Under fire from all sides, the Pentagon on Tuesday dropped plans for a futures market that would have allowed traders to profit from accurate predictions on terrorism, assassinations and other events in the Middle East.
From the trading patterns, the Pentagon agency, known as DARPA, hoped to gain clues about possible terrorist attacks. In statements Monday and Tuesday, it said markets are often better than experts in making predictions.
I can't find the New York Times link that Cathy sent, but the NYT did a better job explaining it. WaPo leads with the shock and only later explains the idea behind it.
At a hearing where senators criticized the program, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said, "I share your shock at this kind of program." But he also defended the Pentagon office that came up with the project, saying "it is brilliantly imaginative in places where we want them to be imaginative."
As he praised DARPA at a Senate Foreign Relations hearing, Wolfowitz said with a smile, "It sounds like maybe they got too imaginative."
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told Wolfowitz, "I don't think we can laugh off that program."
"There is something very sick about it," she said. "And if it's going to end, I think you ought to end the careers of whoever it was thought that up. Because terrorists knowing they were planning an attack could have bet on the attack and collected a lot of money. It's a sick idea."
It's certainly dehumanizing, but would it have been successful?
Bookmakers set odds according to how much money goes down on each side of a question. People bet according to past performance. They assume that Mike Tyson will beat Buster Douglas. The odds are a price to bet that fluxuates so as to entice gamblers to buy as many tickets for each outcome. The bookie makes a percentage and doesn't care who wins so as long as the same amount of money is bet on each side of the question.
The odds are neither right nor wrong, they are just a reflection of people's attitudes according to the information they have. If they bet college football they can look at record, rivalries, rankings and key injuries. Those are pretty good indicators to outcome.
The average bettor doesn't know how much security surrounds the Brooklyn Bridge versus how closely law enforcement is watching the Grand Canyon. Without that information, it would be hard to determine real probability. The game would have worked a lot better if the gamblers all had the highest security clearance.
I admire the fact that these guys are willing to try things. I'm surprised that this one got so far. Calling for people’s heads seems a bit much. It seems like the oversight committee found it and ended it. Do we really want to fire idea guys for brainstorming?Thanks to Cathy for clueing me in to the Pentagon idea of a future's market for terrorism. On a cold policy basis to a statistician I can see the appeal, but why didn't someone see the political ramifications. Anyway, they are closing shop before they can open.
Under fire from all sides, the Pentagon on Tuesday dropped plans for a futures market that would have allowed traders to profit from accurate predictions on terrorism, assassinations and other events in the Middle East.
From the trading patterns, the Pentagon agency, known as DARPA, hoped to gain clues about possible terrorist attacks. In statements Monday and Tuesday, it said markets are often better than experts in making predictions.
I can't find the New York Times link that Cathy sent, but the NYT did a better job explaining it. WaPo leads with the shock and only later explains the idea behind it.
At a hearing where senators criticized the program, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said, "I share your shock at this kind of program." But he also defended the Pentagon office that came up with the project, saying "it is brilliantly imaginative in places where we want them to be imaginative."
As he praised DARPA at a Senate Foreign Relations hearing, Wolfowitz said with a smile, "It sounds like maybe they got too imaginative."
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told Wolfowitz, "I don't think we can laugh off that program."
"There is something very sick about it," she said. "And if it's going to end, I think you ought to end the careers of whoever it was thought that up. Because terrorists knowing they were planning an attack could have bet on the attack and collected a lot of money. It's a sick idea."
It's certainly dehumanizing, but would it have been successful?
Bookmakers set odds according to how much money goes down on each side of a question. People bet according to past performance. They assume that Mike Tyson will beat Buster Douglas. The odds are a price to bet that fluxuates so as to entice gamblers to buy as many tickets for each outcome. The bookie makes a percentage and doesn't care who wins so as long as the same amount of money is bet on each side of the question.
The odds are neither right nor wrong, they are just a reflection of people's attitudes according to the information they have. If they bet college football they can look at record, rivalries, rankings and key injuries. Those are pretty good indicators to outcome.
The average bettor doesn't know how much security surrounds the Brooklyn Bridge versus how closely law enforcement is watching the Grand Canyon. Without that information, it would be hard to determine real probability. The game would have worked a lot better if the gamblers all had the highest security clearance.
On a serious note, the government is just too big. I'm sure that inefficiency and unchecked ideas are happening all over the place and most do not get reported. Until we get the government to a manageable level, we should expect more and more nonsense like this. Boxer can call for their heads, but why not call for real government reform.
Regulations and enforcements and policy are really driven by un-elected officials. Politicians come and go, but government employees stay and hold the real power. Federalizing the Air Marshalls program didn't seem to yield better employees.
The fewer government employees we have, the more our elected leaders are bound to our wishes. Why do people think a gigantic welfare state is consistent with republican democracy?
No comments:
Post a Comment