From: Michael Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Tue Apr 24 2001 - 12:47:44 MDT
Robin Hanson wrote:
>
> Michael Lorrey wrote:
> > > So, ... can you add this up? Sounds like <$30,000 - that right?
> > > What probability of success would you give for that amount?
> > > And how do you know this is a "minor" law change?
> > >
> > > Let's get real. If I gave you $50,000, what penalty would you agree
> > > to pay me if you failed to get the bill passed? $100,000 perhaps?
> >
> >What is this? Legislation futures? ;)
> >$30k sounds about right, tho I'm not sure of the size of the Nevada
> >legislature houses and committees.
>
> I'll note that you have not accepted my $100K figure or proposed an
> alternative amount.
Only because I don't bet, period
>
> >It is a 'minor' law change because it simply expands the definition of
> >lawful things to bet on. You can be sure that the state gambling
> >establishment would go for it, and they already have a sizable amount of
> >paid-for power in the capital. The only problem would be they'd
> >definitely put a limit on what idea futures are legal. For example, no
> >futures would be allowed that involved predicting physical harm coming
> >to anyone, or destruction of something. Nothing about elections or
> >overthrowing governments (in case a candidate tries to finance their
> >election with futures). Nothing about passage of new laws or overturning
> >of existing ones.
>
> You can be sure that the state gambling establishment would NOT go for it.
> They have already had many occasions to consider and reject proposals
> to expand the gambling topics. They fear that a scandal, like someone
> throwing the Oscars to win bets, would lead to a ban on all gambling.
> They therefore want gambling limited only to sports questions.
>
> Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
> Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
> MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
> 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:12 MST