Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Does Government Suppress Information?
Townhall.com ^ | February 23, 2011 | John Stossel

Posted on 02/23/2011 4:24:39 AM PST by Kaslin

Sunday night is Oscar night! Think you know who's going to win? Want to make a bet?

The Hollywood Stock Exchange allows people to bet on which movies, actors, directors, etc. will take home Academy Awards. You can also bet on how much money a movie might make. It's called a prediction market ... except unlike other prediction markets, bettors can't use real money.

What fun is that? It's not only less fun, it's also makes the prediction market less accurate. People are more careful when they have real money on the line, and the chance of losing money weeds out the frivolous guessers. Prediction markets are valuable for predicting all kinds of things because the prospect of making money attracts people with knowledge, judgment and a good sense of the future. More information is better than less. The people most confident in their information bet the most. That's why speculation is a sound market institution.

The promoters of the Hollywood Stock Exchange would have preferred the use of real money but -- surprise! -- government forbids it. The Frank-Dodd financial regulation law killed the real market at the behest of some in the movie industry.

Rich Jacobs, president of the Hollywood Stock Exchange, says that some studios wanted it killed because they didn't want public discussion of their plans.

"I think they were just concerned about bringing financial market transparency to an industry that hasn't had any transparency about finances," he said.

Why would people want a prediction market for movies?

"Thousands of users out there follow movies very closely," Jacobs said. "They have an opinion on how well those films will do, and they'd like to put some of their money (to) work."

And through the betting, knowledge would be revealed. Films more likely to succeed would probably get funded.

Not every studio opposed the prediction market. Lionsgate defended it. Good for them.

"It would give an opportunity for those trying to produce (small) films and get distribution ... by showing that the market thinks those films can make $10 or $20 million," Jacobs said.

The betting would start at the very beginning of the process.

"First, it's a script, an idea. Then, an actor or director signs on, and the value goes up. And by the time the trailer comes out, there's a very good sense of the valuation of the property."

But politicians called that "speculation" and "gambling." Can't have that!

"The Commodity Futures Trading Commission did a three-year review and concluded that there was legitimate economic purpose behind this market," Jacobs added.

But last year, then-Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank said no.

Now I hear Dodd might be appointed head of the movie studios' lobby. Cozy. Maybe sleazy. But that's how politics and regulation work.

Meanwhile, the Hollywood Stock Exchange continues to operate. But with bettors using fake money, it's less accurate.

"It's certainly not as accurate as it would be with the real money market," Jacobs said. "(But the) track record of the Hollywood Stock Exchange in forecasting how well a film will do at the box office has been extraordinary."

That's because prediction markets predict better than pundits and polls. An even better one is Intrade.com -- it uses real money. One study found it has just half the margin of error of national polls. Intrade is based in Ireland because cloddish busybodies like Dodd and Sen. Jon Kyl won't allow such gambling sites to operate in the United States. Nevertheless, Americans bet on Intrade anyway, so that prediction market is still a way for Americans to demonstrate their predictive talents.

So let's have fun with the information that the bettors bring us. What does Intrade predict for the Oscars? As of Tuesday, "The King's Speech" had an 81 percent chance to win best picture. Its star, Colin Firth, was a 95.5 percent favorite to win best actor. Natalie Portman had a 90 percent chance of winning best actress for "Black Swan." The best director race was closer. David Fincher was the favorite at 60 percent for "The Social Network"

I dare you to bet against the prediction market.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 02/23/2011 4:24:42 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This is how I see it!

http://www.presentationexpert.com/stw/?p=qhwc3487231f2tzkksgo


2 posted on 02/23/2011 5:13:19 AM PST by Halo-JM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

No one is keeping you from flying to Vegas and finding someone to bet with, so have at we don’t care.


3 posted on 02/23/2011 6:05:45 AM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

As more liberal deception becomes obvious, fewer people care. The market takes care of all that if we will just let it work. If the public decides the Oscars are a scam then fewer people will watch it and even fewer will care. It will then go away unless the government decides to interfere and subsidize it!

Just as a constitutional republic is the best way to govern, so is the market the best way to decide winners and losers. Leave it alone!


4 posted on 02/23/2011 2:56:13 PM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson