Masse's response to my response

is here. To be clear, I share the goals stated in his note to me, specifically:

• that US-based (AND offshore) real-money prediction exchanges (a.k.a. betting exchanges) be legalized
• that prediction markets become more mainstream, especially in their forecasting dimension

and I also advocate against noncompetitive markets, including, as Chris puts it "an illegal and unregulated Irish prediction exchange having a de facto monopoly on prediction markets in America, with US citizens and US residents being forbidden to set up on US soil a competitor to this offshore operator. Crazy and unfair."

The material difference between us at this point in time is that I believe increasing the liquidity--more participants in the information markets and more accurate outcomes from that greater participation--will advance our cause more effectively than shutting a monopoly down. The NYSE and Major League Baseball are two market mechanisms that are effective monopolies (by congressional charter), and I advocate that the NYSE become more like Nasdaq and MLB like NFL. But I do not believe that shutting them down improves them, nor improves competition--it destroys it.

We have the same hopes, and the same antagonists. I believe that we are right, and that the current majority of legislators do not appreciate it. But realistically, elected legislators are not necessarily good at public policy or the law, they are good at getting votes. And a majority of voters are not good at public policy or the law, either.

Hopefully this blog is one voice that can change that over time, specifically when it comes to free trading of information futures. Thanks again for calling me out, Chris.