World gdp growth from 2023 to 2100? (nominal USD, annualized, 10x amplified) (M10,000 subsidy)

Nominal US Dollars, not PPP adjusted, not inflation adjusted. Resolves prob to 10*((world gdp 2100 / world gdp 2023)^(1/77)-1)

If dollars cease to exist during the interval, I'll use the next largest fiat currency at the last available exchange rate from dollars to that currency. (e.g., if 1 USD = 4 Yuan just before the dollar ceases to exist, then the 2100 world gdp will be measured in Yuan and divided by 4 to convert it to the dollars that no longer exist)

Related arb-able markets:

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

Why nominal USD? Inflation adds way too much noise to the point that makes this question meaningless.

@RanaG You can create a separate market for inflation and subtract

bought Ