Yes, it's kicking up a wee bit of a storm (!) in the blogosphere. Lefty blogs (some appreciative) on this include:

The excellent Crooked Timber:
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/000307.html


Eschaton:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_07_27_atrios_archive.html#105948321498376331


A Berkeley Economist Against Empire:
http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~gabriel/weblog/2003_07_01_archive.html#105948868666134845

Josh Marshall:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/july0304.html#072803605pm

 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Rasch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: Senators Denounce Policy Analysis Markets


> Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) blogged about the DARPA project controversy:
>
> THE PENTAGON WANTS TO USE A FUTURES MARKET
> <http://nytimes.com/2003/07/29/politics/29TERR.html> to predict terror
> attacks. Although this is getting a lot of criticism (mostly from
> members of Congress who, I suspect, couldn't accurately describe the
> operation of /existing/ futures markets) I think it's an excellent
> example of creative thinking, and the Pentagon deserves to be
> congratulated for it. As I've suggested before (here
> <http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-041603A>,
> here,
> <http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-021203A>
> and especially here
> <http://techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-103002A>)
> the diffuse, fast-moving threat of terrorism requires a diffuse,
> fast-moving response. And this sounds like a very plausible way of
> recruiting a lot of minds in the service of anti-terrorism.
>
> Josh Chafetz agrees:
> <http://www.oxblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_27_oxblog_archive.html#105943317047655345>
>
>     A futures market in terrorist attacks, while it sounds grisly, may
>     help us to aggregate diffuse knowledge in a way that will prove
>     superior to expert knowledge. It also may not, but it seems to me
>     that it's worth a try. At the very least, if we're going to demand
>     that the government get creative in fighting terror, we shouldn't be
>     so quick to criticize when it does just that.
>
> Yep.
>
> UPDATE: Reader Fred Butzen emails:
>
>     The story about the Pentgon's "terrorism market" clearly is an
>     extension of Iowa Electronic Markets, which has been run for years
>     by the University of Iowa's Tippett School of Business. Here's a
>     link to the Iowa Information Market's web site:
>
>     Link <http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/>
>
>     In brief, the IEM lets persons place bets on the likelihood of given
>     events' happening; for example, people could bet on the likelihood
>     that Saddam Hussein will survive this year, or who will win the next
>     presidential election. The collective expertise of the participants
>     has proven to be extremely useful in predicting events.
>
>     The notion that the dim-bulbs in Congress and the media should
>     attack such a useful and proven idea as the Pentagon's is utterly
>     absurd.
>
> This is absolutely right. Whether or not the Pentagon's idea is a good
> one depends on details I don't know about. But the lame criticism makes
> clear that the critics are -- as usual -- clueless on the subject.
>
> ANOTHER UPDATE: Mitch Berg points out
> <http://www.mitchberg.com/shotindark/2003_07_01_archive.html#105948759942593174>
> that this approach has worked in the past.
>
> posted at 08:44 AM by *Glenn Reynolds*
> <http://www.instapundit.com/archives/010668.php>
>
>
> Robin Hanson wrote:
>
> > FYI, our DARPA project (www.policyanalysismarket.com) has just been
> > denounced
> > by two senators:
> > http://wyden.senate.gov/media/2003/07282003_terrormarket.html
> >
> >
> > Robin Hanson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://hanson.gmu.edu
> > Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
> > MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
> > 703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to