What's so bad about the Market for Death?

[keenfordean]

I personally thought that the market for terrorist atrocities was an interesting, perhaps security-enhancing idea. Why all the negativity? Economists say that kind of thing is extremely useful.

[lcordero]

1. it is meant to screw taxpayers

that is money that is better spent on a REAL investment like education

[keenfordean]

3. Oh please

Real investments like education? Not if the world ends in a terrorist attack. Then this brilliant scheme which could have prevented it would be the biggest mistake ever made.
Educating people? Hah! Give the money to John Poindexter. Seriously.

[lcordero]

22. Give money to somebody that should have gotten the electric chair?

:eyes:
Yeah...right

[enki23]

2. why in hell would it be "security enhancing?"

for a market to exist, there have to both buyers *and* sellers. there's no more money to be made in avoiding terrorism than there would be in encouraging it.

[keenfordean]

4. So then our favorite agency....

...the DoHS could see if there was a sudden flood of people betting on a terrorist attack tomorrow. It's worth a try.

[alpizzy]

6. Would it be insider trading...

if * & co. placed some "bets" on a dictator taking a bullet and then
it magically happens? Sounds like just another greedy scheme to me.

[keenfordean]

9. Great,

Then the rest of us see what they are up to. If there's a sudden shocking rise in the bets against a dictator's life, that's valuable information. Money has to be involved in order for the market mechanism to work.

[alpizzy]

25. We wouldn't know....

it was them placing the "bets". They could just say it was the market at work.
And I thought money WAS involved.

[pw]

12. A flood of people betting on an attack tomorrow

Could just be doing it to shut down business in key cities for a few days or weeks. Either for political or financial reasons.

Imagine, for example, one company buying up terrorism futures for a port where they know a competitor is expecting a crucial shipment. Unloading slows to a crawl, the competitor misses deadlines, and they make a pile of money even if they lose on the terror bet.

[keenfordean]

16. Very ingenius

Good business, I'd say. Then the competitor hits back. It's a cost benefit analysis: how much would a market-shifting bet on future terrorism cost the wagerer relative to the cost for his competitor? All very interesting.

[EAMcClure]

14. And if a terrorist attack happens?

So, a large influx of investment places a Las Vegas style bet on a terror attack occurring tomorrow, and it happens. Civilians dies, the world is in shock... PEOPLE ARE DEAD.

Yes you may catch the culprits (in this world of money laundering, third party investments, etc., it may not even happen), but to what consequence? Would the event have occurred without the means to profit by the act?

These kinds of questions make the DARPA practice unethical and evil.

Eric

[pw]

5. Such markets only work when you can't influence the outcome

But when you have people trading with inside information and the ability to devote resources to seeing one outcome or another prevail, then the intelligence value declines, and the "moral hazard" increases.

It might be nice to have such a moarket entirely populated by intelligence analysts, but as soon as you open it up to the world at large the disinformation possibilities are obvious.

[keenfordean]

7. No No No

The more uninformed people the better. We're talking about incentives here. What exactly does Joe Schmoe, a milkman, gain in betting on an imminent terrorist attack? Exactly. He wouldn't, not unless he's convinced there would be one for whatever reason. The whole point is that where money's concerned, people just look out for their best interest, not to make a political point. Anyway, I suggest experimentation, not simply letting the market determine everything about our security policy.

[pw]

15. It's not the uninformed people who make a difference

It's the people who are well informed but not necessarily motivated by profits in that particular market. I'm sure Al Q would be willing to drop a few million dollars to spread false information about their own intentions.

[Shipwack]

34. Actually, ignorance is better in this case...

PW stated,
"It might be nice to have such a moarket(sic)entirely populated by intelligence analysts"

Actually, the theory is that this whole thing works better when it's not filled with experts.

If you ask a question with a numerical answer (ex. "How many sailors were on the Santa Maria?")to a large enough group of people and graph the results, you'll get a cluster around the right answer.

Having only experts bet would create a blind spot. After all, the owners of a poultry plant "know" working conditions are safe, but the workers know the emergency doors are locked and that the machines aren't maintained properly.

That being said, even if the theory is sound, I agree in practice it is not only immoral, but also unworkable, for reasons that others have already posted

[StandWatie]

8. they cribbed the idea from Shockwave Rider

it was part of the dystopian society of the book, I think it was meant as an ironic warning about fascist governments and not meant to be used as a playbook.

[keenfordean]

13. Are you related to the real Stand Watie?

Furthermore, Fascism hardly thrives on open markets. I'm not suggesting that we do everything based on the market, just that it's worth a moderate, experimental investment.

[EAMcClure]

10. Chances for terror attacks increase

If you can bet on something not happening or something happening... you bet on the latter, especially if you have inside information. You can rarely have information on an event not taking place (i.e., disrupting negotiations between two counties and cancelling the event)...

With terror attacks, investment will swing towards event likelihood. Those who are in this world, who live this life, purely for the sake of financial gain will see to it that they invest cleanly, safely, and correctly.

