This will be resolved based on my judgement of the vibes of top Rationalist voices in 4 years.
If through their Tweets and Substack posts, I get the sense that they are happy with Trump's reforms, and that what got done was extremely impactful, vastly outweighs any harms, and was more sizable than what other post WWII presidents have accomplished, then I will resolve YES. Otherwise, NO.
EDIT: This would be judged from 1960 with JFK (68 years before 2028).
1,000
3.00@Balasar The market will probably move a lot in January or so. So you can speculate on it now without riding it out till 2028.
@Weezing I've never been a Trumpist, but the set up for Trump's second term makes me optimistic. Check with any other business leader — I think the sentiment is common.
@JamesGrugett So you don't like Trump, but also think there is a good chance he will be the best president in decades?
@Weezing I despise Trump and worked pretty hard to convince everyone I knew not to vote for him (both in 2016 and 2024). But I'll admit to some chance (much lower than 18%) that most government workers end up fired and that that turns out to have a huge positive effect. And also that none of the risks of another Trump term come to pass. It might be hard to convince me that it was a good idea ex ante to elect him but positively impactful is at least conceivable. Which makes it a great thing to wager about!
@dreev There is always some chance for anything of course. But as you say 18% is quite a bit given:
Long time period we compare it to
Trump was already in office and did not achieve much
He seems to have picked bunch of unqualified yes men into his next goverment
It should resolve based on the opinion of people who currently dont like Trump, so they have to change their mind
Trump's goal isn't to reform goverment to be more effective, but to get revenge against his oponents and make sure he does not go to jail
But I guess you could say that if you think that there is 20% chance he will be the best president, but 40% he will be the worst president and in that case you wont support him even though you believe he has high potential upside.
@JamesGrugett I have also noticed greater enthusiasm for Trump now that he is elected and threatening businesses and countries and people that are insufficiently enthusiastic.
@makeworld The current 18% does seem high. Now I'm wondering how it will resolve if, to pick a particular corner-casey outcome, Scott Alexander in particular says it was less bad than he thought and could end up turning out positive in the long run but in the short run it's too ambiguous to say. And say other top rationalist voices are mixed, with lots of strong-seeming arguments on both sides.
Also it would help to identify candidates for the current record holder for most positively impactful term since 1960. JFK's "let's go to the freaking moon" speech was 1962. If the bar to clear is "putting humans on the moon" then I definitely want to push Trump's probability lower.
@makeworld This is a prediction market and I'm making my bet. 18% is reasonable in my world model. The ambition for reform is greater than the terms in the last 68 years IMO.
@dreev It would not count unless several rationalist voices are strongly on board with this thesis. Scott saying the term could have been positive is helpful if others are taking a strong stance, but it's not enough on its own.
Yes, super interested in which terms people decide are most impactful. The moon landing was overrated IMO. Also JFK just gave a speech, which is not the same as seeing it through.
@JamesGrugett Yeah, I'm very 😍 that our disagreement cashes out as different predictions we can bet on.
To pick another corner case, what if Scott Alexander himself argues strongly for yes but he seems to be in a clear minority among rationalists? (I know ultimately it's based on vibes but I think these hypotheticals are helpful in making our predictions about those vibes.)
As for the moon landing, I guess JFK was assassinated about a year after that speech and Lyndon Johnson was the one in office for most of the time NASA was getting us to the moon. I'm surprised you don't see it as that impactful. And NASA is government-funded so I'm surprised you don't think it falls under the umbrella of impact of a presidential term. Hearing your opinion on more historical examples of impact from presidential terms I think would also help with betting in this market.
@dreev its 18% because there's no real incentive to bet on markets that resolve in 4 years for a tiny payout
@Balasar Fair point. On the other hand, probably this market will react if, for example, Elon Musk lasts more than 11 days. So it's not crazy to be speculating on it now.
@JamesGrugett Are you not at all worried about the deluge of MAGA loyalists that he will inevitably appoint as federal judges?
@ShadowyZephyr The role of a judge is to conservatively apply the law as written/intended. It's an exercise for the reader which judges are better at that, but I think MAGA judges' failures are probably magnified in the same way Trump's are.
@JamesGrugett 18% is like 1 in 5ish odds it's better odds than rolling a die and living in the world where it rolls 6.
@JamesGrugett Surely the question isn't 'an exercise for the reader' because it isn't about what judges are actually more true to the word of the law, but who will help more people?
From a utilitarian standpoint, I can't see how a Trump term is going to be positive. There's just so many bad things: Political polarization and division up, faith in the election system down, our foreign relations will be terrible, the administration will be a mess because of all the loyalists appointed as Cabinet members, not to mention judges we can't get rid of because they're in for life. Trust in media will dip even more when it's already at an all time low, same for science and doctors (RFK as head of HHS, lmao), along with education and pretty much any institution. The rule of law will be demolished because a criminal got in - politicians are abandoning precedents around responsibility and conflicts of interest, Trump is already grifting and selling Bibles. The ACA will be gone, if his tariff plan goes through the economy will be hurt, not to mention sending ICE into a bunch of cities. The party is in shambles, serious institutionalists are being cast out because they don't want to support Trump.
If rationalists say that the paring down of federal government and libertarian tech reforms (admittedly probably good things) outweigh everything else, then I think they are in a bubble. Arguing "but it maybe reduced xrisk chance by 0.1% by allowing tech field more leeway" is a Pascal's Mugging problem.
What are the funniest ways this could happen? Inspired by the argument that GWB is the best president of our lifetimes due to PEPFAR, I've thought of a (obviously ridiculous) possibility:
Trump cuts PEPFAR, and gets tons of negative press from this. This leads to the #Resistance all becoming effective altruists to rebel against Trump's cruel cutting of foreign aid, causing the EA movement to become permanently so large and influential that it figures out how to solve global poverty and/or end all of the worst diseases affecting the global poor.
@PlasmaBallin Basically, any situation of, "Trump does something bad, but the backlash is bigger than the original bad thing, so it has net positive results," would be a funny way to fulfill this.