Gambling forums like InTrade are incredibly useful for predicting the outcomes of events, because they allow you to get an informed answer without having to do the footwork. Moreover, the people who are giving you an answer have a financial interest in being right (unlike those who conduct polls or write op-eds).
If I asked you to evaluate the total worth of Bank of America, what would you do? Would you go to BoA headquarters and ask to see their books? Would you interview employees about rumors and make calls to competitors? No. You wouldn’t. Why? Because someone else has already done all that, and you can steal his answer. Why can you trust his answer? Because he works for Goldman Sachs, and there’s billions on the line if he’s wrong.
The same logic applies to InTrade.
Now, to the part about you being right, you are right because while InTrade should work in theory, in doesn’t work in application. Specifically, the volume of shares is far too low and the payoff is too insignificant for you to be sure that all factors are being considered. It is because of these factors that InTrade differs from our stock market, where the payoffs are huge and the number of participants is enormous. InTrade has only a handful of speculators, many of whom are betting on a whim. Looking to the unconstitutionality of Obamacare, you can see that only 794 shares have been traded over the life of the pool. That’s not nearly enough for all opinions to be inserted and all information to be accounted for.
John, I used to take encouragement from InTrade on this exact issue. Unfortunately, with so little participation, to do so is, I think, unwise.
“Odds that SCOTUS will strike down the individual mandate are 80% on Intrade.”
A few months ago I read the results of a survey of Supreme Court insiders — including former clerks and attorneys who had argued case before the high court. It put the probability of the mandate being struck down at slightly less than 50%. In my opinion, the opinion on the mandate could go either way.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone that believes the Court will sever the law. Neither the Obama administration nor the Republican petitioners argued in favor of severability. I like to think that it has more to do with understanding that the law cannot possibly function without the mandate, rather than a political cost-benefit analysis.
Moreover, if the Court cites the Anti-Injunction Act and delays a ruling, I truly believe there would be riots. This is perhaps the second-most anticipated Court ruling of my lifetime, following Bush v. Gore, and public perception that the Court was delaying a ruling for no good reason would be prevalent.
Ambrose, I don’t necessarily disagree with you. Honestly, I feel like I want to go with the Anti-Injunction Act prediction just because everyone else is betting against it.
My greatest concern is how a ruling that upholds the law would theoretically allow government to force people to buy whatever it deems necessary in the future.
Intrade can be hilarious. It’s great to have an informal poll of predictions.
I’d never use it though, especially on an issue like this. Too stressfull, with way too much unpredictability.
That’s wishful thinking!
I hope they’re right about SCOTUS.
@Alex, you’re right, but for the wrong reasons.
Gambling forums like InTrade are incredibly useful for predicting the outcomes of events, because they allow you to get an informed answer without having to do the footwork. Moreover, the people who are giving you an answer have a financial interest in being right (unlike those who conduct polls or write op-eds).
If I asked you to evaluate the total worth of Bank of America, what would you do? Would you go to BoA headquarters and ask to see their books? Would you interview employees about rumors and make calls to competitors? No. You wouldn’t. Why? Because someone else has already done all that, and you can steal his answer. Why can you trust his answer? Because he works for Goldman Sachs, and there’s billions on the line if he’s wrong.
The same logic applies to InTrade.
Now, to the part about you being right, you are right because while InTrade should work in theory, in doesn’t work in application. Specifically, the volume of shares is far too low and the payoff is too insignificant for you to be sure that all factors are being considered. It is because of these factors that InTrade differs from our stock market, where the payoffs are huge and the number of participants is enormous. InTrade has only a handful of speculators, many of whom are betting on a whim. Looking to the unconstitutionality of Obamacare, you can see that only 794 shares have been traded over the life of the pool. That’s not nearly enough for all opinions to be inserted and all information to be accounted for.
John, I used to take encouragement from InTrade on this exact issue. Unfortunately, with so little participation, to do so is, I think, unwise.
“Odds that SCOTUS will strike down the individual mandate are 80% on Intrade.”
A few months ago I read the results of a survey of Supreme Court insiders — including former clerks and attorneys who had argued case before the high court. It put the probability of the mandate being struck down at slightly less than 50%. In my opinion, the opinion on the mandate could go either way.
That article on human biomass is so weightist.
I predict that SCOTUS upholds the entire thing, in part due to the severability issue.
I almost want to say, though, that the tax Anti-Injunction Act gets cited, delaying a complete ruling.
@Brian,
I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone that believes the Court will sever the law. Neither the Obama administration nor the Republican petitioners argued in favor of severability. I like to think that it has more to do with understanding that the law cannot possibly function without the mandate, rather than a political cost-benefit analysis.
Moreover, if the Court cites the Anti-Injunction Act and delays a ruling, I truly believe there would be riots. This is perhaps the second-most anticipated Court ruling of my lifetime, following Bush v. Gore, and public perception that the Court was delaying a ruling for no good reason would be prevalent.
Ambrose, I don’t necessarily disagree with you. Honestly, I feel like I want to go with the Anti-Injunction Act prediction just because everyone else is betting against it.
My greatest concern is how a ruling that upholds the law would theoretically allow government to force people to buy whatever it deems necessary in the future.