61–70 of 517 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, like myself, you're just aging into being a bit of a conservative.
Eh, I don’t think not wanting gambling and amoral behavior to consume society makes me a conservative in any real sense of the word. More just common sense pragmatism, is how I’d put it.
I’m increasingly convinced that the single most important concept to understand in the 21st century is Chesterton’s Fence: "Chesterton's fence" is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_... Gambling isn’t a new problem, but apparently we thought it would turn out differently this…
Hit the nail on the head and these are my thoughts exactly. I don't really want to be the guy that thinks his time is extra-ordinary (cue fake quote of Socrates saying "kids these days have no manners"), but... maybe it is?
For me it's like people don't even feel the need to pretend anymore. Selfish geopolitical calculations and greed have dictated all actors' actions in the 20th, that isn't new, but at least then there was a need to appear to abide by laws or to uphold human rights, even to strive for the eradication of war (and often it wasn't a disguise; people actually cared about those things).
States used to care or at least appear to care about progress, betterment, social improvement, moral improvement. Today? All any government speaks of is raw GDP growth %. And so gambling is pushed on TVs, streets, subways, kids' entertainment... The idea that a government of a nation would strive for the moral well-being of its citizens (by heavily curtailing gambling for example) seems positively quaint in 2026.
Anyway I'm tired, excuse the incoherent ramble.
If insiders trade, the market becomes more accurate, which is good for society. Like WikiLeaks. Thus the MSN panic, the legacy establishment wants Polymarket to follow Assange's path.
For fucks sake...
Stop calling them "prediction markets" and start calling them what they really are: corporatized bookies.
But, one silver lining, maybe, is gamblers are a little less likely to fall for fake news. Maybe?
It seems hard to be a climate change denier when you're about to gamble on it.
Or maybe people will find a way to gamble while still living in completely different reality bubbles. Probably.
If you thought your neighbor was politically extreme last election, just wait until next election when he also has $100,000 on the line...
Stop calling them "prediction markets" and start calling them what they really are: corporatized bookies.
This is just another racket for those in power to continue making the world worse for just a little bit more gain for themselves.
Edit: Throttled like always, you guys hate me (and reality/law in this instance) https://www.nbcnews.com/sports/sports-gambling/20-charged-ba...
The only material objection mentioned in the article is that prediction markets are easy to manipulate. Well, only if they are thinly traded. If they get mentioned a lot more on CNN and CNBC, that is likely to change.
I’m increasingly convinced that the single most important concept to understand in the 21st century is Chesterton’s Fence: "Chesterton's fence" is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_... Gambling isn’t a new problem, but apparently we thought it would turn out differently this…
The powers that be have always saught wealth. At some point they gained enough power to start usurping the law that was supposed to keep them in check.
I’m increasingly convinced that the single most important concept to understand in the 21st century is Chesterton’s Fence: "Chesterton's fence" is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_... Gambling isn’t a new problem, but apparently we thought it would turn out differently this…
Maybe, like myself, you're just aging into being a bit of a conservative.
If insiders trade, the market becomes more accurate, which is good for society. Like WikiLeaks. Thus the MSN panic, the legacy establishment wants Polymarket to follow Assange's path.
Insider trading seeks to trade with secret information and minimally obvious trades to avoid moving the markets until their position is locked in, in order to profit when the previously secret information becomes public and the market finally moves to a different price level.
Manipulators seek to move the market to create a false narrative that market-moving info exists when actual market-moving does NOT exist; the expectation is that people will see the price change and ASSUME there is information behind it, when there is actually just a manipulator willing to lose money to create that impression.
In a small market, such manipulation can be more cost-effective (make more of an impression for the same cost) vs buying advertisements.