Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

readypipe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 192 posts

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#61

Post by omalleyt »

rdiddly wrote: post #18
Octoth0rpe wrote: post #2

Re:Yang, I'm vaguely sympathetic to the idea of "elect a business person so they can run government like a business", but any openness to the idea goes out the window when the candidate's business is venture capital.

I'm not so sympathetic to that idea in the first place. A business, particularly a corporation, is one of the most authoritarian structures ever devised. If the government were like a business, every citizen would be either an asset to be exploited or a liability to be eliminated.

Citizens would be the shareholders

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#62

Post by gringoDan »

suby wrote: post #53
gringoDan wrote: post #47

I'm bullish on Yang's and Buttigieg's chances in general. I also think that their chances of winning the nomination (and election) are much lower than the odds indicated in betting markets. There is a huge betting market selection bias in that the only people using these betting platforms are young and tech-savvy (i.e. the type of people who are in these candidates' base). Additionally, you can place nominally small…

You'd then be biasing it towards the opinions of people who can afford a 10,000 dollar bet. I'm not sure that that's any better.

Fair point. I hoped that some arbitrarily large number would 1) cause people to actually consider their biases and bet accordingly and 2) allow for smart money to exploit any market mispricings. But I suppose a lot of rich dumb money could just flow in.

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#63

Post by justaguyhere »

Octoth0rpe wrote: post #2

Re:Yang, I'm vaguely sympathetic to the idea of "elect a business person so they can run government like a business", but any openness to the idea goes out the window when the candidate's business is venture capital.

I haven't seen this "run govt like a business" idea outside the U.S (or maybe I just missed it).

Biz and govt are two separate things, I don't understand how one can be run like the other. Sure, there are some overlaps, but thats about it. Can someone explain?

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#64

Post by nickparker »

objektif wrote: post #37
nickparker wrote: post #24

I don't know if this applies to BetChecker, but PredictIt is heavily handicapped by an $850 max bet. Without the freedom for real amounts of money to come in and exploit mispriced bets, it's practically a straw poll of PredictIt users. The PredictIt user base has some obvious demographic biases that warp the odds.

There is a counter argument for this as people with a lot of money will drives the results one way which can actually impact elections. Nkt that I buy this argument but something to keep in mind.

I definitely don't believe that today and I doubt it will ever come to pass. There are more cash-efficient ways to influence elections than warping betting odds, and I think that will hold true no matter how large the betting market gets because the manipulation gets more expensive as the market gets more attention.

The weaker form of your argument "Without the caps it's biased toward people who can make big bets" is the entire point of a betting market.

Edit: The one edge case where it might happen is precisely this article. Buying your way to say 5% after some organic positive press might be an effective way to buy buzz at relatively low cost. It's a small one time boost for a campaign though.

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#65

Post by dsfyu404ed »

Octoth0rpe wrote: post #2

Re:Yang, I'm vaguely sympathetic to the idea of "elect a business person so they can run government like a business", but any openness to the idea goes out the window when the candidate's business is venture capital.

>but any openness to the idea goes out the window when the candidate's business is venture capital.

Or being the activist investor that breaks up the business and sells what's profitable.

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#66

Post by scarmig »

There is no way that Yang is more likely to win the nomination than Warren. And I say that as a Yang fan. So there's a lot of money on the table, but I'm not willing to tie up a couple grand for a year for a website I know pretty much nothing about.

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#67

Post by justaguyhere »

yumraj wrote: post #3
Octoth0rpe wrote: post #2

Re:Yang, I'm vaguely sympathetic to the idea of "elect a business person so they can run government like a business", but any openness to the idea goes out the window when the candidate's business is venture capital.

Also, didn't we just elect another business person and see where we are. Like it or not, we need politicians who can work across the aisle and actually get things done.

Also, didn't we just elect another business person

One with multiple bankruptcies too!

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#68

Post by saagarjha »

core-questions wrote: post #48
yumraj wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, didn't we just elect another business person and see where we are. Like it or not, we need politicians who can work across the aisle and actually get things done.

The problem here comes when there's no possible state of compromise that would make even anyone at all happy. For example, on a border wall: you build it to be functional, or you don't. A non-functional border wall is essentially not a border wall. There's no compromise state; instead, there's at best some kind of tit-for-tat, where you'll concede something else in exchange for your most important plans.

A non-functional border wall also pleases nobody. It’s not a great compromise at all.

Re: Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg Have Blown Up on Twitter, and in Betting Markets

#69

Post by js2 »

I really like Buttigieg. He honestly seems to be doing this because he wants to serve America. I’m working my way through his book and I’m very impressed by his eloquence and clarity of thought. Also, I think as a mayor he embodies the entrepreneurial spirit. He was classmates with Mark Zuckerberg.

I submitted this interview the other day:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/a-long-talk-with-demo...

I think it’s also worth listening to an interview he did with David Axelrod a couple years ago, and his recent interview on Pod Save America. Here also are a couple videos I’m recommending because they cover a variety of topics in the Q&A portion that I haven’t heard him speak about elsewhere:

- https://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Indiana-Mayor-Pete-But...

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nldx3r7h3Cg

I know this comment is obviously political but I think he deserves to be heard from.

Post reply on HN