Slashdot Mirror
Prediction Markets and the 2008 Electoral Map
Electionwatch submitted a predicted electoral map of the 2008 US Presidential election, based on the bets made by the intrade prediction markets. I'm always interested in these markets and how accurate they end up being. This one calls it for Obama, but then again you probably could guess that by just watching 10 minutes of any TV "News" channel.
Was there ever a time that the political "news" centered on the candidates and not polls and predictions?
He ain't no damned librul.
The voting results maps by COUNTY of past elections. The pattern that clearly becomes visible is that the division in the US isn't so much right versus left or conservative versus liberal but RURAL-dweller versus URBAN-dweller. Taking that a step further, have you noticed that the urbanites are usually the ones on the environmental-protection bandwagon or the consumer-protection bandwagon (read: you can't have a trike ATV). The urbanites are the ones saying that we can't drill in Alaska. I'll bet that 99.99% of them have never been to Alaska and have no clue as to how enormous the place is. "Yeah, we're going to retire all that great farm land so we can build another cloned shopping mall with the same cookie-cutter stores." "But where will your endive and cilantro salad come from?" "Don't bother me with facts, dammit!"
If you interested in prediction markets, check out this wired article:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-06/st_essay
It's a good piece on some of the challenges prediction markets have: small trading populations, mostly community insiders trading on things they care/know a lot about, small stakes. It's an interesting read!
"1. Value of the Dollar"
And how exactly is printing more money (in the form of "tax rebate" checks funded through deficit spending) going to increase the value of the dollar? (Source) Doesn't it do the exact opposite?
"4. Percentage of bankruptcies caused by lack of health care coverage"
And Obama would replace that number with the "percentage of Americans completely losing their property rights to socialism", which of course would be 100%. McCain is of course doing the same thing, though possibly to a lesser degree (or maybe he's just better at hiding it).
"5. Number of houses lost to predatory lenders."
I have no sympathy for people who sign contracts without reading them, nor for banks that associate with such shady sources. Companies and individuals that purposely do not investigate the risk of such endeavors will fall. It is not our responsibility to provide a safety net for bad practices - doing so brings the whole system down, because everyone starts thinking they can make mistakes and someone will protect them from the consequences (for free at that!)
As for Iraq, all I see is a lot of empty talk from the candidates. I doubt either has a viable plan that is without dangerous consequences; they will instead elect to do nothing.
Apparently we're going to have to do the 60's-70's again to reintroduce people who weren't paying attention at the time to what it looks like when the country actually gets messed up. OMG, the economy is only growing at a 2.5% annualized rate and unemployment is over 5%!!!@!!!@!!
Hopefully we can avoid disco this time.
1) And how exactly is printing more money (in the form of "tax rebate" checks funded through deficit spending) going to increase the value of the dollar? (Source) Doesn't it do the exact opposite? A tax rebate check is only printed money if you are running deficits like we are under Republican rule, not if you have a surplusses like we had by the time Bill Clinton left office.
Not only that, but consider the difference between a one time stimulous check, and an occupation of a foreign country that costs us $341 Million per day and has left us less safe. That is $341 Million of printed money per day. Convenient you would forget about that
4) And Obama would replace that number with the "percentage of Americans completely losing their property rights to socialism", which of course would be 100%. McCain is of course doing the same thing, though possibly to a lesser degree (or maybe he's just better at hiding it).
The only alternative to letting people bankrupt themselves until they die broke, their illness untreated is to scare people with the idea of socialism. If you want to pay through the nose for health "coverage" that specifically excludes the pre-existing conditions you need it for, I support your right to do that.
It is immoral to bankrupt people for getting sick and any society that has the ability to prevent this has a moral duty to. All other industrialized nations provide a health care system to their citizens that actually treats their conditions rather than just extracting as much money while providing as little healthcare as possible.
5) have no sympathy for people who sign contracts without reading them, nor for banks that associate with such shady sources. Companies and individuals that purposely do not investigate the risk of such endeavors will fall.
Falling home prices hurt everyone, not just people who took out bad loans - often while being tricked in to thinking they were agreeing to different terms. If you need to move for a job and find that your home is now worth significantly less than you paid for it, you are screwed.
At that point do you give thanks to a regulatory system that let some slimey, deceptive, piece of shit make a buck at everyone else's expense?
But that is a pretty weak argument when he supports staying in a costly war. Lowering taxes and spending huge amounts of money on war will be terrible for the US economy.
