"z" <z@yada.yada.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93C7D61E33BC5zyadayadayada@206.127.4.22...

well i'm gonna have to write Wyden on this one & give him some crap.

why I like this idea: you let those with informed opinions from a
diverse set put actual money on the outcome of a future event. The
money they put down should reflect the strength of opinion they have
about that event, based on experience, insider knowledge whatever..
this futures market will produce an aggregate of opinion about a
specific event -- a probability that could be checked against the
*real* outcome to find out what predictive value it might have. If
it has none, we've spent what.. the cost of 10 or 20 cruse missiles?
big woop.. if it has predictive value

it's

worth is well more than the cost.

That's easy to say standing far away on the outside. What about the
victims of those 10-20 cruise missiles (victims who are innocent if,
as you describe in your scenario, the "bet" is incorrect)?

Is it okay
for them to die because of the opinions of some speculators? They
would never commit a speculative military strike on US soil, so maybe
you don't need to worry personally, but I bet this scheme is a real
worry to anyone living in a Muslim-populated country outside the
developed world.

This system would be hugely abused. Lets say your intelligence
agencies find absolutely no evidence to substantiate a threat from a
given country, but really wants to bomb it / invade it / change the
regime. Now lets say a large number of people happen to "bet" on a
terrorist act being committed in this particular country, or by
nationals of that country. Will these bets be used to imply a
"reasonable concern" to substantiate action, regardless of the lack of
any intelligence? Will these bets be equated to intelligence? All this
does is gives additional leeway to politicians to explain foreign
policy actions.

I know it sounds fucked up on the face of it, but dangit .. this is
what I want to see. Creative thinking in addressing these problems.
This

idea --

to me -- borders on brilliant. Even if it doesn't work we lose next
to nothing.

"We" lose next to nothing, but innocent people lose their lives. That
doesn't concern you?

Amid furor, Pentagon kills terrorism futures market
Boxer calls program 'very sick'

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/terror.market/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Facing an outcry on Capitol Hill, the Pentagon on
Tuesday killed a program that would have had investors betting on the
likelihood of terrorist attacks and assassinations.

"It's going to be terminated," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz
told members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he
testified about the reconstruction effort in Iraq.

But criticism about the controversial Pentagon program -- brought to
light Monday by Democratic senators -- dominated part of that hearing
and others on Capitol Hill.

Wolfowitz, answering a question about the program from Sen. Barbara
Boxer, D-California, defended the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), which created the program and set up a Web site
describing it.

"The agency that does it is brilliantly imaginative in places where we
want them to be imaginative," he said. "It sounds like maybe they got
too imaginative in this area."

"There is something very sick about it," a clearly angry Boxer said,
adding that those responsible should be fired.

Wolfowitz said he'd only learned about the program Tuesday morning and
added that the department will "find out exactly how this happened."

The program, called the Futures Markets Applied to Prediction
(FutureMAP), would have involved investors betting small amounts of
money that a particular event -- a terrorist attack or assassination --
would happen.

It has been part of the Total Information Awareness program under
retired Adm. John Poindexter, a prominent figure in the Iran-Contra
scandal during the Reagan administration.

His current boss, DARPA director Anthony Tether, was asked whether
Poindexter would keep his job. "I don't see why not," he said as he left
meetings on Capitol Hill.

Republicans moved quickly to distance themselves from the program, which
was supposed to start Friday.

"We're going to recommend to the secretary of defense not to use such
funds as he has available ... to implement the initial stages of this
program," said Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, chairman of the Senate
Armed Service Committee.

"I just got off the phone with the head of DARPA, and we mutually agreed
that this thing should be stopped," Warner said at a hearing on military
promotions.

Tether agreed. When reporters asked him later whether the program was
dead, he replied, "Oh yes, absolutely."

Before the Pentagon pulled the plug on the program, it generated fierce
criticism, particularly from Democrats.

"I couldn't believe that we would actually commit $8 million to create a
Web site that would encourage investors to bet on futures involving
terrorist attacks and public assassinations," Senate Minority Leader Tom
Daschle, D-South Dakota, said on the Senate floor. " ... I can't believe
that anybody would seriously propose that we trade in death ... How long
would it be before you saw traders investing in a way that would bring
about the desired result?"

Monday, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, said, "The idea of a federal betting
parlor on atrocities and terrorism is ridiculous and it's grotesque."

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, called the idea "stupid."

Wyden and Dorgan brought the proposal to public attention Monday.

The ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin of
Michigan, said that as reports surfaced about the plan, "Our first
reaction was that it was a hoax."

But Warner, in an exchange with Levin during the hearing, said, "There's
been no effort whatsoever to make it secret. The program is modeled
after a successful program, utilized by one of the nation's foremost
think tanks, which while not directed toward terrorism, is directed
toward analysis of other contingencies in the future, and in the
community's been perceived as a fairly successful program."

In a written statement, DARPA had said FutureMAP "is exploring new ways
to help analysts predict and thereby prevent the use of futures market
mechanisms."

DARPA had acknowledged the program faced "a number of major technical
challenges and uncertainties. Chief among these are: Can the market
survive and will people continue to participate when U.S. authorities
use it to prevent terrorist attacks? Can futures markets be manipulated
by adversaries?"

-- CNN Producers Paul Courson and Steve Turnham contributed to this
report.



--
Michael Nash - aa # 1651

*******************

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
--Teddy Roosevelt (Kansas City Star, 7 May 1918)

"The Three Branches of Government: Money, Television, and *****"
--P. J. O'Rourke

well i'm gonna have to write Wyden on this one & give him some crap.

why I like this idea: you let those with informed opinions from a diverse
set put actual money on the outcome of a future event. The money they put
down should reflect the strength of opinion they have about that event,
based on experience, insider knowledge whatever.. this futures market will
produce an aggregate of opinion about a specific event -- a probability
that could be checked against the *real* outcome to find out what
predictive value it might have. If it has none, we've spent what.. the
cost of 10 or 20 cruse missiles? big woop.. if it has predictive value

worth is well more than the cost.

I know it sounds fucked up on the face of it, but dangit .. this is what I
want to see. Creative thinking in addressing these problems. This

to me -- borders on brilliant. Even if it doesn't work we lose next to
nothing.

ok i'll shut up about it. The powers that be don't like it so it will

fools

-z

This system would be hugely abused. Lets say your intelligence agencies find
absolutely no evidence to substantiate a threat from a given country, but
really wants to bomb it / invade it / change the regime.