Here is a good example of a case where we should make someone bet money to prove how sure they are of something, an issue discussed in the previous post.
David Brooks writes:
But, remember, the debt-ceiling limit has to pass. If it doesn’t, there will be ruination for all involved. Moreover, if the two parties do come up with a compromise, the rewards would be enormous. President Obama would have averted a national catastrophe, put the government on a sustainable path and transformed the atmosphere in Washington. He’d surely win re-election in a walk. Boehner and McConnell would go down in history as the men who tamed the federal leviathan. The forces of fear and hope push powerfully toward a deal. [emphasis added]
Brooks is saying that Obama would surely win reelection if the debt-ceiling is passed. If this were true, Brooks could multiply his wealth by 1.7 by putting his money where his mouth is on Intrade. Is he going to do this? Probably not. Why? Because he is lying.
A more minor quibble: Brooks argues that all “the rewards would be enormous” for republican leaders as well as Obama if the debt-ceiling passes. I disagree with reading of the political situation. If a political event seals Obama’s chances of winning the presidency, then surely there should be a good number of republicans who do not see that event as having brought “enormous rewards.” The republicans should at least get enough concessions from Obama on the debt-ceililng passage such that it would not seal his chances of victory in order for the passage to be declared as having brought such great rewards to the republicans themselves.