[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Isn’t it also rather odd that an anarchist-libertarian would draw his paycheck from the state?
[/quote]
It’s called playing the game…and he isn’t an anarchist. When he spoke to a group of anarchists once he basically said, sorry to disappoint you, but I am here to help.
Just because he quotes Lysander Spooner doesn’t make him an anarchist.
[center]Real Money Says Ron Paul Has a Shot
by Bob Murphy[/center]
In addition to being a mild-mannered economist by day, I am an avid fan of gambling and all its devices. (Though since I still am the property of student lender Sallie Mae, I have been a mere spectator of the gambling world for the last several years.) I am here to inform Ron Paul fans that “the market” – the gambling website Intrade.com – says his chances of winning the GOP nomination are now 6.1%. In contrast, McCain’s chances are 5.4%, and Huckabee’s a meager 3.2%.
Beyond the fact that Ron Paul is now in 4th place – and being ahead of McCain, is now surely a “real” candidate – is his meteoric rise since late May. Just look at this chart from Intrade:
To make sense of all this, let me briefly explain how Intrade works. It is fashioned after a futures market (such as in oil or pork bellies), where participants can buy or sell contracts contingent on future events. Now in the case of the “2008.GOP.NOM.PAUL” contract, the buyer (as of October 2) pays $6.10 for a contract entitling him to a $100 payoff if Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination. In contrast, the seller of this contract receives $6.10, but might have to pay out the $100 if Paul gets the nomination. Obviously, if Ron Paul doesn’t get nominated, then the buyer of the contract gets nothing – he’s out his $6.10 – and the seller gets to pocket the $6.10.
There are imperfections due to transaction costs and other frictions, but the probabilities of all the possible outcomes should sum (close to) 100%, because otherwise there would be pure arbitrage opportunities. For example, if the sum of the contract prices totaled only $98, then someone could buy one of each, and be guaranteed a profit of $2 (since one of the contracts would “hit”). On the other hand, if the contracts summed to $103, then someone could sell one of each, earning $103, and then only have to pay out $100 when one of them hit – thus netting a guaranteed profit of $3. So generally speaking, the contract prices should all sum to $100.
Of course, people with inside information stand to profit by trading in this market. If a technician at a health clinic comes across a very disturbing heart exam for McCain, that person could rush out and sell contracts on McCain’s nomination – and thereby push down the price of a McCain contract. On the other hand, if a Romney campaign staffer learned that Mitt was going to receive an honorary degree from a university, he could rush to buy contracts on his candidate, and thereby push up their price.
It’s because of the arbitrage element, and the fact that people with inside information can trade on it, that leads economists to loosely say that “the market” assigns a probability of (right now) 6.1% to a Ron Paul nomination. Sure, there are all sorts of objections you could raise to that type of talk; some purists reject the very idea of statistical language in the arena of politics. But you get the idea.
Before closing, let me stress two final points. First, this isn’t some Podunk contract that four hicks (who like to spam Fox voting schemes) are trading back and forth. No, when last I checked, the volume was over 63,000 Ron Paul contracts being transacted. (So if this is manipulation, it’s very very expensive.)
Second, some readers might be thinking, “Big deal! Ron’s gotten much higher than 6.1% in various straw polls and other surveys.” But that’s just the thing, folks, and why I’m so excited about this. The Intrade contract isn’t asking, “Which candidate do you want to be nominated?” It’s asking, “Which candidate do you predict will be nominated?”
And I think it’s incredibly encouraging – for lovers of liberty, that is – that Ron Paul has broken through the 6% mark, and is now in 4th place. The great thing is, the three front-runners are only a gaffe away from forfeiting their position, just as McCain did with his immigration photo op with Ted Kennedy. In contrast, everybody already knows what Ron Paul stands for; he doesn’t need to delicately protect his carefully scripted image.
The pundits are still dismissing Ron Paul as a fringe candidate who isn’t “serious.” Well, there’s a lot of actual money on the table saying that he is indeed a contender for the GOP nomination.
[quote]lixy wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119146668063148662.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
[/quote]
This is from the comment section – I think television media doesn’t really understand the potential of the internet.
The Wall Street Journal Asks: What is it about the campaign that makes you feel so engaged? And are there any lessons here for how to use the Internet?
Here is one particular response that struck me.
[quote]orion wrote:
He is no anarcho capitalist but a minarchist.
Strawman.[/quote]
Who said I was talking about Ron Paul?
Did everyone hear how ron paul raised 5,000,000 dollars!!!
He exceeded expectations!!!
Most of his money came from “internet sources.”
Therefore, he’s well on his way to unseating Rudy.
For all you ron paul slappies, are you interested in a friendly bet?
Here are the terms: If ron paul is the nominee, I’ll not post for 2 years. If Rudy is the nominee, ron paul slappies don’t post for 2 years.
If neither is the nominee, then the bet is void.
Up for it?
JeffR
P.S. I like these bets because when I win, much of the driftwood will be removed from this forum.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Did everyone hear how ron paul raised 5,000,000 dollars!!!
He exceeded expectations!!!
Most of his money came from “internet sources.”
Therefore, he’s well on his way to unseating Rudy.
For all you ron paul slappies, are you interested in a friendly bet?
