Daschle Urges Bush to Stop Terror Market

[kayell]

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/Washington/AP.V2423.AP-Terror-Market.html

WASHINGTON (AP)--The Senate's Democratic leader called on the Bush administration Tuesday to renounce a Pentagon plan for establishing a futures market on acts of terrorism and said apologies should be made to the families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

``This program could provide an incentive actually to commit acts of terrorism,'' Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., declared on the Senate floor. ``...This is just wrong.''

Daschle called the proposal a ``plan to trade in death'' and charged it could motivate terrorists to attempt attacks on targets in the United States or against U.S. leaders. ``It is perhaps the most irresponsible, outrageous and poorly thought out of anything I have heard from the administration,'' he said.

more

[LoneStarLiberal]

1. I Think Daschle Misses The Point

O.K., this is most definitely unorthodox, but all this rhetoric about "trading in death" and "incentive to commit acts of terrorism" misses the useful criticism boat on the Policy Analysis Market.

I can't quite figure out what the end goal of PAM is, but it's a damned interesting concept. The goal of futures markets in the financial world is to allow participants to manage risk; I have a feeling that this is the goal for PAM, except with more of an eye toward institutions who do business in the Middle East.

There are lots of questions that need to be asked here; getting rabid before this is fully discussed doesn't do our leadership or our membership any favors.

[Philosophy]

5. Supporters of this idiotic idea miss one important point

All other futures markets encourage actions to try to cause the predicted outcomes to happen - that is the basis of free market competition. And only because of this are they even valid at all as analytical aids. The way this one is set up would only makes sense to cronyists who believe that insider trading is the way markets are supposed to work.

[LoneStarLiberal]

9. That's Why I Think It's So Interesting

In a market mechanism like this one we could actually stand a better chance at seeing who is "making the market" versus just speculating about it. If contracts for a "U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003" were offered and suddenly started ramping up in price back in early 2002, then we wouldn't just be talking about the Bush administration's bellicose rhetoric in 2002, we could have been talking about quantifiable, demonstrable evidence that there would be a U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

If you eventually allowed something like streaming quotes at different "levels" like NASDAQ and NYSE along with buyer and seller information, think of the information we as people would have at our disposal: Who wants what in a quantifiable manner. No more bait and switch, no more rope-a-dope rhetoric; the proof would be in the contracts.

Like I previously said, there are lots of questions to be asked about this market, but just because there are questions and the potential for abuse exists doesn't mean we should ignore the possible advantages for putting corporations and the administration to heel.

[aquart]

18. But the names of the transactors are to be concealed, no?

Which would kinda defeat that purpose.

It's just legalized betting in death.

I just want to know what the buy in price is. Can anyone gamble on murder and torture? Can I place a buck on Chalabi's assassination on Sept. 8 (no particular reason, I just feel lucky)?

[cprise]

23. Speculation and incentives are not evidence

...no matter how you try to spin it.

And no matter how limited and self-restrained they were, the project would tend to grow or be copied by others.

It would take not 2 years before it became a way for the Richard Scaiffee's of this world to tempt desperate scumbags into illegal and violent acts against people and institutions that aren't compliant.

[Julien Sorel]

25. A couple of problems, and an observation.

In a market mechanism like this one we could actually stand a better chance at seeing who is "making the market" versus just speculating about it. If contracts for a "U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003" were offered and suddenly started ramping up in price back in early 2002, then we wouldn't just be talking about the Bush administration's bellicose rhetoric in 2002, we could have been talking about quantifiable, demonstrable evidence that there would be a U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

First of all, I don't see the value of this information, even if we could get it. I seriously doubt someone in the Bush camp would have been buying Iraqi invasion calls a year and a half ago, and if outsiders bought them, why is that information any more valuable than analyzing the rhetoric? Barring insider information, it would just be an index sentiment expressed in dollars -- there are public opinion polls that measure the same thing, but have less of a chance of influencing policy or actions, because there is no potential financial incentive involved.

If you eventually allowed something like streaming quotes at different "levels" like NASDAQ and NYSE along with buyer and seller information, think of the information we as people would have at our disposal: Who wants what in a quantifiable manner. No more bait and switch, no more rope-a-dope rhetoric; the proof would be in the contracts.

A similar problem to the one stated above. No real insider is likely to get involved with this, which makes the practical value of this information nil. Saddam wasn't going to buy Iraqi Invasion 2003 calls as a hedge against a U.S. invasion -- he had no way of cashing in. Neither would any other Iraqi insider. The Nine of Spades in the infamous deck isn't going to go to Chicago to exercize his Iraqi Invasion Calls, so he wouldn't buy them in the first place. For him, the invasion is practically a matter of life or death, and there is simply no way he can manage that risk through the financial markets -- they aren't made for that. So he doesn't play the game.


The real issue I have though, is that for financial markets to work properly, people have to have confidence in them. In normal futures trading, there are market forces at work that generally ensure people behave in a more or less 'ethical' fashion. If I buy May 04 Wheat Calls, any attempt to manipulate the price of wheat on my behalf is likely to cost more than my possible gains; moreover, there are regulating bodies that can investigate irregularities. The Hunt brothers' famous attempt to corner the silver market comes to mind: they lost their asses and got sued. How can anyone sue Osama Bin Laden? If Sharon tips off his crooked son about a 'targeted killing' in Israel, and his son shares the information with a friend who then acts on it, how does anyone prove insider trading? What is to be the enforcement mechanism? Is someone going to go to Israel and sue Sharon? Why should he be considered at fault? Why should he care anyway? No one is going to have faith in this system, therefore nobody will play. The nagging suspicion that you got took by someone who knew something you didn't would be crippling, IMO. It already comes to play in a relatively well-regulated system; this one is begging to be abused.

