Then why do they have that meaningless graph? Let's assume it is correct for a moment. The expert (analysts) poll is way off the mark. This will do nothing more than just make another analysts poll. Sure, some ideas will have more backing than others, but ultimately, there will still be too many ideas to even start taking into account.. Maybe it should be an intra-government thing, not open to the public. Perhaps if it was structured in that sense, it might work.
People use futures to hedge other positions against future events and transfer known risks to speculators. So what would be getting hedged here?
The analysts that are consistently right win money. The analysts that are consistently wrong lose money
Then you better be a damn sure your speculation is good. Your're betting on ideas, intangibles, I'd rather go to a psychic to get information. Take a look at the example on this page. In most futures the variable are controllable and limited to a minimum. In this, you are dealing with the entire world. Political situation change daily, tomorrow Saddam might die or England will decide to pull out of the conflict (unlikely), but it could happen. Going back to Pete's signature a while ago, opinions are now counted by how much money people throw at it. The government is conducting a commo internet poll, but with real money. That's the only thing that makes it different. Also, have a look at what Warren Buffet has to say about derivatives, page 12. It's a risky business. The example about betting on the number of twins born in Nebraska in 2020 is how I view the PAM.
And what about if those very people we are talking about in the news decide to play the game? Take Osama BinHidin'. He sets up a third party to place bets, does something nasty, and then collects the money?
People use futures to hedge other positions against future events and transfer known risks to speculators. So what would be getting hedged here?
The analysts that are consistently right win money. The analysts that are consistently wrong lose money
Then you better be a damn sure your speculation is good. Your're betting on ideas, intangibles, I'd rather go to a psychic to get information. Take a look at the example on this page. In most futures the variable are controllable and limited to a minimum. In this, you are dealing with the entire world. Political situation change daily, tomorrow Saddam might die or England will decide to pull out of the conflict (unlikely), but it could happen. Going back to Pete's signature a while ago, opinions are now counted by how much money people throw at it. The government is conducting a commo internet poll, but with real money. That's the only thing that makes it different. Also, have a look at what Warren Buffet has to say about derivatives, page 12. It's a risky business. The example about betting on the number of twins born in Nebraska in 2020 is how I view the PAM.
And what about if those very people we are talking about in the news decide to play the game? Take Osama BinHidin'. He sets up a third party to place bets, does something nasty, and then collects the money?
The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation - Henry David Thoreau
Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and at the rate I'm going, I'm going to be invincible.
Chicago wargaming club
Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and at the rate I'm going, I'm going to be invincible.
Chicago wargaming club