Pentagon's Futures Market Plan Condemned

"Paul Ely" wrote:

"transputer" wrote in message
. ..
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon (news - web sites) is setting up a
stock-market style system in which investors would bet on terror
attacks, assassinations and other events in the Middle East. Defense
officials hope to gain intelligence and useful predictions while
investors who guessed right would win profits.
snip


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rror_market_10


In the wake of Enron and WorldCom scandals, had anyone looked at the
repercussions of 'market manipulation' in such a scheme?

After all, isn't speculation of this sort already the exclusive domain of
the Carlyle Group?

'Smacks of the derivatives transactions pre-9/11. Lovely if you're
the actor.

Grantland

"transputer" wrote in message
.. .
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon (news - web sites) is setting up a
stock-market style system in which investors would bet on terror
attacks, assassinations and other events in the Middle East. Defense
officials hope to gain intelligence and useful predictions while
investors who guessed right would win profits.
snip


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rror_market_10


In the wake of Enron and WorldCom scandals, had anyone looked at the
repercussions of 'market manipulation' in such a scheme?

After all, isn't speculation of this sort already the exclusive domain of
the Carlyle Group?

transputer wrote:

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon (news - web sites) is setting up a
stock-market style system in which investors would bet on terror
attacks, assassinations and other events in the Middle East. Defense
officials hope to gain intelligence and useful predictions while
investors who guessed right would win profits.


But the Pentagon already knows about future terrorist attacks. The Iraq
war was premised on self defence with the time machine element thrown
in. It was to DEFEND against Iraq who they KNEW was going to attack
America some time in the future.

With a proper futures market the Axis of the Evil (now minus one) and
the Coalition of the Omniscient can continue to beat the crap out of
each other to defend against future deeds, as yet uncommitted, with the
strong confidence that the forecast attacks will indeed take place.

I think the futures market for terror attacks and the inevitable
retaliation is a good thing. Nations can buy and sell future pre-emptive
strikes off one another. It's a well-informed and therefore fair market,
now that both sides can see so well into the future to tell so
accurately who the aggressors are going to be.

The UK can, for example, purchase a pre-emptive strike against North
Korea, because it is (being evil) going to attach America at some time
in the future. That way, Britain can do the deed and earn the self
defence credits it needs from the US, for later sale to the highest
bidder. Likewise, the US can pre-emptively strike against the IRA by
purchasing a pre-emptive anti-terrorist futures contract from the UK or
cashing in against other UK-held justifiable self defence credits at a
pre-arranged price.

We could coerce future agressors to buy their way out of pre-emptive
strikes by charging them in advance, with a rapidly rising price
structure guaranteed to get early results. Of course they then earn
credit for attacks that then don't occur for any reason, and interest on
attacks postponed. And they can trade in these attack cancellation or
postponement interest credits, exchanging a peaceful acquiescent foreign
policy for the purchased right to attach America by a certain date.

Libya could "sell" a Coalition of the Willing attack credit to Iran,
letting Iran off the hook as a future aggressor (for one attack anyway).
This would leave Libya in the self defence firing line, but with more
money in the bank for its present needs (or rebuilding, as the case may be).

Australia can also do some hedging here. We can send the SAS into
Malaysia (not yet a legitimate target or aggressor, but we are talking
futures here). Malaysia would likewise earn credits on the Victims of
Pre-emptive Attacks Market, simply by being justifiably attacked in
advance, and can now use these credits to buy its way out of real
attacks it was actually going to commit against the Coalition.

To quantify this market there needs to be a new index, the NASTYATAQ for
example. I for one would want to ensure that my superannuation fund
invests heavily in it! With good solid pre-emptive policy, we can all
have a prosperous future.

Cheers
David

The Rumsfield/Poindexter retirement fund? Skimming off the take? How novel.
Walt BJ

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:48:44 -0400, the renowned "Paul Ely"

After all, isn't speculation of this sort already the exclusive domain of
the Carlyle Group?

