Is a Futures Market on Terror Outlandish? Maybe not.

FORTUNE ^ | 07/30/03 | Jeremy Kahn

[KantianBurke]

Fortune's just hoping that they can mooch their way into The Economist's spot.

[rellimpank]

--it sounded like a good idea to me. And of course the reason any Demotraitor opposed it was they want the disasters to happen so it can be blamed on Bush--

[My2Cents]

From what I heard of the "futures market" idea, it sounded less like a "market" and more like an innovative intelligence gathering tool -- an attempt to statistically predict the next big terrorist hit. The Democrats, of course, were all "shocked," and I think tom daschle was even "saddened." But considering that we can use every tool we can to fight terrorism, it sounded like an idea that didn't get it's day in court.

[My2Cents]

I suspect Hillary would have made a "killing" on that futures market.

[Gunslingr3]

Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said the plan would have created "a futures market in death."

I guess she's never heard of Life Insurance. Given her own acumen in the cattle futures market I would have assumed she'd be supportive of the effort...

[dwilli]

What an intelligence bonanza this market could be. Sounds like an idea straight from NSA or CIA.

[cryptical]

There are already real-money implementations of this, look at http://www.tradesports.com/ under 'Current Events'.

It's also worthwhile to google for 'Assassination Politics'.

Remember, a leading indicator of 9/11 was short interest in UAL and American Airlines.

[DittoJed2]

Well, it wouldn't work now. The plan was already exposed.

[RightWhale]

The weird part is that Sen Boxer wants those think-tankers fired. This for an idea that is a few levels above any idea she ever had.

[Mr. Bird]

When the idea was floated yesterday and posted, most here thought it was either A, ridiculous, or B, not able to succeed due to inherent flaws. My thinking is that it is much too nuanced an idea for the press or general public to accept. There is something unseemly about it (to many people), that makes its viability improbable.

The concept, however, is sound. If the press would do less clucking about how unorthodox it is and more research into its possible effectiveness, the public could be swayed. I'm sure that won't happen, of course. It would be too much fun for the lazy media to attack a "risky gambling scheme with American lives".

[My2Cents]

I have a better idea...Let's fire Barbara Boxer.

[Millie]

If the Democrats are against it, then that's a sure sign I'm for it.

[snarkpup]

There have been similar proposals to use "science betting" to provide a market-based mechanism for allocating funding to scientific research. I heard someone give a talk on this several years ago. I don't know if this is the same guy, but here is an example: www.totse.com/en/technology/science_technology/hanson.html.

A current problem in the scientific community is that (pseudo)scientists and their supporters can make reckless statements without incurring any cost upon themselves if they are wrong. Science betting addresses this problem. People won't be inclined to shoot their mouths off on issues like global warming or cold fusion if they have to put their money where their mouths are.

One difference, though, between science betting and terror betting is that one of the purposes of science betting is to motivate funding to prove a scientific point and "make it happen". This is not necessarily desirable in the case of terror betting.

[RightWhale]

Don't know that proponents of crackpot science would have to have a position in the science futures market, but the idea of a science futures market has some merit. However, we can already invest in plenty of science-related businesses and many of them are still doing research and have no revenue stream. Some day, maybe in a few years, they could be raking in the profits, and then we win.

[LibWhacker]

When are conservatives going to stop backing down every time the dumbest SOBs in Congress fail to comprehend something? It's pathetic.

[housethatruthbuilt]

The market for this already exists, in the valuation of stocks and bonds and futures and options on them. Problem is, the prices for those products are influenced by multiple factors, so the threat of terrorism is not stripped out. This idea, would strip it out and allow for much greater information related to terrorism, and possibly, economic protection against it. I think it is a great idea. Morbid, yes, but read an actuarial science text someday or about viaticals.

One of the reasons the markets have been so illiquid since sep 11 is the fear of terrorism and its effect on portfolios and insurance policies and premiums

[ChadGore]

What says such an exchange couldn't be done in the private sector ?

[snopercod]

Sounds like an idea straight from NSA or CIA

Actually, it was from George Mason University.

[swarthyguy]

It's a great thinking outside the box idea ridiculed by those who criticise the govt for its inability to sift thru vast amounts of data, and then, when an innovative solution is advocated, proceed to destroy it and thereby discourage other creative solutions.

With the large amounts of terrorist oriented think tanks, foreign intel and the govt's own info, this would have been a brilliant experiment to tackle information overload.

Instead the ninnies have deepsixed it.

TIme for an entrepreneur to run this exchange as a private venture.