Quick update on NGDP futures

No one told me it was going to be hard to give away money!  Seriously, there are a few more complications than I anticipated, and I am now waiting for specific instructions from iPredict and Hypermind about how to proceed.  But it will get worked out.

Meanwhile the early Hypermind Q3 futures contract, with 100 euros in prize money, has now been upgraded to a combined Q3 and Q4 with 1000 euros in prize money. So it just became much more attractive.  Recall that at Hypermind, traders do not have to put up their own money–it’s not “gambling.”  But you do need to register first.  

Eventually we will deliver much more money for prizes at Hypermind.

Update:  I was sent the following information:

The real-time forecasts are published on this page, which requires the password: “illusion“.


The contracts are at about 34/35 right now, which means 3.4% to 3.5% annualized growth.  That seems like an opportunity.  🙂

PS.  Super busy this week.  All I have time for is to point out that the collapse of the Chinese economy, predicted for 20 years, once again failed to materialize in Q3.  Now some brave souls are predicting Chinese growth will slow over time.  You mean they won’t keep growing at 10% as they become highly developed?  I never would have guessed.



15 Responses to “Quick update on NGDP futures”

  1. Gravatar of Jason Smith Jason Smith
    21. October 2014 at 10:29

    In support of your “no-duh” argument for continued rapid economic growth in China, the information transfer model predicts about 8% RGDP growth (in very noisy data) through 2020 …


  2. Gravatar of Liberal Roman Liberal Roman
    21. October 2014 at 11:03

    OT: Can someone out there in the econ blogosphere do a good takedown of the latest derp coming from the inflationistas. Their new argument goes something like this:

    “Well, there has been no inflation in the CPI, but there has been inflation in the asset market! Look at the rebounding stock and real estate markets! That’s where the money has gone!”

    There are many things that instinctively seem wrong about that argument to me, but someone out there with formal knowledge of economics needs to do a thorough take down of this BS.

  3. Gravatar of Cameron Cameron
    21. October 2014 at 12:29

    Liberal Roman,

    You should publicly offer them a bet of some kind, if they aren’t willing to accept it/offer something reasonable, it’s hopeless.

  4. Gravatar of TravisV TravisV
    21. October 2014 at 14:03

    5-year inflation expectations are increasing!!!!!!


  5. Gravatar of Lorenzo from Oz Lorenzo from Oz
    21. October 2014 at 14:24

    Liberal Roman

    Asset prices represent expectations of future income and/or future capital gains. Money does not just randomly get spent on assets (which are, generally, on the larger size as purchases). Moreover, if expectations of future income and/or capital gains collapses, do people go out and spend money on goods and services, sending prices up? Or do they save/sit on their money/flee to safe assets?

    This “inflationary pressures went on assets” was claimed during the Great Moderation too. How did that go, inflation-wise?

    Yes, we use money to “bid” on both goods & services and on assets. But time-frames and scale, not quite the same (both in the spending and in the motivation), and that makes a difference. Particularly with inflation-targeting central banks.

  6. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    21. October 2014 at 14:31

    Liberal Roman,

    It is impossible to answer your question properly when you have not explained what it is you think is wrong with the statement that you say your “instinct” suggests is wrong.

    Do you reject the argument that increases in the money supply and any concomitant increase in spending does not affect all prices equally? If so, why?

    You say you want a smack down against an argument that you do not rationally know to be wrong, but only emotionally. How is that anything other than seeking help to justify prejudices and biases? That doesn’t sound admirable, IMO.

  7. Gravatar of Ted Sanders Ted Sanders
    21. October 2014 at 15:32

    Thanks for the heads up on the NDGP price. I just checked and right now the price of the NGDP contract is actually 4.7%, believe it or not. I suspect that someone accidentally submitted a buy order instead of a sell order (I did that on my first day). Or perhaps they’re trolling. Or perhaps they’re even laundering points (albeit quite poorly).

    I’ve bumped it back down to 3.1% for now.

    Best regards,

  8. Gravatar of benjamin cole benjamin cole
    21. October 2014 at 15:43

    Liberal Roman: the answer to what motivates the tight-money crowd is not found in economics but in the fields of psychiatry and sociology.

  9. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    21. October 2014 at 16:02

    Benjamin Cole:

    the answer to what motivates the loose-money crowd is not found in economics but in the fields of psychiatry and sociology.

  10. Gravatar of TravisV TravisV
    21. October 2014 at 19:12

    Benjamin Cole,

    What really motivates the tight money crowd is the Inflation Fallacy.


    The critical importance of macro is just harder to understand than it was during the days of William Jennings Bryan.

    Back then it was about agricultural production / prices.

    Now it’s about downward nominal wage rigidity.

  11. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    22. October 2014 at 01:51

    Jason, I’m not predicting growth that rapid.

    Liberal Roman, Not sure what’s more idiotic, their claim that stock price increases are “inflation” (did they speak of massive deflation in 2008?—No!) or the claim that money goes “into” markets. Is there a box on Wall Street where they keep all the money put “into” the stock market.

    Ted, Wow, that’s pretty volatile.

  12. Gravatar of Floccina Floccina
    22. October 2014 at 07:50

    No one told me it was going to be hard to give away money!

    Then you did not talk to Mike Munger. 🙂

    Sorry that my comment is off topic but the fact that it is hard to give money away is one of my favorite economic truths and so I could not resist a chance to publicize it.

  13. Gravatar of Ted Sanders Ted Sanders
    22. October 2014 at 09:00

    Wait, is your point that 3.4%/3.5% is too low? For the last two quarters, inflation has been 1.3% and 1.8%. So a real growth rate of 3% might imply a nominal growth rate of 4.5%. Maybe I made a mistake by selling down to 3.1%.


  14. Gravatar of Thomas Aubrey Thomas Aubrey
    22. October 2014 at 12:17

    Scott, Just wondering whether you might want to put a permanent link at the top of your website to the Hypermind NGDP Futures market? That way readers will constantly be aware of the market which should improve liquidity. Might also be helpful to ask other MM websites to have links too. In my experience ensuring there is more liquidity up front tends to have a much bigger effect on sustaining these kinds of markets in the medium term

  15. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    22. October 2014 at 17:42

    Thanks Floccina.

    Sorry Ted, that’s why I should not give Delphic advice–next time I’ll spell it out. Yes, 3.4% is a bit low for NGDP, but obviously not RGDP.

    Thomas, That’s a good idea, but first I’d like to get the monetary issue resolved, then I’ll do it–I wonder if I could get a feed with the current price?

Leave a Reply