Hacker News Reader

Comment by logicchains | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

I'll steelman it: previously there was no monetary gain to be made by messing with weather sensors. A market like this creates one, creating an externality on owners of weather sensors, on enforcers and courts to investigate and prosecute novel crimes. Administration of taxes on such markets to compensate all the disparate factions harmed by the externalities exceeds the amount which could be collected, so banning is the only proper solution.

> A market like this creates one, creating an externality on owners of weather sensors, on enforcers and courts to investigate and prosecute

I am only half-joking, but this gave me an idea for how to finally get the local courts+LEO near me to get off their asses and actually do some law enforcement and prosecuting - I just gotta create prediction markets on the crimes occuring in public in my neighborhood.

The article articulated this enough, I thought but I guess not.

They're interfering with officially gathered data, used to forecast the weather. And they're not just gambling. They're also gaming the system to make money on it. This goes far beyond 'just gambling'.

>They're interfering with officially gathered data, used to forecast the weather.

If that's illegal they should be prosecuted for that. Luxury goods create incentive for theft, but nobody suggests luxury goods stores should be banned to reduce the amount of theft.

Could you regulate the sale of luxury goods meaningfully without having negative impacts on necessary markets? Can you say the same about prediction markets?

Certain no negative externalities from these shenanigans here, let people do what they want to do regardless of how it harms others.

Should it be legal to be able to bet when someone will die?

It's already legal for two individuals to bet when someone will die. It's illegal to murder someone; we don't need extra laws to stop that.

Isn't it obvious that allowing betting on something creates economic incentives to influence that thing?

There's a reason we don't have markets to bet on whether someone will be killed, or to create a profit motive for people close to the White House to spill the beans.

There's plenty of legal avenues for the next administration to outright shut these firms down

I recommend thinking about the issue for yourself. It's not hard to see why prediction markets are subject to abuse. Market regulation has little to do with morality or "moral rights". Would I be correct in assuming you're an Ayn Rand fan?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com