from Joe Conason's Journal on Salon.com:
<…>
On a somewhat lighter note, consider this takedown of the Pentagon's
loony (and now inoperative) Policy Analysis Market scheme, delivered by
an astute reader named Henry:
"Once you have a futures market, you have derivative instruments and
people selling them and speculating on them … Scenario: Some rich
clown doesn't like Tony Blair – so he puts $1 million on Blair getting
offed in six months. After three months, he doubles [the bet]. People
notice and jump on the bandwagon. Pretty soon, people are blowing
millions on the idea that Blair's dead meat.
"When it appears that it isn't going to happen because the seed money
was [bet] by someone who had no intention of offing Blair – but now
there are millions riding on it – some asshole is going to figure:
'Hey, it's [been] five months, and I don't see or hear any movement on
the Blair thing – I'm going to lose my shirt!'
"So, he hires some sleazy hit man to perforate Tony. Not even a
terrorist – but someone doing the work for the terrorists at the
behest of the logic of a market-speculation instrument … Now the
original options were placed for peanuts, so the originator gets filthy
rich, and he never had anything to do with Blair's death.
"And all these people who invested early in derivatives based on the
future options get rich. Their investment forced an assassination. It's
like these [Pentagon] people never heard of Heisenberg … That was the
evil of this whole thing."
++
twhid:
I must admit. I don't see the whole PAM thing as being totally evil or
wrongheaded. It's intriguing in a way. yes, betting on deaths seems
gruesome. but gaming the system seems like the real danger. but backers
of the plan have this to say about gaming the system, from wired news:
+++
<…> according to Pennock, the market academic.
"The very fact of the terrorist doing that (investing money in an
attack) would reveal his hand," he said. Prices would rise as the
terrorist invested his cash, and that would tip leaders off to the
potential for a strike.
"The market would know something is going to happen that people never
would have known otherwise," Pennock added.
There are problems with the PAM system, Pennock conceded. The market
only allows for speculating on preconceived ideas. Innovative terror
plots wouldn't make it to the PAM trading floor before they were put
into action. It seems unlikely, therefore, that PAM traders would have
foreseen al Qaeda's use of airplanes as missiles before the terror
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
+++
twhid:
If we had a futures market on African nation civil war deaths and
gov'ts willing to act on the resulting information, it may be a good
thing. for example, if everyone is betting on a civil war in country x
then the UN and it's nation members could concentrate diplomacy in that
area before the war broke out and hopefully divert bloodshed. of course
you would have a financial incentive for those betting on the bloodshed
to scuttle any diplomacy by whatever means at their disposal…
–
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>
more on PAM
-
Type: discussion
Comments
> +++
> twhid:
>
> If we had a futures market on African nation civil war deaths and
> gov'ts willing to act on the resulting information, it may be a good
> thing. for example, if everyone is betting on a civil war in country x
> then the UN and it's nation members could concentrate diplomacy in that
> area before the war broke out and hopefully divert bloodshed. of course
> you would have a financial incentive for those betting on the bloodshed
> to scuttle any diplomacy by whatever means at their disposal…
The above starts to sound like a certain Philip K. Dick story gone
Hollywood: Minority Report (zzzappy ending by the way); only at a more
detached systematic macrolevel rather than an individualized microlevel.
It is interesting to see how individual experience can be brought in and out
of politics according to the necessity of the situation. As abstract and
detached as the above argument sounds, it does have a certain appeal for
saving lives based on a scientific and capitalist system. Machiaveli meets
Capital.
eduardoN.
> I must admit. I don't see the whole PAM thing as being totally evil or
> wrongheaded. It's intriguing in a way. yes, betting on deaths seems
> gruesome. but gaming the system seems like the real danger.
I read it described as a federal betting parlor on crimes and attrocities.
It's stupid and twisted, hateful and revolting.
I hope you vote that loony son of a bitch out of office and restore some
responsibility and reasonable judgement to your government.
ja
At 22:25 -0700 7/30/03, Jim Andrews wrote:
>> I must admit. I don't see the whole PAM thing as being totally evil or
>> wrongheaded. It's intriguing in a way. yes, betting on deaths seems
>> gruesome. but gaming the system seems like the real danger.
>
>I read it described as a federal betting parlor on crimes and attrocities.
>It's stupid and twisted, hateful and revolting.
well yeah, that's what it is (was) but it may have had some value. it
may have theoretically been able to predict future events and with
that information the proper governmental agencies around the world
could attempt to stop them.
>
>I hope you vote that loony son of a bitch out of office and restore some
>responsibility and reasonable judgement to your government.
he's definitely a loony SOB and a very dangerous one.
and even tho i would love it if the f'ing shrub was personally
embarrassed and politically damaged by this PAM thing, most likely he
knew nothing of it. it's likely that not many in the higher levels of
the administration knew about it. from what i can tell, it was career
bureaucrats at DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) who
put it together with a measly $8mil. with or without the shrub this
project may have been put together.
and, like it or not, many great inventions have been developed first
by the military including the one we're using right now. PAM could
have yielded very important info, it could have yielded more
terrorist activity, it could have done both or neither. we'll never
know.
>
>ja
>
>
>+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>
> and, like it or not, many great inventions have been developed first
> by the military including the one we're using right now. PAM could
> have yielded very important info, it could have yielded more
> terrorist activity, it could have done both or neither. we'll never
> know.
truDat.
In the 1940's, having a computer calculating data seemed as absurd and
inhumane as the theories of PAM. But economists do often talk about the
world while making humanity just another business factor; it is simply part
of the methodology. That way of thinking does not always get out of their
circle though, and when it does, it is disturbing.
As to the computa, many of readers already know this, but for those who may
not:
Here is a good book on the computer being invented to calculate launch
tables for ballistic missiles during World War II:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802713483/qid59669441/sr=2-1/ref=
sr_2_1/002-9900060-9970423
and here are some free links:
http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/eniac-story.html
http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/ENIAC.Richey.HTML
http://www.ee.upenn.edu/~jan/eniacproj.html
http://www.computer.org/history/development/1946.htm
eduardoN.