Michael Lorrey wrote:
> > So, ... can you add this up? Sounds like <$30,000 - that right?
> > What probability of success would you give for that amount?
> > And how do you know this is a "minor" law change?
> >
> > Let's get real. If I gave you $50,000, what penalty would you agree
> > to pay me if you failed to get the bill passed? $100,000 perhaps?
>
>What is this? Legislation futures? ;)
>$30k sounds about right, tho I'm not sure of the size of the Nevada
>legislature houses and committees.
I'll note that you have not accepted my $100K figure or proposed an
alternative amount.
>It is a 'minor' law change because it simply expands the definition of
>lawful things to bet on. You can be sure that the state gambling
>establishment would go for it, and they already have a sizable amount of
>paid-for power in the capital. The only problem would be they'd
>definitely put a limit on what idea futures are legal. For example, no
>futures would be allowed that involved predicting physical harm coming
>to anyone, or destruction of something. Nothing about elections or
>overthrowing governments (in case a candidate tries to finance their
>election with futures). Nothing about passage of new laws or overturning
>of existing ones.
You can be sure that the state gambling establishment would NOT go for it.
They have already had many occasions to consider and reject proposals
to expand the gambling topics. They fear that a scandal, like someone
throwing the Oscars to win bets, would lead to a ban on all gambling.
They therefore want gambling limited only to sports questions.
Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:54 MDT