Finally, the idea that this could actually influence policy and action is totally repugnant to me. I can buy all the citrus contracts in the world, and it's not going to influence the weather in Florida. The same isn't true of terrorism contracts, or assassination deals. According to Wolfowitz, there are mercenaries at work in Iraq who will blow shit up for $200. The potential here is far in excess of that. If I could find a sucker big enough on the other end, I could go into the terrorism business. I doubt that sucker would be there after a while, but just the potential should have been enough to shut this down.

[Bandit]

24. You think it a good idea to place bets on which leader will be assassinate

or what buildings may be bombed next???? What if the bets were being placed on a US leader? Do you think it is beyond concept for some republican to cause something to happen just so they can win their bet? This whole concept needs to be tossed and the sooner the better.

[Booberdawg]

2. I think it's disgraceful

[revcarol]

3. Daschle speaks LOUDLY & CORRECTLY on this issue...

and DU-ers ignore him, then say he never speaks out!!

GO DASCHLE!!

[Catshrink]

27. I don't think I've heard Daschle for eons.

Or have I just missed him? I watch a lot of news, but sure haven't caught him. Glad he found his voice.

[short bus president]

4. Daschle is right

I first heard about this "PAM" thing on NPR this AM, and I was shocked awake to think that the warmongers would even propose this. Crass and disgusting do not go nearly far enough in describing this global terror OTB.

[monkeyboy]

6. I thought it was a hoax

I was watching this on CSPAN this a.m. and thought it was some sort of joke. Then they mentioned that Admiral Poindexter of Iran Contra fame is behind it, and then I knew it was real. We are all living through some bizzare parallel universe. This is like some sort of bad, futuristic movie.

[Enraged_Ape]

7. The movie was 1975's "Rollerball"

And yes, we are living it today.

[Loonman]

8. Another useless gesture from Daschle

Terror market shut down.

[revcarol]

12. Only shut down because of the HOWL from people like Daschle

and ordinary people like us. How about giving credit where credit is due.
E-mail letters of encouragement and support because HE DID THE RIGHT THING!!

[damnraddem]

10. Dear Dubya Administration thugs and idiots:

You need to learn something that science has long known: the observer can influence that which is observed, so must take special pains to prevent or to account for such effects. Your 'information gathering' approach is likely to generate the very information that you intend to gather -- it may spark the very terrorism you claim you wish to prevent, based on info gathered by your 'market.' It may be that you are happy to spark such terror -- you are thungs; but it may also be that you are just too stupid to anticipate the consequences of your acts. In either case, the American people will ultimately not stand for your abomination, so knock it off.

[joshcryer]

11. Looks like Daschle got his wish. :)

:)

[radwriter0555]

13. What shut down? I'm on the site right now...

and it stinks.

This story doesn't add up.

I firmly believe this is a hoax. I'm running the site on sam spade and it's not coming up as something Govt, with the sole exception of a connex to DULLES.

Any techies out there wanna run it and see what pops up? Who owns it?

[radwriter0555]

14. Seriously, what makes you think that the bush regime is in any way

connected to this hoax?

Being lead by the nose are we?

IT'S A HOAX.

[tridim]

15. According to this guy

They've been working on it for 'several years'.

http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg03309.html

From: Robin Hanson
Subject: DARPA markets on MidEast
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 07:27:22 -0700
I've been involved for several years in helping DARPA to create some markets to help aggregate info on political, military, and economic changes in the Middle East, and the effect of US policy on such changes. For those interested, we are finally going public with some info on these markets: www.PolicyAnalysisMarket.org

[hotphlash]

16. Shut up Daschle or it's more Anthrax for You!!!!!!!

n/t

[revcarol]

17. Wolfowitz didn't think it was a hoax.

He said this AM in a hearing that the program was "terminated."

THEY GOT CAUGHT AND DIDN'T SLIP THIS ONE IN UNDER THE RADAR, that's all.

[aquart]

19. WHO is the Pentagon expecting to profit from this?

And why?

Is this a hedge fund? Halliburton can bet the oil wells will be destroyed...profit on the oil if they don't and on the bet money if they do?

Is this some form of kookie corporate war insurance? So our oil companies feel safe in the region? In the case of Halliburton and the oil, who are we expecting to take the bet? Who will be paying out if the oil is ablaze?

Who is the House in this card game?

[ElementaryPenguin]

20. No doubt inspired by those (perhaps in Pentagon) who sold short

On United and American Airlines!! :puke:
This is beyond fucking belief! Something Hitler would be very proud of!!!

[robbedvoter]

21. Daschle got results - so he has to pay the price here

For those thinking this was an "interesting idea" - my guess is that the guys that made a killing on 9.11 wanted to perpetuate the business opportunity. Here's a scenario:
Cheney's milkman makes a big bet: Halliburton will get a big contract in Syria. He gets lucky, because the next day, W gives a speech about Syria having WMD. The milkman can retire a rich man right after that (or wait and become a billionaire). In another example W aunt, Millicent...you get the idea.

[Monte Carlo]

22. ``The most irresponsible, outrageous, poorly thought out''...

~Sen. Tom Daschle (D - SD).

Well said Senator. I congratulate you on your direct, focused language against this abusrd outing by the Pentagon. Score one for the good guys. Now if only he could use those words more often while describing the policies of the Bush Administration.

[osaMABUSh]

26. Sounds like the most sickening Dead Pool ever

You know, a Dead Pool, where people have a list of celebs that they think will die during the year. Whoever gets the most points wins the pool. More points are awarded for younger, healthier people. Somebody like Bob Hope or Ronald Reagan are virtually worthless.

SO a legal international Dead Pool sponsored by the Pentagon but not only for deaths but for attacks, etc.

Forget the Stock Market I putting all my money (what's left of it) in the Pentagon Dead Pool.