« "Pressure on public services" | Main | Collectivizing responsibility »

October 17, 2007



I agree that it's more important to stress the knowledge problem than the incentive problem, but I think both the Nobel and Booker prize stand apart from many other prediction markets in that the results don't really matter...compared to other instances where juries sit - such as the MPC, which seems to be more accurately predicted (to the extent that action is dependent upon those predictions)


Don't really matter? You think that economists are indifferent to steaming piles of cash?


In elections, the 'wisdom of crowds' appears to be the opinion polls plus a little bit of local knowledge. Without the opinion polls they'd be nowhere, whereas the opinion polls would do fine without the betting markets. This perhaps, is simply stating the obvious, but some people appear to go from the concept that betting markets can refine other sources of information, to the idea that they are the single most important source of information, which is clearly silly.


Indeed. This is why managers of large stock portfolios, currency traders and commodity trader add no value. It reall is all in the price.

However, managers of small cap funds with only two or three research houses covering the name... that's when you pays your money.


Any prediction of uncertain events can be wrong, whether it is made by a crowd or an expert. Anecdote is not data.


First, the Nobel prize in economics goes to three guys who weren't in the betting.

Wrong. They were in the betting. If you'd wanted to bet on them, you should have bet on "field" (which the markets correctly said was the most likely). It's not up to the crowds which contracts are traded - that's up to the bookies. The bookies were wrong, but the crowds were right...


they got Gore's Peace prize pretty spot on though.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad