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

91–100 of 192 posts

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

#91

Post by mirimir »

dragonwriter wrote: post #22
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 vaguely sympathetic to the idea of "elect a business person so they can run government like a business" I really don't want a government that ruthlessly cuts costs that don't drive revenue and uses all mechanisms within reach to maximize lock-in and extract monopoly rents from customers.

Wasn't that a Trump campaign theme?

But anyway, it's not new. That was a lot of that maybe a century ago in the US.

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

#92

Post by MusaTheRedGuard »

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.

Just gonna leave this here: https://app.veil.co/market/will-2020-presidential-candidate-...

Also interesting to mention the crossover between Yang supporters and the crypto community: https://breakermag.com/five-reasons-crypto-fans-are-joining-...

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

#93

Post by Alex3917 »

bilbo0s wrote: post #58
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…

Yang's chances are small, Buttigieg's chances are about equal to Beto's, and better than any other candidate's outside of Biden. (And it's an open question as to whether Biden is actually serious.)

IMHO Yang has much better odds that Buttigieg. Mayor Pete is just blowing up right now because he had a CNN town hall, but he doesn't seem to have a lot of depth of policy and that's going to hurt him a lot as we get into the debates and then going forward. Whereas Yang hasn't yet had much mainstream media exposure, but has a lot of depth to his policies.

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

#94

Post by vharuck »

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.

A government run like a business loses the most important and necessary quality of a government: it can takr actions that are economically harmful to itself but helpful to society. It should maintain all roads, not just the ones used to transport goods. It should investigate even small crimes. It steps in when the market would cause a catastrophe (e.g., tragedy of the commons). Of course, money still exists, so the government restricts its reach within a budget.

Besides, the president's only tasks should be international diplomacy, commander of the military, and doing what the Congress says. They can be "ideas gals/guys," but he/she shouldn't be independently making huge decisions outside of war scenarios. That doesn't sound like a CEO to me.

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

#95

Post by bilbo0s »

omalleyt wrote: post #61
rdiddly wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Being a small shareholder is even worse.

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

#96

Post by Alex3917 »

skybrian wrote: post #55

Is Andrew Yang a writer? I'd be interested in reading some of what he's written that's longer than a tweet. I did find the weekly campaign updates, which are okay as far as they go.

His weekly emails often contain excerpts from his books.

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

#97

Post by petermcneeley »

js2 wrote: post #69

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 a…

"Buttigieg is a graduate of Harvard University, a Rhodes Scholar, and a veteran of the War in Afghanistan" Wow what a fresh face. (dry sarcasm)

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

#98

Post by mirimir »

dev_dull wrote: post #6
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.

A booming economy with low inflation and low unemployment?

That is such a joke. What does "booming economy" really mean? Mostly the stock market, I think. And "low unemployment"? It's low because people who have given up looking aren't counted. And because it includes lots of short-term and poorly compensated jobs.

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

#99

Post by otoburb »

MusaTheRedGuard wrote: post #92
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.

Just gonna leave this here: https://app.veil.co/market/will-2020-presidential-candidate-... Also interesting to mention the crossover between Yang supporters and the crypto community: https://breakermag.com/five-reasons-crypto-fans-are-joining-...

That market is now ambiguous because the reporting source is "compromised" in the sense that Andrew Yang's 2020 Twitter account is being redirected to a different handle.

Ambiguous markets are ... not good.

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

#100

Post by gumby »

nickparker wrote: post #64
objektif wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I also doubt that it's happening deliberately, but FWIW this is precisely the time in a campaign when a "small one time boost" might be worth it, to pull you up above the noise floor.

But I get the feeling nobody really understands campaigns well enough (especially these long, grueling ones) to justify the time spent on these small-calibre issues.

Post reply on HN