6 ms·
The author was instrumental in a colleague ruining their life through a gambling addiction. Then they helped make the case for prediction markets, which also we
by Planktonne 3mo ago
The author was instrumental in a colleague ruining their life through a gambling addiction. Then they helped make the case for prediction markets, which also went wrong.
Their track record is not great, and I don't think they fully realise that the issue is them: the principles and axioms they rely on don't lead to good results.
> I don’t claim to know the exact right policy answer for America.
Perhaps start by reversing your positions, and throwing support behind those trying to undo the damage you caused.
- Retr0id 3mo agoFinally a solution to being wrong - just invert all your opinions!
- Planktonne 3mo agoIf you're consistently wrong, then it's time to stop being a thought leader, and really examine the lens through which you view the world. The author still thinks they were "freeing prediction markets from unnecessary restrictions", but clearly some restrictions are necessary, and totally free markets aren't actually an economic panacea. This is not really new information, so the flaw is in the thinker, not the data. If your ideas are consistently proved harmful, acting against your instincts is a better play than continuing to trust them.
- fwipsy 3mo agoYou're mischaracterizing. He said that he helped build a case for it -- not that he still supports it. As far as I can tell, prediction markets went from totally illegal to basically unregulated. Presumably the author was arguing for a middle ground.
- Planktonne 3mo agoThe author wrote their article--they had the chance to clarify their position. The facts remain: on multiple occasions, they have been instrumental in negative outcomes because of their support for things that we already knew were a bad idea. They should stop giving advice.
- fwipsy 3mo agoFair point.
- saghm 3mo ago> He said that he helped build a case for it -- not that he still supports it. I would expect that if they didn't think they were unnecessary anymore, they would have said something like "I helped build the case for freeing prediction markets from restrictions that I thought were unnecessary". Their description of the predictions being unnecessary is still stated as a present tense fact (and the entire clause is in bold-face, making it clear that it's something they want to draw attention to).
- fwipsy 3mo agoDid you watch the podcast? I didn't, but I think it's unfair to judge the author's true position on prediction markets based only on the hook. The current admin has bungled better ideas than prediction markets.
- indoorfish 3mo agoGambling isn't some brilliant new idea, even if you rename it. I understand the technical distinction trying to be made, but seriously, it's gambling. No one "bungled" anything. They just aren't being prosecuted..yet.
- fwipsy 3mo agoSometimes gambling has some social value then. Isn't trading on the stock market gambling? Do you also support abolishing the stock market? What about issuing loans to someone with poor credit?
- crooked-v 3mo agoDay trading is gambling. Buy-and-hold is investing. Algorithmic micro-trading is investing, despite looking like gambling. It's about whether there's an immediate dopamine release or not.
- fwipsy 3mo agoProperly regulated, couldn't the same distinction be applied to prediction markets?
- Planktonne 3mo agoExcept the author argued against regulation for prediction markets.
- fwipsy 3mo ago
- 00dazzle 3mo agoI don’t think we should hold a transaction worth $5 someone did as a teenager over their head as a dark mark on their character for the rest of their life
- Planktonne 3mo agoI would agree, except the author has continued behaviour in that pattern over a larger scale for years after that.
- hahahaa 3mo agoJesus. Literally. Can any HNer really throw a stone at this?