Maybe that's what Rummy et. al were counting on. If they can make it
very profitable for someone to "manipulate the market" then there's
less blood on their hands. All it would take would be control over
what was bet on. (eg. no betting on the sudden demise of Dubya
allowed, but betting on the demise of Kim Jong Il would be
encouraged). Less danger of repercussions when you can blame "the
market"- look at all the people who have lost money in the market, and
how few have been punished.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

The economically illiterate in a paragraph.




I think they were trying to bypass the "suspicious" futures
transactions watch. Wolfowitz. Rotten Traitors.

Grantland

(a fan of Johnny Wizard)

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:48:44 -0400, the renowned "Paul Ely"
wrote:

"transputer" wrote in message
. ..
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon (news - web sites) is setting up a
stock-market style system in which investors would bet on terror
attacks, assassinations and other events in the Middle East. Defense
officials hope to gain intelligence and useful predictions while
investors who guessed right would win profits.
snip


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rror_market_10


In the wake of Enron and WorldCom scandals, had anyone looked at the
repercussions of 'market manipulation' in such a scheme?

After all, isn't speculation of this sort already the exclusive domain of
the Carlyle Group?

Maybe that's what Rummy et. al were counting on. If they can make it
very profitable for someone to "manipulate the market" then there's
less blood on their hands. All it would take would be control over
what was bet on. (eg. no betting on the sudden demise of Dubya
allowed, but betting on the demise of Kim Jong Il would be
encouraged). Less danger of repercussions when you can blame "the
market"- look at all the people who have lost money in the market, and
how few have been punished.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

The Policy Analysis Market (PAM) concept is way ahead of its time.
Those folks at DARPA are some pretty smart cookies. So give them the
benifit of the doubt.

The jerks on the hill that are trying to to spin this concept into a
political issue are doing no favors for the American people.

Capital investment in internation events already happens. The
involvement in most of our foreign wars can be attributed as much to
capital investments, as to principles or vengence. Lend lease for
example, or the blockade of Iraq for a decade.

A mechanism for expressing this fact is what we are talking about,
nothing more.

By translating this reality into a common economically expressable
format, (a transparent marketplace), we create an environment where
leaders and citizens can get a look at where they stand in the world
seen from a numerical standpoint.

Therefore a persons perception of their country would no longer be
based on the political rantings of some fool, but by checking the
stock invested in the destruction or support of their government.

If you were on the crap end of the stick in this market, wouldn't that
motivate you just a tad?

Yes it a market can be manipulated. THATS THE POINT. A market format
causes all manipulation of the market to be instantly disclosed. That
disclosure provides time to those involved to make appropriate changes
to the way they do business.

PAM is a 3 second warning in a game of musical chairs played by
governments around the world. When the music stops, people die. Don't
know about you, but I'd prefer to be warned.

-More US citizens died on 9/11 than have died cumulatively in BOTH
gulf wars.
-Psyshrike

(Grantland) wrote in message ...
Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:48:44 -0400, the renowned "Paul Ely"

After all, isn't speculation of this sort already the exclusive domain of
the Carlyle Group?

Maybe that's what Rummy et. al were counting on. If they can make it
very profitable for someone to "manipulate the market" then there's
less blood on their hands. All it would take would be control over
what was bet on. (eg. no betting on the sudden demise of Dubya
allowed, but betting on the demise of Kim Jong Il would be
encouraged). Less danger of repercussions when you can blame "the
market"- look at all the people who have lost money in the market, and
how few have been punished.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

The economically illiterate in a paragraph.




I think they were trying to bypass the "suspicious" futures
transactions watch. Wolfowitz. Rotten Traitors.

That would interesting if people as stupid as
Bechtel, General Dynamics, or Exxon employees knew
anything about futures.

Here's a far-out wooo-wooo-woooo explanation. By identifying the ones
with the highest batting averages they will have found
a)plotters/abetters and b) honest to God prognosticaters who are
really good, and may even have ESP!
Sign off with 'Outer limits Theme'
Walt BJ

On 30 Jul 2003 10:23:01 -0700, psyshrike wrote:
The Policy Analysis Market (PAM) concept is way ahead of its time.

Not really, foresight exchange has been doing it got years.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?