Via Nieman, here’s a refreshingly old-fashioned response to Kalshi and Polymarket. Sports writers are protesting a NYTimes deal with Kalshi because it will force them to favor certain teams. Even if they stay honest, the CONNECTION will destroy trust in their honesty.
Why old-fashioned? Large-scale betting on sports is extremely old. Honest sportsmen and writers have been fighting it for centuries.
Large-scale betting on elections is new in this country. I’m sure it was happening beneath the surface but it was never considered or prohibited by anti-gambling laws. Betting on popes is very old.
Constants and variables.
When a result doesn’t truly matter in real life, people will make bets on the odds. Those bets are passive or spectator actions, looking solely at a description or number.
When the outcome of an event makes a real difference, people will put money into the action itself, not a post-hoc description. Will I go to the grocery store this morning? If I want to eat tonight, I’ll spend the money and time to make the trip and buy food. I won’t bet on whether I can eat tonight or not.
The action IS the bet.
Now a political question. Will the street be fixed so I can get to the store? If I know that the government is more likely to fix the street after I bribe Councilman Hanson, I’ll pay the bribe. I won’t simply make a side bet on whether O’Malley or Hanson wins the election.
Before the ‘good government movement’ destroyed retail politics, the outcome of an election made a difference in real life. Some politicians had a record of getting shit done so we can go to the store. Other politicians had a record of jacking around and letting the streets rot.
Now all politicians jack around, so elections are irrelevant to real life in the same way that football games or popes are irrelevant to real life. Now we can only bet on political teams instead of TAKING ACTION TO INFLUENCE POLITICIANS.
Polistra's Mill 