pull down to refresh

I came across this old Bryan Caplan post about betting and libertarian values where he wonders whether politicians would be more trustworthy if they were required to put their money where their mouths were: if they want to enact a policy, they need to make sizable public bets on the outcomes they expect -- if they aren't willing to bet on it, how serious are they about the policy in the first place?
Then, of course, I thought of the famous Nancy Pelosi portfolio trackers. Now there's a politician who seems to be willing to bet on the outcomes of the policies she advocates for!
I feel like she's closer to the precise opposite, since she was putting her money precisely where her mouth wasn't.
Unless I missed all the times she was upfront about trying to enrich various cronies (or impoverish others).
Caplan's GMU colleague, Robin Hanson, talks about integrating prediction markets into politics. I'd be down with their votes being attached to a requirement to take sizeable positions on the outcome they're claiming will result.
reply
libertarian and politicians are antagonistic words to me
reply
102 sats \ 0 replies \ @Catcher 7 Jul
Wrong territory, should be ~lol
reply
Hahaha
reply