[Planktonne]

The author was instrumental in a colleague ruining their life through a gambling addiction. Then they helped make the case for prediction markets, which also went wrong.

Their track record is not great, and I don't think they fully realise that the issue is them: the principles and axioms they rely on don't lead to good results.

> I don’t claim to know the exact right policy answer for America.

Perhaps start by reversing your positions, and throwing support behind those trying to undo the damage you caused.

[00dazzle]

I don’t think we should hold a transaction worth $5 someone did as a teenager over their head as a dark mark on their character for the rest of their life

[Planktonne]

I would agree, except the author has continued behaviour in that pattern over a larger scale for years after that.

[hahahaa]

Jesus. Literally. Can any HNer really throw a stone at this?

[Retr0id]

Finally a solution to being wrong - just invert all your opinions!

[Planktonne]

If you're consistently wrong, then it's time to stop being a thought leader, and really examine the lens through which you view the world.

The author still thinks they were "freeing prediction markets from unnecessary restrictions", but clearly some restrictions are necessary, and totally free markets aren't actually an economic panacea. This is not really new information, so the flaw is in the thinker, not the data.

If your ideas are consistently proved harmful, acting against your instincts is a better play than continuing to trust them.

[fwipsy]

You're mischaracterizing. He said that he helped build a case for it -- not that he still supports it.

As far as I can tell, prediction markets went from totally illegal to basically unregulated. Presumably the author was arguing for a middle ground.

[Planktonne]

The author wrote their article--they had the chance to clarify their position. The facts remain: on multiple occasions, they have been instrumental in negative outcomes because of their support for things that we already knew were a bad idea. They should stop giving advice.

[fwipsy]

Fair point.

[saghm]

> He said that he helped build a case for it -- not that he still supports it.

I would expect that if they didn't think they were unnecessary anymore, they would have said something like "I helped build the case for freeing prediction markets from restrictions that I thought were unnecessary". Their description of the predictions being unnecessary is still stated as a present tense fact (and the entire clause is in bold-face, making it clear that it's something they want to draw attention to).

[fwipsy]

Did you watch the podcast? I didn't, but I think it's unfair to judge the author's true position on prediction markets based only on the hook.

The current admin has bungled better ideas than prediction markets.

[indoorfish]

Gambling isn't some brilliant new idea, even if you rename it. I understand the technical distinction trying to be made, but seriously, it's gambling.

No one "bungled" anything. They just aren't being prosecuted..yet.

[fwipsy]

Sometimes gambling has some social value then. Isn't trading on the stock market gambling? Do you also support abolishing the stock market? What about issuing loans to someone with poor credit?

[runarberg]

> Do you also support abolishing the stock market?

An anti-capitalist here: Yes... Oh heavens, yes. There are few things I desire more then to see all the stock markets in the world burn and never to be rebuilt. For me, people who make money at the stock market are participating in a systematic exploitation of the working classes. The siphoning of profits away from the workers who created them and earned them, and into the hands of the rich who contribute nothing, yet get everything.

[satvikpendem]

What is the alternative? I'm sure there will still be trade of labor even in a socialist economy. This is assuming the labor theory of value is right, which it isn't, but I'll be charitable.

[runarberg]

There is no need for an alternative. Trading stocks is not a necessary precondition for trading goods and services. Most of mine, and probably your businesses are done without anybody holding stocks in the stuff you are buying or selling. You can abolish the stock market, and pretty much everything stays the same... except the rich lose one (of many) avenues of systemic exploitation.

[crooked-v]

Day trading is gambling. Buy-and-hold is investing. Algorithmic micro-trading is investing, despite looking like gambling. It's about whether there's an immediate dopamine release or not.

[fwipsy]

Properly regulated, couldn't the same distinction be applied to prediction markets?

[ares623]

Yes. Banning is also considered proper regulation

[Planktonne]

Except the author argued against regulation for prediction markets.

[runarberg]

That is not so simple. The lottery is gambling, but the lottery doesn’t trigger the dopamine receptors like slot machine or scratch tickets (also gambling) do. This is because the response is too far behind the behavior in time (hours or days) for it to trigger the same addictive behavior as slot machines and scratch tickets where the behavior-response cycle is in seconds.

Now I don‘t consider day trading to be gambling (even though it is packaged and marketed to appeal to and sell to gambling addicts). For it to be gambling, it would need to be a game.

It is something far more sinister and far worse then gambling. I consider it exploitation, or more accurately capitalist exploitation. This also applies other aspects of the stock market, even the ones which are not marketed to exploit gambling addicts, including investment backed retirement funds [401(k) in the USA], index funds, and publicly traded companies. To me, all these things are equally bad (well actually the retirement funds may be the most sinister of the bunch) even though day trading might have the ugliest manifestation. These are all exploitation of the working class.

[atmavatar]

> Algorithmic micro-trading is investing, despite looking like gambling.

It's skimming.