull
information that _something_ is going on.

no, becsue the insider trading may not be of something of predictive
value. assume that as an insider ai know that person X is going to
buy a million shares at 9AM. I dont knwo wheyy or care. I do know
that take advantage of that knwoledge to manipulate the market. it
degrades the predictive power of the market.

Not to mention that insider trading is also usefull from an
investigative standpoint. If somebody dumps a load of cash on an
event, perhaps one of the black skimask 3 lettered agencies will give
them a call to find out why.

As soon as you start investigating whey peopel trade, the market
evaporates. Teh whole point of yusing a market for prediciton is that
peope will act on theri econdomic best intersts. if your theroy
worked all trades houls be public in the first place.

The basic questions behind "Moral Hazard" a If the predictive
capability of PAM is accurate, will it be used in a sufficiently
competent manner in order to prevent an act, and effect appropriately
the exceptions to accuracy? And would capital inertia cause a net
increase in violence?

In other words, could you fluctuate the market to cause the black
skimasks to show up specifically at somebody elses house. And would
there by more of em' running around than there are already?

In order for the predictive capability to be effective at all, a
competent investigation of a fluctuation would be requisite. That
competency implies an ability to spot exceptions to the rule.
Therefore, the black skimasks never get called in a non-predictive
fluctuation.

That makes "Moral Hazard" as an argument something of a red herring.
As the effects it describes are based on the failure of investigative
capabilities we already use, and depend on.

IMHO "Moral Hazard" already exists to any extent to which it would if
it was in a formated market, becuase the market already exists in a
non formated context.

To rephrase my other post, Lend Lease = US involvement in European
front of WWII. A decade of blockading Iraq, = The invasion thereto,
Stupid US drug laws = choas in south america, and US military
involvment.

The US made investments, by dictating (Legislating) a short or long
position in a particular country or asset, and then had to get
involved militarily to make sure the suckers paid up. Call it what you
want.

Our troops go to war becuase of trades made in this market. Adding a
standardized format to encourage transparency doesn't sound like a bad
idea to me.

-psyshrike

nonsense. as you point out, to make your market workd you have to
investigate the motives of the participants, which woudl automatically
prevent them from taking part.

Vince .