Pentagon's Futures Market Plan Condemned

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

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

I would take it that they haven't got a clue what is happening in
the world and feel that the traders have a grip on it and want
a mechanism to get their opinion.

Thats what the trading room says ... and they should know.

Reflexivity at work.

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.
Is sonny teaching pop a lesson? How much of public service could be
converted into open market tradable assets and futures?

Some states are looking at floating restricted driving lane rights at
auction (Buy yourself HOV lane access). Which begs the question, why
not float all driving licensing on the open market?

As the driver count increased, the price would go up, which would fund
the construction projects requisite to avoid congestion. Additional
licenses could then be floated reducing the price. The publics wants
of service would inherently balance with the publics willingness to be
taxed.

Campaigns would probably focus on license counts for particular
government services.

If you want to take you own trash to the dump, don't buy a trash
pickup license. If don't need to drive, don't buy a license. If you
are a polution activist, buy polution rights by the ton, and don't use
them.

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?

-psyshrike

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

: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.

It's frightening that there are actually people stupid enough to think
this sort of thing out there. "Rummy et. al" had nothing to do with
this. It is a sort of technique used to 'predict' many other sorts of
behaviours. DARPA wanted to see if it would work with regard to
terrorism.

It really is that simple. JFK really was killed. Elvis is dead.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

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

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

I would take it that they haven't got a clue what is happening in
the world and feel that the traders have a grip on it and want
a mechanism to get their opinion.

Thats what the trading room says ... and they should know.

Reflexivity at work.

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 proerty rights. civil rights ahve
nothign to dow with it. you can have a free market is slaves.

Is sonny teaching pop a lesson? How much of public service could be
converted into open market tradable assets and futures?

Some states are looking at floating restricted driving lane rights at
auction (Buy yourself HOV lane access). Which begs the question, why
not float all driving licensing on the open market?

As the driver count increased, the price would go up, which would fund
the construction projects requisite to avoid congestion. Additional
licenses could then be floated reducing the price. The publics wants
of service would inherently balance with the publics willingness to be
taxed.

Campaigns would probably focus on license counts for particular
government services.

If you want to take you own trash to the dump, don't buy a trash
pickup license. If don't need to drive, don't buy a license. If you
are a polution activist, buy polution rights by the ton, and don't use
them.

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.

It is not a coincidnce that one of the Darpa contracters was
Neoterics. Neoterics is named after the miniature creatures with
acellerated evolution in Ted Sturgeons "microcospmic God" (1941) As in
that story the setup woporks fine until the miniature people find out
they are being manipulated at whcih point they rebel and change the
rules.

Vince

(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 proerty rights. civil rights ahve
nothign to dow with it. you can have a free market is slaves.

Possessing the right to express ones own free will, _is_ a property.
Calling civil and property rights different, does not effect the fact
that both are analytically expressable.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

(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 .

(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



To rephrase my other post, Lend Lease = US involvement in European
front of WWII.

But that's wrong though. Lend Lease = US involvement in
*Britian's* front of WWII.

Since the terms of Lend Lease were implicitly that if Britian
gave our technology to France, the US would have to not only
bomb France, we'd have to bomb all of Britian's foriegn
possessions too.


A decade of blockading Iraq, = The invasion thereto,
Stupid US drug laws = choas in south america, and US military
involvment.

US drug laws don't have much to do with South America.
But they have a lot to do with the Middle East.
Since that's were Hash and Heroine were invented, not South America.
The South American cocaine market is strictly run by a bunch
of overpaid *Europeon* ****heads, who we keep telling
Canada, France, and Russia, "It's not like we care what glaciers do".

(vince) wrote in message om...
(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)

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


Law, is the abstraction of a pragmatic repudiation to some form of
human behavior. This does not limit _value_ from being expressed. To
compare civil and property rights is to compare two seperate layers of
linguistic abstraction. In a book context: (Property 1. Civil 1.1)
vs. (Property 1. Civil 2.)

How you arrange your chapters does not change the fact, that both
property and civil rights are expressable in a capitalistic context.
Or:

If you can assign a value to an abstract, (intellectual property. A
software license for example) that abstraction opens the door for
other abstract valuation assignments. Freedom, is marketably
expressable even if our forefathers didn't write it that way. If it is
expressed up to including the price of life for some, then that is the
price. The cost assosciation does not dissapear, even though the cost
negates any interest in the purchase.