Then again I spose a lot of people don't have the ability to do what I like to call take two facts and create a third fact.
Fact 1: War is costly
Fact 2: Taxes pay for war
Fact 3 (created from the first two facts): If we decrease taxes and still spend on a war we won't have money to pay for anything but the war without borrowing more money.
Our bugs are smarter than your test scripts.
Last time I checked, Obama doesn't want American soldiers in Iraq to hold up white flags and then allow themselves to be help captive by insurgents. If you have legitimate reasons for not voting for Obama, then be my guest and vote for the candidate that will continue the policies that have brought the U.S. to where it's at now. However, you look like a complete, biased idiot when you use inaccurate and sensationalist words like "surrender" to describe a candidates policies.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
I read analysis of the "market" sites after 2004 and 2006. They were all reactionary, not forecasting, much like the regular stock market. Kerry was a longshot in the electoral "market," until he won. And when good news came out, he got a bump -- after the news was out. It responded to polls and followed the same news as anyone else in 2006, as well.
Unsurprising, really -- these markets are populated by people who read the same news as everyone else. There's no "insiders" in politics that control voting, so the polls showing Obama with a slight edge nation-wide influences the "market."
You're being far too harsh. Today's political news certainly does focus on the candidates. Who paid what for a haircut, who teared up in front of the cameras, whether the candidate is black enough or too abrasive or can't bowl for crap or too old or too young. Then they discuss how each of these factors plays with the various "key demographics", whether they be white soccer moms, elderly Florida Jews, Cuban exiles, blue collar males, urban Hispanics, NASCAR dads, and the Amish.
:)
I think that the giant, sucking gap that you're noticing is a vacuous, superficial, talking-point centered discussion of *policy*.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
This alone is reason enough for me to vote against him. No matter if the alternative is a water cooler.
Think about what "lower taxes" basically means. Lower taxes means less money in governmental pockets. Thus less governmental spending (or increasing the national debt, either way you're fu..ed). Less fed spending means less money for public schools, less money for roads, less money for wellfare, less...
Wait, you don't care about wellfare you say? Doesn't affect you? It does.
Allow me to tell you something about my country, in Europe. We pay taxes that would make your head spin. All in all, when my buck is spent, only about 30 cents thereof go to some sort of good or service, the rest is siphoned away in taxes, directly or indirectly. Wage tax, healthcare tax, VAT... pretty much the only thing not taxed is taxes. And you pay extra tax on alcohole, fuel, housing, you name it.
In other words, my country has quite a bit of cash to spend. And they do. Wellfare checks are about a thousand bucks a month. You can easily live on that. If you have family, you get more. And your rent is paid as well.
Why does that affect me, when I have to work so that moocher can sit on his lazy ass and get fat? Because people have something to lose. People who don't have anything to lose don't care if they have to bash your head in for the 20 bucks you have on you.
Our crime rate is low. Incredibly low. I live in the capital, still a murder makes the evening news, and is certainly the headline of tomorrow's papers. It happens once a year, so it's quite some event!
What I want to say is that you have to pay for what you want, one way or another. When you're done paying for healthcare, security (which includes living in a "good" neighborhood, buying some alarm system and maybe even hiring security goons), retirement and other insurances, you're probably where I am.
Though I'd guess, you have less money on your hands than I do. Despite paying about 30% of my income directly in taxes, and another 50% indirectly.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Is your dog dead, or did he just run away? You either want a necromancer (who generally don't do well with the religious right) or Ace Ventura (the first pet detective who came up in a google search, and no one really thinks that brand of humor is amusing any more).
Obviously, you do not own a house.
When that house down the block sells for 30% less than it was purchased, that then becomes a 'comparable' for judging the value of YOUR house. Even though you have made perfect on-time payments, and have never been late with any bill ever in your life.
Now your bank is calling in your home equity loan, that you have also never been late on, all because the bank now has to write down its balance sheet. When that happens, the results spread to EVERY member of the bank, not just the 'dumb' people, as you seem to like to call them.
This bullshit of blaming the victim needs to be stopped. Or do you live on an island, all by yourself, with no connection to the outside world?
Cry you a river? How about the anger you are going to feel when you realize that your local government has been raising your property taxes in lockstep with the increasing home prices, but try to get them to lower them when the values fall.(unless you live in CA where this is law) When your property taxes go up 30% or more, but your property value has also fallen 30% simply because of all these 'dumb' people, are you still going to run around saying 'cry me a river'.
