Plaid Adder's "Futures Shock"

While evincing an ignorance of markets, Plaid Adder does a pretty good job of explaining the rationale behind the abortive "terrorist futures" scheme concocted by should-be-in-prison John Poindexter. She also does a pretty good job explaining why the magic of the marketplace is a poor tool for forecasting terrorist attacks. There's much more that could be said, to be sure.

What I want to say is that any woman that uses the word "ken" correctly is my kind of woman! I'd consider making an overture to her if I was considerably younger, considerably slimmer, considerably more single, if Plaid Adder was considerably more heterosexual . . . hmmmm, we've passed far, far into the realm of "never gonna happen" haven't we?

Suffice to say that it's a fine column, and I'm honored to be on a message board with someone of her insight and erudition!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/08/26_shock.html

Good stuff.

There is another motive for creating a terrorism futures market, entirely consistent with this column's premise. People in a position to know in advance about events which would influence futures prices, in fact, to determine them, would be able to make enormous profits on their investments. Greed is God.

in order to clean up, although that takes us further into tinfoil territory.

My partner's crackpot theory, actually, was that this was all just a way for the Pentagon to generate revenue--by selling these things and by playing the market themselves (insider trading)--so that they would have a nice slush fund that was never appropriated by Congress and could therefore be used for things like the Contras. I wouldn't rule it out.

Thanks for reading,

The Plaid Adder

Such a great writer and thinker! Always a joy to read when she graces us with her contributions.

as long as we're on the topic of disused words. If it makes you feel any better, I am so very taken that it would not matter how young, slim, or female you were. But thanks for reading!

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

:hi:

I replied to you on a post where you were talking about this. I replied because I had heard on CNBC just last week that one of the Investment companies was going to do this on their own. I tuned in to CNBC right in the middle of the report and was doing something else, but it was some well know financial muckety muck group that thought Poindexter's idea was a good one and so they were starting a fund! I am serious. I wish I had been able to write the name down.......and I hesitate to post again.....not have a link or a name. If I ever get more info. I will post here.

Again, your article is a good read, and reminder.....who knows what they wil come up with next!

And also as an entry in my livejournal:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/plaidder

Thanks for the info about the continuing scheme, BTW, I remember reading that and I couldn't friggin' believe it. I mean, I know these people are wingnuts but DAMN.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

Snip:

In theory, this market distills the best thinking of knowledgeable participants, the same way the stock market uncovers the consensus about whether a stock will go up or down.

And studies have shown that the Iowa market identifies the eventual presidential campaign winner nearly 100 percent of the time. It's more accurate than standard polls about three-quarters of the time.

But that doesn't mean a similar market would predict terrorist acts.

Investors who bet on the prices of corn or stocks -- or political campaigns -- have access to enormous amounts of information. Before you bet on corn prices six months from now, you can find out how many acres were planted and how much rain has fallen. You'll know how much of last year's crop is still in storage.

The less information you have, the weaker your ability to forecast. The Iowa market, for example, is much better at predicting outcomes of U.S. presidential elections than elections for Congress. It's quite poor at forecasting winners in other countries.

Investors in the Pentagon's terrorism futures market would have had precious little to work with. The terrorists certainly wouldn't volunteer information. Our intelligence agencies don't seem to know much about what terrorist groups are up to, and they aren't going to make public the bits they do know.

Critics were right -- the terrorism futures market was a cockamamie scheme. Good riddance to it.

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/dailytimes/2003/08/03/business/6449001.htm

Perhaps knowing the connections of funded terrorism to the market they WERE hoping to smoke out people in the know with the lure of more greed.
Kind of blatant, but greed does that and greed is very well protected in America today. Why they wouldn't settle for subtle market investments based on foreknowledge of attacks is a good question. But then indirectly, people with an eye to their behavior(chief among those our OWN intel secret investment people) could play if not the actual terrorist money people.

That goes to the labyrnthine unaccountability and competition in the compartmentalized Intel agencies. Maybe they thought we could smoke out our own double dealing, reticent and uncooperative intelligence locked in other bureaucratic agendas. Without reorganizing the Intel community or investigating maybe we could get our own murky, compromised black ops to ante up. A sort of separate stock for all players much the way the British Bank scandal operated, revealing EVERYONE on both sides or terror had dough there. When it fell apart no one on either side was taken down.

It all boils down to black madness though, as PA has noted.

Just what I've been looking for. Can you help with with some factual questions? I just need to know if the following statements are true or false. Thanks for your help.

1) Clinton, in contravention of the usual strategy, used mainly short-term borrowing to finance the debt.

2) The GAO uses the current short-term interest rates to calculate the long-term costs of this strategy.

3) Bush is financing the debt the same way and using this accounting trick.

4) The current deficits, adjusted for inflation, are the largest dollar amount in history.

I actually do not know anything about economics; I do theater studies. But I sure would be interested to know the answers to those questions...

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

Since he implied he had a working knowledge of economics.

I will try the econ forum; I posted this here because for a time I was unable to post thredas of my own. I can now, so I will head back over there.

RG

If you're serious about learning these things, maybe someone can help you there.

Plaid Adder is one of the best writers we have at DU.

Poindexter's plan for getting out of it was the capitalist equivalent of reading entrails. It's too bad that a lot of those entrails belong to our own soldiers.

That is haiku imagery worthy of a fine poet.

Am I losing my mind or is Bell's essay in principle, quite similar to Poindexter's concept... here is the link to Bell's infamous essay "Assasination politics" which along with other things like planting stink bombs in IRS offices... got him in a lot of trouble with the FBI. <http://www.tamerlane.ca/library/cp/ap.htm>

The explanation of the futures market was so well done I sent it to my apolitical brother. We had tried to hash it out together once, but finally gave up. Now we have a most cogent explanation.

Like I said, I ahve a hard time retaining this kind of information. I understand it while someone is explaining it to me, and then 20 minutes later, poof! all gone. But I have made an effort with the futures, because for some reason I find it fascinating. The other article chiburb excerpts above does a better job of explaining why the efficient market theory would not really apply to terrorism futures.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder