I question whether it’s wise to make new rules during a financial crisis. I predict that a mature futarchy will set rules in advance of a crisis that will better deal with it than rules made during the crisis would. (In an immature futarchy, markets will influence deciders somewhat like how polls influence them now).
I question whether it’s wise to make new rules during a financial crisis.
But unstable betting markets may be shouting out for new rules in a crisis. We don’t know in what direction the betting markets will be compromised.
I’m also less convinced that we can plan, ahead of time, for the best ways of getting through all crises that affect the financial markets. Stupid example: a foreign attack triggers a stockmarket sell off. Doing nothing is not the correct thing to do—but what is? What if it’s a misfired nuke from a future somewhat-reformed and apologising North Korea—now complicated decision have to be taken, highly dependent on the exact situation. We can’t plan for these situations, so if we can’t use the betting markets reliably, we need to preserve some other decision making skills.
I envision markets generating rules, but not making all decisions. I don’t see any indication that futarchy would take much discretion away from the people who currently make military decisions.
If we can maintain that kind of balance between the deciders and the betting markets, things should be fine. The problem would be if the betting markets become dominant in decision making (and choosing how to respond to a seemingly accidental firing is a political, not a military decision).
I question whether it’s wise to make new rules during a financial crisis. I predict that a mature futarchy will set rules in advance of a crisis that will better deal with it than rules made during the crisis would. (In an immature futarchy, markets will influence deciders somewhat like how polls influence them now).
But unstable betting markets may be shouting out for new rules in a crisis. We don’t know in what direction the betting markets will be compromised.
I’m also less convinced that we can plan, ahead of time, for the best ways of getting through all crises that affect the financial markets. Stupid example: a foreign attack triggers a stockmarket sell off. Doing nothing is not the correct thing to do—but what is? What if it’s a misfired nuke from a future somewhat-reformed and apologising North Korea—now complicated decision have to be taken, highly dependent on the exact situation. We can’t plan for these situations, so if we can’t use the betting markets reliably, we need to preserve some other decision making skills.
I envision markets generating rules, but not making all decisions. I don’t see any indication that futarchy would take much discretion away from the people who currently make military decisions.
If we can maintain that kind of balance between the deciders and the betting markets, things should be fine. The problem would be if the betting markets become dominant in decision making (and choosing how to respond to a seemingly accidental firing is a political, not a military decision).