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.
He can walk on water and make the dead rise.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
I visit http://www.electoral-vote.com/ every day.
So, rather than appear foolish afterward, I renounce seeming clever now.
McCain 70-80% likely to pick up Florida? Obama 70-80% likely to grab Pennsylvania? Everyone is expecting those two to be big battleground states. Those probabilities seem pretty lofty to me.
Should this map be on the Diebold site?
"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?
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.
The book explains that people are not rational or logical especially when it comes to risk assessment. The best recent example (the book was written in 1989) is America's reaction to the 9/11 attacks. More people died of hunger that day than were killed in the attack. The US response to the attacks was totally illogical because people felt threatened and this caused them to stop using the higher levels of their brains. They instead, reverted to their reptilian "flight or fight" instincts.
Another similar (or worse) attack will most likely produce a similar response from the American people. They will stop thinking rationally, which is probably the only way the Republicans can beat Obama on November 4th.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
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.