Well, FWIW, my Harris position is now worthless on Kalshi. >8^| But that just
means I have to hang on to it until the inauguration. Ya never know. In hindsight,
I should have shorted Trump instead of buying Harris. [sigh] In any case, it does
seem like the market(s) were tracking information the polls did not track. Whether
it was *more* information than the polls tracked, I'm not yet convinced. But the
information tracked was certainly different. Harris never showed much of a
positive trend on any of the markets. And sure enough it looks like Trump's on
track to win the popular vote as well as the college.
On 11/5/24 10:11, Prof David West wrote:
Perhaps my best academic friend is an economist and I have been trying for years to get
him to team teach an economic anthropology class; one facet of which would be an
examination of how markets are deeply embedded in a cultural context and the only way to
get to an "efficient market" and associated equations is to ignore 90% of the
data and variables at play.
He has resisted for thirty years, but agreed next to next fall—undoubtedly
because he is planning to announce his retirement in the fall as well.
davew
On Tue, Nov 5, 2024, at 11:11 AM, glen wrote:
The efficient market hypothesis is so obviously false, I can barely say
the phrase without being triggered. A friend of mine texted me the
other day suggesting that "cut" is a metaphor for analysis (as in
"cutting through the bullshit") and that "bullsh¡t" is a metaphor for
misleading rhetoric. But I claim those are not (no longer) metaphors.
"Bullsh¡t" isn't grounded to "bull sh¡t". And "cutting" is polysemic.
In "a cutting remark", "cutting" isn't grounded to what you do with
knives and butter or chainsaws and trees. It's grounded to criticism.
Now, I know this concept of re-grounding is probably limited to me. But
I'm pretty sure I'm right here, and anyone who disagrees will
eventually come around, in the long run. 8^D If you think "bullsh¡t" is
a metaphor mapping bull feces with questionable rhetoric, you're just
plain weird.
Similarly, who thinks these markets incorporate *all* the salient
variables? Nobody, right? And is the domain of variables even stable? I
mean, don't meme stocks demonstrate that the domain shifts (can be
shifted)? Even if all the salient variables were included, the
weighting of those variables could shift.
On 11/5/24 08:13, steve smith wrote:
And then we have the artificial pricing of Truth Social/Trump Media...
I saw a headline claiming a 12% jump in prices today based on ?speculation? or
aspirational ideation...
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/11/04/2024-elections-live-coverage-updates-analysis/truth-social-00187158
I don't take this enthusiasm/appetite for DJT stock as an actual indicator for
his likely success in the election, just for the headiness in his cult
following.
On 11/4/24 2:22 PM, glen wrote:
Yeah, one explanation for manipulating the market in Trump's favor is to
provide evidence for the coming election challenges/lawsuits. I've heard some
talking heads suggest that much of the polling is done just to argue for a red
wave. And those are purposefully biased toward Trump to help with the
challenges.
w.r.t. free markets: I agree. I don't think such a thing exists. But there is
some freedom in there. It's a bit like information, I guess, where one might
say that a random thing has more information than an ordered thing. The
justification for markets, as I understand it, is to manage uncertainty. If
you're completely ignorant of some referent process, an *open* market helps
incorporate and reduce a bunch of [non]sense into something actionable. So
(hearkening back to Nick's question) if you feel you must act prior to any
rational result, a market is a way to facilitate that. But if you think you
have low uncertainty, a preponderance of justified signals, the market for that
should lose its freedom.
But that argument implies that I would have to answer "yes" to my 1st question. The
market would "have" more information than the polls. And even though I'm using my own
argument, here, I'm not sure I believe that conclusion ... it feels more like the markets have
different information than the polls. I'm just too ignorant to have an idea of what that
information is for each.
Anyway, yeah, I hold some Ada for the same reason you do ... just to keep me
aware. It's the same reason I hold tiny bits of stock in Evil organizations
like Wells Fargo et al, not for the investment, just to keep up. As fun as it
is, reading https://www.citationneeded.news/ isn't adequate. But with the
Kalshi, I've made the prediction Harris will win exactly twice, now, once to
some Canadian lesbians we met at a pub in Glasgow and once to a lefty friend
who is *really* distraught. I wanted to be sure I couldn't post hoc edit my
memory later. What better way than to bet actual money?
On 11/4/24 12:45, steve smith wrote:
I think both polls and "markets" have a lot of self-selection bias... what motivates folks to
answer a poll and what motivates them to "buy in"? Supposedly pollsters *can* try to wash that
bias out, but their "washing method" seems likely biased as well.
I am inclined to believe in the dynamics of "free markets" on principle, but in this
case, the self-selection bias likely overwhelms the "efficient market hypothesis" aspect?
Why would "wealthy bastards" want to manipulate these markets with high buy-ins? Firstly, wealth
is exponentially distributed so no matter how much I influence a market with my "vote", someone
else can overwhelm it with their own. If the true meaning of a market is truly speculative based on likely
returns from the market, there are dynamics around manipulation, but if the real goal is to influence opinion
and confident, I can see why "wealthy bastards" might want to contribute to the illusion of a Trump
Supremacy/Ascendency, most especially if it only involves spending one drop of sweat off of their suntanned
scrotal pudenda.
Mixing the two, in a no limit stakes market, why not run Trumps bias up with you spare
change, then place more significant bets "against yourself" late in the game,
either evening out the stakes/rewards to gain advantage or to break even up to whatever
influence their offerings generated?
As an aside, I'm not sure what a *true* free market looks like and given the range of human motivations and desires,
I'm not sure we want to let he raw id (or worse, amplified by mob-entrained dynamics?) run free. I'd claim
sub-?sapient? (think Swarm dynamics) life runs on whatever the equivalent of the collective coupling of ids might be in
non-human/non-sapients? Once we started "self-regulating" at a higher level than personal id/collective id
we started a habit that while perhaps highly adaptive, one we can't backslide on too well without being at huge risk?
We are addicted to "governance" for better or worse, and I'm hopeful that we might be able to make a phase
transition from Churchill's "worst form of government except for all the others we have tried" (i.e.
Democracy of some stripe?) to something more better (not sure what the fitness function "more better"
actually describes though).
I find these markets vaguely interesting (moreso when they were new ?20+ years
ago)... and I'm glad to see you (Glen) putting some skin in the game, I do
think that shifts my perspective when I do so. I bought into Blockchain
through Cardano/Ada because I like the aspirations of the project
beyond/outside-of CryptoSpeculation... and my (small) stake helps me be
reminded to follow it's evolution even when it feels a little boring. I can
imagine doing the same with the voting markets... but they vary enough I don't
know which to buy into. The Trump-leaning ones seem like a fools-game to me
(for Tump Fools), but I would have bet on Hillary 8 years ago (even if I didn't
vote for her). The one clearly unknown factor in Trump's favor is that he is
hugely more likely to arrange to get inaugurated without winning either the
popular or the electoral college vote... is the variance from 50/50 in the
markets perhaps reflecting that?
Both Kalshi <https://kalshi.com/markets/pres/presidential-elections> and PolyMarket
<https://polymarket.com/elections> skew heavily for Trump. I'm like ... 51% confident that Harris will win (barring
legal shenanigans). I figured I'd go ahead and participate. So I bought $50 worth of Harris "yes". And I've
heard that there may be some rich people manipulating the market. It's not clear to me why they'd do that. But like Musk
buying Twitter, it's clear that "disposable" income takes on a deeper meaning when you've got so much of it.
But barring market manipulation: a) do y'all think the markets have more "information", whatever that means,
than the polls? And b) are y'all participating in any of these markets?
--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ...
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