So you rent, you say. It doesnt affect me, you say. Well, do you know the financial position of your landlord? Do you know what will happen if they are unable to meet their funding responsibilities on the property you are renting because the near collapse and now tightening of the credit markets are requiring higher capital to get the same loan amounts? Will they sell it to the 'lowest bidder' who will then neglect it simply because they are looking to make a buck, and arent really into caring about your standard of living?
If you have managed to avoid any negative ramifications of what has been happening the past 12 months, you should count yourself lucky. Within the next 3-4 weeks however, we will all find out just how much this will spread when the fed comes face-to-face with having to make the choice of letting the dollar collapse, or fixing the housing market. Sitting on that precipice is where we are RIGHT NOW.
Hopefully that wont happen, but if it does, I honestly hope the people you come in contact with afterwords have a more human attitude with regard to your situation, and dont just say 'cry me a river' to your face.
Yes, of course, and Ron Paul hasn't studied, for example, Ludwig Von Mises, Frederik Hayek, and other noted economists...
Just because he doesn't subscribe to your Keynesian theories (or whatever other current fad they taught you) doesn't mean he's wrong.
I think you'll find that many people who've actually studied economics seriously also agree with much of what he says - it's not as if he's invented a new economic theory, he is an advocate of the Austrian school of economics. Nothing to do with Ayn Rand (although there are similarities.)
But, looking at it that way might make a little harder to blindly dismiss him as trivial, wouldn't it? So, let's not do that.
http://clightnirish.wordpress.com/
It's amazing how on Slashdot, a completely baseless insult or accusation gets modded "insightful". Don't forget to take a jab at Ayn Rand for that extra point!
Congradulations, in one sentence you have completely discredited free market economics! Incidentally, how's that high school economics class going?
We all know studying "Noted Experts" is only the first step of true knowledge.
THe Free Market when it exists is HIGHLY destructive to PEOPLE, yeah profits for a few skyrocket but monopolies(some subtle) are created and they damage everything they touch until some radical comes along and breaks it up(for a time).
So for your attack on Keynes please show me a BETTER example of economic thought where ALL hard working people are rewarded, and not just a few at the top. Regulation is blunt against greed(its not perfect but what is).
As to Hayek forgive me if the economist who bent over backwards to support Pinochet in Argentina ranks fairly low on my Useful Human Scale and we know how well THEIR economy did after implementing the Free Market.
Maybe the "invisble hand" will save us all
While the Austrian school economists are a step up, they still have an inordinate fondness for self-evident propositions that aren't self-evident (particularly, the action axiom). Unprovable statements that one claims are "self-evident" is just a disease of rational thought.
A 70-year strong fad is one hell of a fad.
Dude, you're not thinking clearly. Commercial transactions don't capture all value.
I live in a city. When there are a ton of desperate poor around, it affects my quality of life. I can't go outside at night.
By myself, I cannot do a damn thing to change this: I do not have the resources. If we want to change the city, we require collective action. Government is the means by which collective action is achieved.
If an epidemic spreads through the city, simply having enough money to pay for my own medical bills isn't enough. No: What was really needed was for the first poor schmuck who caught the disease to begin with and started spreading it around to have received adequate medical care before the situation ballooned out of control.
Libertarianism is dogs eating dogs. You might win, but it won't have been very pleasant for you even if you do.
It would certainly suck if you were hypothetically an individual who lived in a community where charitable foundations were unfunded or underfunded (Points #1 and #2), was injured to the point where you are no longer able to produce income (Point #3), and has no family or friends (Point #4).
I certainly hope there's an option #5 out there...
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
I'd rather see us not invade anyone again unless there is a direct, confirmed threat to the US. But at least Pakistan, like Afghanistan, would be a sensible target to invade if your goal is to get terrorists and control the spread of nukes. Unlike Iraq or Iran we're 100% certain Pakistan has nuclear weapons, because they've detonated them.
They don't need to suspend elections with black box hacked voting and high level media manipulation, ie. picking the globalist approved candidates to give coverage to, and instantly labeling all the others as "fringe" right off the bat. Advertising/propaganda *works*, at least to a large enough extent that they can do whatever they want to do all the time, and real laws and the real constitution gets ignored. And even if they get found out in lies or illegalities, again, nothing happens, because we have a paper tiger toothless congress that is mostly compromised and an executive branch that just issues orders at random through EOs and "signing statements" and so on, and has all the official guns and "no questions asked" order followers to back those orders and edicts up.