Eric

[dfitzsim]

11. I hope you're kidding

Think it through. The point of this market is to make money guessing/predicting the next terror trends. So if I'm a member of a guerilla or terrorist org., I could potentially fund my organization by manipulating the market by carrying out predicted actions. Gee, the pentagon funding terrorism -- they might have to "detain" themselves.

Politics and markets are different beasts with different goals. Markets exist with one goal: make money. The goals of political organizations and terrorists are as varied as the people who make up the groups. Good luck predicting those trends.

Silliness proposed by silly (albeit dangerous) people.

Dan

[pw]

17. How would the market pay off?

If there's a sudden upsurge of bets on an attack, say on the golden gate bridge, and the FBI arrests a three guys with a van full of fertilizer and fuel oil in San Jose, do investors win or lose?

[keenfordean]

19. Lose

the attack didn't happen, did it?

[pw]

23. If prevented attacks count as a loss

then the "investors" are going to get wise. They'll either leave the market (because it's effectively rigged against them) or they'll try and arrange the position and timing of their bets to avoid those pesky preventable attacks.

[keenfordean]

18. Yes, and then...

If the market magically predicts future terrorist attacks, then the DoHS has a pretty good idea where to look, doesn't it? If it sees a change in the market, it can target the object of betting.

[pw]

20. So then terrorist groups could make a pile of money

simply by buying a bunch of stuff that could be used to perpetrate attacks, making a bet and then phoning in an anonymous tip about where the dangerous material could be found. Beautiful.

When they'd made enough money, they could use it to drive down the value of bets on a real attack.

[StandWatie]

27. hey, it's just good business right?

hell, maybe the terrorists should make out with the money, free market and all that :eyes:

[dfitzsim]

21. ... but ...

YOU ARE ACTUALLY CREATING THE INCENTIVE FOR ATTACKING US OR OUR ALLIES.

Sorry for yelling, it just seems like such a horrible, horrible, idea.

[EAMcClure]

24. Yes, and with what chances of success?

Using the magic of the market to pinpoint a location is only half the battle. The second question is how, the exact time, and the level of planning that went in to the attack. These are factors the magic market can not determine.

Refer to my previous posts as to how DARPA actually increases the likelihood of terror attacks by giving them a direct payoff. Further, how the nature of the institution encourages insider trading with the potential consequence of DEATH.

If you were a member of a terrorist organization or a foreign intelligence agency, and you could bet on terror attacks would you:

A. Decrease your attacks.

B. Increase your attacks.

If the consequence is a greater likelihood of being caught, but there is still a chance for profit to pay for future attacks would you:

A. Decrease your attacks. Ooh, profit or no profit, I'm a not gonna get caught!

B. Plan your attacks to minimize being caught. Keep in mind we still have not caught or prosecuted anyone outside of Moussaoui in regards to 9/11.

[keenfordean]

29. Whoa baby

I think we're missing the point. The whole idea is that a market gives a strong incentive to reveal, not hide, information. If a terrorist perpetrated these brilliant schemes, there would be a record of it and it would all be in the open. The idea is to maximize revelation.

[rudeboy666]

26. Betting On Terror

Try this link for an interesting(and positive) take on this.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb073003.shtml

[EAMcClure]

28. The one simple counter-argument

If the DARPA PAM scheme did work, terrorists would not use it. If it does not work, then terrorists will use it.

The manipulation factor is not fully considered in the Reason article. Not very reasonable, if you ask me.

The assumption is that ironclad intelligence gleaned through market data would prevent attacks. This is a deductive conclusion, and it is fallacious. It is not as if the terror attack is automatically diverted just because intelligence is aware of it in advance... the security apparatus has to work first, and with any chances of the security apparatus no effectively preventing what the market foresees, it is FOOLHARDY to use this system. Case closed.

Eric

[dfitzsim]

30. Same crux problem

The "Reason" article is flawed for the same reason.

When you talk about assisination, as the article did, our government is putting together a list of 50 people it thinks might be assinated in the middle east. Perhaps 25 of those folks were not high targets in the minds of the terrorists. Suddenly, they are viable targets if for no other reason than profit can be had for killing them.

Imagine Iran puts out a futures market on U.S. senators and congressmen. Most congressmen and senators walk around without protection these days. That would have to change after a few had been picked off for easy money.

Dan

[dfong63]

31. i had the same question at first,

... but the discussion here convinced me it is a bad idea.

[bemildred]

32. It is a stupefyingly dumb idea.

Why not set up a market to predict lotto numbers?
We could all get rich!!!!!
I will take your investment money now and get started on
it right away!!!!!

The notion that markets have predictive capability is
a religious fiction, an article of faith, not a fact.
You are probably better off throwing the I Ching.

[skypilot]

33. Does anyone else think...

...that this idea could also create a diplomatic nightmare? Imagine the rulers of countries we are dealing with (Sharon, Mushuraf for example) discovering that bets are being made on their lives under this system thought up by the Americans. We've already alienated enough countries in the world, haven't we?