Some bad news today, as the @CFTC (@CFTCquintenz) has shut down polymarket. While I think it is perfectly reasonable that prediction markets should register with the government, I think this case was in fact against the public interest. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
The first is the randomness. Dodgy offshore bookies, such as MyBookie and GT Bets, and other sites like Augur have long existed and taken equivalent bets to what Polymarket has offered. The CFTC has done nothing to any of these sites. Why did they act for this new site?
The CFTC of course has finite resources. Why not go after the most egregious sites, like MyBookie, affectionately called "MyCrookie" in the gambling community, or 1,000s of similar ones, that don't have markets in the public interest, but instead go after the only one that does?
The reason is likely that Kalshi paid a lot of money to corporate lawyers with a good relationship with CFTC commissioners to get approval after nearly 3 years!, and these same corporate lawyers likely used their influence to then enforce their monopoly vs. polymarket.
So, even though the predictions involved in polymarket are much more in the public interest than the MyCrookies of the world, it looks like b/c polymarket was perceived to compete more directly with Kalshi, the CFTC went after them to preserve Kalshi's monopoly.
The @CFTC in fact has no system in place to register a prediction market in a reasonable, timely manner. I know of a startup that has waited over six months for a FOIA request for prior applications, a first step to an application. @CFTCquintenz
Of course, one can pay millions of dollars to hire @CFTC-connected lawyers, and go through a years long process, but I think it's not quite clear if this is in the public interest, or just a shakedown by a different name.
Also, polymarket did provide policy relevant information about the future. Two weeks ago one could have looked to know that a massive omicron wave would hit even before Christmas in the US. Closing Polymarket is not in the public interest.
Behind this all is the question of why gambling needs to be so tightly regulated in the first place. In most places, the way gambling regulation works is that firms pay a very large fee for a gaming license.
The fee is then nice revenue for the government, but it also has another effect. It greatly reduces competition and creates oligopoly profits. One can imagine gambling companies themselves lobby for the large fees. Thus quite unlikely to really serve any public interest.
Here's an example of an event contract offered by MyBookie, one they have been offering to Americans for decades with no pushback at all from the @CFTC.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Hate to be the downer here who notes that these guy's most famous academic work on institutions didn't hold up to any real scrutiny. Also, Acemoglu's large textbook on models of economic growth didn't include a single non-obvious insight about economic growth itself.
Although the note from the Nobel on this prize doesn't cite any papers by name, the language they use clearly alludes to this paper: Two things the authors make clear in that paper is that they don't understand the malthusian model, or Diamond/Crosby.economics.mit.edu/sites/default/…
One could use this as an example of hard-won insights being lost. To the extent the authors show the negative impact of bad institutions, they display the detrimental effects of corrupt, incestuous academic institutions on scholarship with this prize.
How credible was the "credibility revolution"? How robust is empirical research in economics? We just replicated a year's worth of the American Economic Review & had economists predict robustness. Here's what we learned. econstor.eu/handle/10419/2…
Neil deGrasse Tyson on the essence of science: "You have a hypothesis, you test it. I get a result. A rival of mine double checks it, because they think I might be wrong…" However, in academic economics, there is not much double checking. So we do it.
It wasn't at all obvious, a priori, that any results would be robust. Some critics of academia, and economics, certainly hold a prior that "everything is garbage". This isn't true. Several results were quite robust.
The problem with academia is actually not plagiarism. In economics, a secret that academics closely guard is that most research is invalid or useless for various reasons.
Most economists know this, but they are careerists, and so pretend otherwise. (There are also many who actually believe the majority of research, and few realize the extent to which academic research can be fraudulent.)
All this said, I tend to believe a solid 10-20% of academic papers at top journals in economics are very good, and also hugely beneficial to society.
Interesting thread. My thesis is that three relatively obvious factors likely over-predict the decline in male labor force participation in the US during this period. Who among my followers can name the three things?
There were some very good takes. I think the first big one is the rise in women's labor force participation. Even using state and local data, one get's a clear negative, if modest elasticity of male employment w.r.t. female employment. This was mostly a factor up until 2000.
Since 2000, the main problem has been slow growth overall. Manufacturing was hurt badly in the early 2000s, and that is likely a male-dominated industry. That may have been masked by a construction boom until the Great Recession. (I'd like to see a full analysis here though.)
I finally read Ulysses S. Grant's autobiography for the first time. I highly recommend. For me it was a particularly engrossing reading given my own close following of the Russia-Ukraine war. Here are some takeaways. (1/15) gutenberg.org/files/4367/436…
I was really impressed not only with the brilliance behind some complicated maneuvering in, i.e., the Vicksburg campaign, but with the compassion with which he treated the confederate soldiers who surrendered at Vicksburg. He let them go even with their side-arms. (2/15)
On learning-by-doing: At some point Grant makes the point something along the lines that he learned more in one day in battle, in Mexico, than he did from four years at West Point. As a college professor, I constantly fear this is still true in a lot of specialties. (3/15)
Super interesting WSJ article about how Putin is fed biased information. wsj.com/articles/putin…
Even if none of the details of this article are correct, it's clear this is what is happening. Given the Kremlin's rhetoric and the stakes, Russia is barely spending money on the war really. Nickle and diming soldiers. Not supplying them adequately. Attacking when should defend.
Of course, this lack of information is a strategic advantage for Ukraine. But, at some point, it can also be an obstacle for peace. And might be better at some point for various Western leaders to reach out to Putin to pierce his information bubble.