This is our monthly place to discuss related topics that have not appeared in recent posts.
A random question: whence comes the need for secrecy in wages ( http://www.washingtonpost.c... ) ? I'm struggling to find some plausible economic justification, and falling short.
This may mean trouble for some folks: IRS Retroactively Taxes Bitcoin.http://www.breitbart.com/Bi...See also http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-...
The companies like the current American licensing process COMPARED TO one that would be as critical and stringent as voters would like the FDA to be.
How does a long and expensive licensing process make pharmaceutical companies more profitable? I understand why expensive licensing helps hair dressers. I don't understand why it would help patent owners. Hairdressers are fungible and their customers are price sensitive; drugs aren't and their customers aren't.
What are the politics behind the FDA's strictness? I don't think pharmaceutical companies like it, so it's not regulatory capture. I don't think patients like it, so it's not pandering to voters. What is it?
You've written before (http://www.overcomingbias.c... about the relative weakness of 'morale markets'. Still, if a few lower-level employees can start one at a major corporation and it's any kind of 'foot in the door' for prediction markets, it seems like a pretty outsized impact. How worthwhile would you consider such a project when not compared to serious incentivized prediction markets? Are there key features that would increase the value of the project? In particular, implementing a combinatorial market seems valuable just to showcase the technology. Otherwise, it might be possible to fight for better incentives or better topics if these will have a disproportionate impact.