But don't you see? It's a market… and markets, like, have information, and its all markety, and there are these rationale actors, and, um, ...information!A little unfair, but still funny. Despite my own affinity for things markety, I have to confess my skepticism about betting markets and idea futures as predictors of truth values. I’m reasonably confident that prices of propositional assets – that is, assets that cash out when the truth of a proposition is revealed – at least correlate to true likelihoods. I’m less sanguine about the specific difference in prices reflecting a specific difference in the true probabilities. I say this with full knowledge that some really smart people disagree. Since the reasons for my reservations are still inchoate and possibly ill-founded, I’ll resist airing them.
As for Kerr’s particular objection, however, another reader gives the correct answer:
I would assume that quite a lot of vetting and research occurs before a Supreme Court nominee is selected, and that research is not done by Bush's inner circle but by the inner circle's staff members/drones. Presumably these drones have some insight into who they've been asked to research. They also know how thoroughly and extensively different individuals were researched, and how recently that research was conducted.
The drones would therefore have a good idea who was on the short list. Are the drones placing bets on tradesports on the basis of this information? I don't know, but I have no doubt whatsoever that they've been talking to people who talked to other people who put bets on tradesports.