Boom Goes the Dynamite: Should A Terrorism Futures Market Be Revisited?

READ MORE: Al Qaida, Event Betting, London Terror Threat, Terror Betting

With the latest Al Quaida threat against jittery London and the U.S. is it not reasonable to see that a terrorism futures market would in some way be beneficial? In 2003 the Pentagon’s plan to offer up a terrorism futures market via Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was quickly eliminated amidst fears of potentially encouraging terrorist acts and the thorny public relations issues involved in such a project. Retired Admiral John Poindexter oversaw the project, but retired when the controversy became too great. Look at this article from Fortune magazine on how futures markets like Intrade are sometimes the best indicators of event trends:

Whether or not you want to invest in current events, Intrade is a fascinating exercise in the power of the marketplace to anticipate the future. Its trading data have proven to be remarkably accurate. For instance, Intrade never wavered in predicting that George W. Bush would be reelected in 2004, and it called 33 out of 34 Senate races as well (it failed in Alaska, where contract volume was minimal). It also correctly signaled that Cardinal Ratzinger would be chosen as the new Pope, arguably the most secret vote on the planet. “Unlike a poll which asks, ‘Who would you vote for?’ we are essentially asking, ‘Who do you think will win?’ and then, ‘Who will you put money on to win?’ ” says Delaney. “Markets have an incredible ability to suck out information. They can be wrong—but not as much as opinion polls.”

Terror Betting Torpedoed [CBS News]
Future’s Bright for Terror Betting [Buzzle]
Betting on Acts of Terrorism [IndyMediaUK]