Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Christian Kleineidam's avatar

@715a731811a13051cfedfb1a7d614563:disqus srdiamond : No, it doesn't. The laws we have are the result of the conflict between different actors. They are not the result of an answer to the question: "What laws would maximize the public wellbeing".Given the recent "Money is speech" Citizens United decision you might win a a battle at the US Supreme court to give prediction markets legal protection. There just nobody to fight that battle because losing it would be costly. 

Prediction market proponents are politically weak. It's easy for poltician's to attack them. It's not easy to attack pollsters.

Expand full comment
Stephen Diamond's avatar

That begs the question. If there were severe ideological prejudice against polls, we wouldn't be apt to have laws that defend them. There are unprotected forms of speech (by legal fiat)--such as "obscenity." Germany may ban polls on election day, much as the U.S. bans distribution of campaign literature at polling sites. "Time, place, and manner" restriction, as it's called here. But is there any nominal democracy where polls are prohibited generally? (Like prediction markets may be.)

Expand full comment
46 more comments...

No posts