Here are the terms: If ron paul is the nominee, I’ll not post for 2 years. If Rudy is the nominee, ron paul slappies don’t post for 2 years.
If neither is the nominee, then the bet is void.
Up for it?
JeffR
P.S. I like these bets because when I win, much of the driftwood will be removed from this forum.[/quote]
That is not a fair bet. The odds favor Giuliani.
Figure out the odds and make it correct.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:
He is no anarcho capitalist but a minarchist.
Strawman.
Who said I was talking about Ron Paul?[/quote]
I do, and I am right.
[quote]orion wrote:
Who said I was talking about Ron Paul?
I do, and I am right.[/quote]
Lifticus, as an example, is a professor at a public school, correct?
“I do, and I am right” - hilarious.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:
Who said I was talking about Ron Paul?
I do, and I am right.
Lifticus, as an example, is a professor at a public school, correct?
“I do, and I am right” - hilarious.[/quote]
Shit.
Well, I am totally wrong then.
It also took me quite a well to get it.
Damn, I´ve caught the stupid from Mick28…
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Did everyone hear how ron paul raised 5,000,000 dollars!!!
He exceeded expectations!!!
Most of his money came from “internet sources.”
Therefore, he’s well on his way to unseating Rudy.
For all you ron paul slappies, are you interested in a friendly bet?
Here are the terms: If ron paul is the nominee, I’ll not post for 2 years. If Rudy is the nominee, ron paul slappies don’t post for 2 years.
If neither is the nominee, then the bet is void.
Up for it?
JeffR
P.S. I like these bets because when I win, much of the driftwood will be removed from this forum.
Jeff, you might have missed the threads where I challenged Lefty and Nommy to a bet. Neither man took me up on it. It seems that they would rather write nutty post after nutty post rather than actually stand behind their man Paul.
Which actually shows us what they’re really thinking. Oh they’d love Paul to win, but they know it’s not happening.[/quote]
Mick,
I didn’t. I’m just having fun with them. I can see them going into paroxysms of joy over ron paul “exceeding expectations.” It makes me laugh, because anything over zero is “exceeding expectations.”
It amuses me how much time these guys spend on this clown. I imagine these guys sitting in a room with their hands over their ears screaming “WE ARE WINNING.”
Every now and then, in the midst of their boasting, I like to highlight the bottom line. Which, of course, is that ron paul is a kook with a following consisting primarily of Rage Against the Machiners.
Oh, just in case anyone is in doubt, his ideas are dangerous, naive, juvenile, and his abrasive manner would never allow him to work within the confines of a democracy.
He’s alienated the Republicans. dems being dems, can’t be counted upon as allies for anything over two weeks. In short, he’s a monolithic moron who will always be a footnote to history.
JeffR
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:
Who said I was talking about Ron Paul?
I do, and I am right.
Lifticus, as an example, is a professor at a public school, correct?
“I do, and I am right” - hilarious.
Shit.
Well, I am totally wrong then.
It also took me quite a well to get it.
Damn, I´ve caught the stupid from Mick28…
Is that why Mick fully understood what TB was talking about? And it took you several posts to catch on?
You’re not only hate filled, you’re stupid as well.
[/quote]
You`re used to the “stupid”.
You have found ways to work around your handicap.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Oh they’d love Paul to win, but they know it’s not happening.[/quote]
No, actually no one knows that.
I also challenged you to make the bet fair. You never responded.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
In short, he’s a monolithic moron who will always be a footnote to history.
[/quote]
Well, in all fairness, I’d rather be a footnote in history than have whole, multiple volumes of fuck-ups written about me like your darling Bush.
[quote]lifty wrote:
JeffR wrote:
In short, he’s a monolithic moron who will always be a footnote to history.
Well, in all fairness, I’d rather be a footnote in history than have whole, multiple volumes of fuck-ups written about me like your darling Bush.[/quote]
lifty,
Bush has nothing to do with ron paul.
Bush had made mistakes, but, it still doesn’t have anything to do with the conversation at hand.
Oh, when you throw in commentary like this, it indicates your argument is weak and your position untenable.
I thought I’d let you know that.
I don’t like my opponents to be this intellectually fragile, lifty.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Bush had made mistakes, but, it still doesn’t have anything to do with the conversation at hand.
Oh, when you throw in commentary like this, it indicates your argument is weak and your position untenable.
[/quote]
Says a person who has attacked Ron Paul supporters and not Ron Paul’s ideas. You have not made one argument why his ideas are incorrect just that they are wrong with no further comment. You call his ideas dangerous but fail to understand where his ideas come from. You flag wave for the American team but don’t even understand where this country comes from.
What does it do for your argument to make speculations about history that hasn’t happened yet? At least my arguments are factually based.
Quit using big words you don’t understand the meaning of. There is nothing untenable about my arguments as they are very capable of being defended (and hence tenable). You call Paul’s positions naive but he has been correct about everything he has said with regard to foreign policy. The evidence is in your face. Terrorism isn’t going away and in fact we are creating a new generation of terrorist; nor will Iraq have a stable government with our intervention.
You support a fascist who is intent on stamping out liberty through the strong arm of government. I am on the right side and you are on the wrong.