So the only reason to vote for McCain is because you don't like the other guy. That's not a reason why you should vote *for* anyone, but why you are voting the way you are to vote *against* someone else. I've never seen anyone that has stated "I like McCain because ..." No one likes him. No one wants him. They only want the person that's running against Obama.
will have a strong negative effect on the economy, on quality of life, military preparedness, and job growth.
I'm curious why we need "military preparedness." Who is going to invade the US? We have had a huge standing military for years, and haven't ever had to use it for defense, and probably never will. Yet, I see that touted as one of the problems with Democrats is that they aren't willing to increase spending to defend us from some unidentified invading force, when even if we cut spending in half, no country in the world could successfully invade. As it stands now, if we were given about 2 weeks notice (good intelligence or such), the rest of the world could try to invade and would be unsuccessful. And, if they succeeded, a couple cheap nukes aimed at their capital would at least make us feel better, which is a reason why no one would ever try.
McCain is a relatively weak candidate from the conservative perspective however he is the only choice when considering the big government collectivist policy changes that would be implemented by an Obama presidency.
What was the growth of spending of Clinton compared to Bush? Both will have had two full terms, and let me know what the total increase in spending was for both 8-year reigns. I'm guessing the big-spending Democrat spent a hell of a lot less than the "conservative" Republican. And that has always been the case. Compare Carter's term with either of Reagans. You'll find the same thing. Recent Democrats *always* spend less. Yet there are people like you that assert the opposite, and then will claim things like "Clinton had a bubble" or "Carter had a resession" or whatever. Tear away the lies and Democrats spend less. Period. A vote for McCain is a vote for more taxes and increased spending. The only real choice in candidates is whether you'd prefer your money spent on bullets or bandages, and we can tell where you stand. Screw the poor and sick, there are "terrorists" to be killed.
Learn to love Alaska
That's like being bitten by a snake. I do not turn around and reason with the snake. I cut its head off.
Yes, we should NEVER reason with people, only chop their heads off. Perhaps understanding WHY 9/11 happened would have been a good thing, it would have probably have been better to do that before ensuring that more people want to blow us up.
snakes != collections of people
I might remind you that the "intellectual classes" are the FIRST people who are off'd after a military coup. Not because of their intelligence, but because they are quick and easy prey who only realize their mistake when it's too late. Stalin called them "useful idiots." OTOH, those so-called "reptilian flight or fight" instincts have a lot to be said for and have kept our butts alive for millions of years.
Anti-intellectual movements FTW! Look what electing a moron (which is the opposite of intellectual) got us. I don't want "folk" running our country, folk are ignorant, superstitious, illiterate, yokels, with no ability to reason in advance, or ponder consequences of their actions.
No one in power should be common. My experience with the common, non-educated, man is not encouraging.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I'm an even bigger wacko... I have empathy for the poor, and don't want to see anyone suffer. I also missed the day when they were passing out the Ayn Rand kool-aid, and thus don't see pure greed as a valid ethical stance, and thus don't feel bad forcing inhumane people to act humanely.
People should always come first, period.
Granted I don't think we should elevate the poor to the level of the rich, or topple the rich to the middle class or below, achievement does have some worth, but there comes a point where too much is too much. Eventually greed begins to cost civilization as a whole, and at that point society should demand it fixed.
Often times libertarianism comes across as sociopathy. I have meet some sane libertarians, but they seem to be the exception, and not the rule.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
To be fair, he was trying to say "I will veto any bill containing earmarks", and the word beer is a mixture of the word bill and ear. I don't know why people make such a big deal when candidates misspeak, I say shit like that all the time. I think most people do. I'd doubt it has anything to do with his age.
McCain doesn't have to do anything to blow this election, and can't do anything to win it. He only got the nomination because it's an unwinnable election for the GOP, and any potential good candidates had the good sense to stay clear of it. You can see the same thing, in reverse, on the Dem side: the race between Hillary and Obama went on so long, because it was clear that the nomination was the whole enchillada for a Dem candidate this year. Winning the nomination, against Hillary, was the difficult part, the thing Obama had to worry about. Once he got past that, winning the national election is relatively easy.
Personally, I'm kind of hoping Obama will spend most of his term putting in a lot of public appearances and giving a lot of speeches. He's really good at that stuff, better than Reagan, even.
What we *need*, economically speaking, is for the federal budget to be balanced, but I'll be quite shocked if Obama manages that, somewhat surprised if he even seriously attempts it.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.