<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MIKESILV:
I am not sure if I really want to be debating this topic, if the supporters of this scheme cannot see the questionable moral implications then its not for me to attempt to try and convince you.</font>
Not really a convincing argument. And, like I said before, doesn't it seem like this market is better than having people die? Would you rather have this market or increase your chance of dying?
They were trying to pool together information, analysis and predictions from a wide variety of sources. People who did the best analysis and made the best predictions would be rewarded financially. So?
Would you rather we had prevented 9/11 and some guy who foretold it made $100 million, or that 9/11 happened as it did, because we had poor intelligence?
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">If the idea is such a great one, why dont we start running futures for the over and under of whether 100 US servicemen will die in Iraq before Dec 31st. Surely that will help us in our planning to secure the country and since markets are always efficient we will be able to get a handle on the insurgents.</font>
If doing so could help to save lives, why not? Or is the idea of a marketplace more bad than people dying?
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Look bet if you want to on nature or the likelihood of accidents, but on an act of terror? I can see it now on the WSJ front pages, Terroron makes $8B on hedging futures.</font>
Why is betting on accidents any better than trying to predict terrorism? Both involve bad things happening.
d
[This message has been edited by Doppy (edited 07-30-2003).]