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.

I disagree. I think it increase the predictive ability. If big money
makes decisions in the market, the sheep follow. The amount of
information that gets to the sheep is flexible and in contention ant
any given time. The sheep and the theives influence market
INstability. Since it is the peaks in the chart we are looking at for
prediction, not the flatlines, instability is not a bad thing within
limits.

Rational purchase motive tends to weigh more heavily on the market,
than insiders. In fact even using your example, the insider is making
the decision to purchase AFTER the the rational motive purchaser. The
sheep actually make up more of the transactions than either of the
ration person, or the insider, and they follow both parties. So
provided that the count of insiders does not exceed the count of
rational purchasers, the market remains predictive.

Insider trading, fraud, investigation, regulation, and insider
regulation, are rampant in both major US markets today, yet people
still invest, and the markets are still predictive. (You shouldn't
need examples)

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 .

So, insider trading prevents prediction, and investigation prevents
the viability of a market? The truth is somewhere in between me
thinks.

It sounds like you are either a lawyer or law student. Markets are
more abstract than law. The language of law has a pragmatic end. A
function.

Market fluctuations are symptomatic of infintely variable
relaitonships. They have no "reason to be", they are just
measurements. Like a thermometer.

Market language exists for people to interpret correctly the symptoms.
100% of the decision, is still to the investor, whether his info is
correct or not.

With law, at least some of the decision making process is influenced
by the framer.

IMHO: Therefore; in a time where global opinions change faster than
they once did; it may be prudent to use market techniques to impliment
regulation, particularly in a government service setting.

This would provide a floating abstraction for each government service
(a stock symbol), the price of which would provide pressure both on
the populace and the state, such that "public will" would be easily
interpreted, and government fraud would be easier to investigate.

Ex. 1. A climbing price indicates a public interest, and
precapitalizes the
states coffers to respond to that interest.

2. The standardized book keeping mechanism required by
transpearent
markets would create a publically disclosed paper trail for
prosecuting fraud cases.

I am quite interested in why this wouldn't work. As I haven't really
found a good reason yet.

-Psyshrike

On 4 Aug 2003 09:28:29 -0700, (psyshrike) wrote:


How you arrange your chapters does not change the fact, that both
property and civil rights are expressable in a capitalistic context.
Or:


Expressable? What the hell does that mean? Other than it just means
you can say it, does it mean anything at all?




Gary Carson
The Complete Book of Hold'em Poker is #9 on the bestseller list
List of Top Ten Gambling Books
http://garycarson.rediffblogs.com/
Amercian Casino Guide is #13 last week

John A. Stovall wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 17:23:53 +0300, 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.

Interesting idea which looks like an expansion of what are called
Delphi forecasting techniques.

I would like to see how it works.
Actually, it's the opposite.
Delphi is about questioning large numbers of people who
DON'T have a specific knowledge of the situation.
It turns out that if you ask 1000 people (WHO DON'T KNOW
THE ANSWER) how many people died of Spanish Influenza, or how
many loaves of rye bread were discarded as spoiled in Germany in
1996 (No @#$%^#$#ing clue), on average, you get the right answer.
The problem is that for 50 years, they have tried to
apply this to the future, but it doesn't work.
In regards to this specific problem, a market attracts
people who are EXPERTS, so Delphi really doesn't apply.
There is, however, another theory, that says markets and
betting by experts can predict an answer. Naval intelligence
used this technique to find the H-Bombs dropped off Spain in the
1960s and the Russian SSBN that sunk in the Pacific, later
partially recovered by the Glomar Explorer (Source, Blind Man's
bluff).
The problem with applying it to terrorism is that it
functions not to unearth data, but in aggregate to filter data
out, and terrorism is a data poor, as opposed to a data rich
situation.
I think that it was bad idea that was driven by a
philosophy that markets solve every problem.
BTW, it was me on the CSPAN morning call in raising
Delphi a few days ago.
--
--Matthew Saroff
Rules to live by:
1) To thine own self be true
2) Don't let your mouth write no checks that your butt can't cash
3) Interference in the time stream is forbidden, do not meddle in causality
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page

To rephrase my other post, Lend Lease = US involvement in European
front of WWII.

But that's wrong though. Lend Lease = US involvement in
*Britian's* front of WWII.

Just a minor point, lend lease also went to the USSR and Free France.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired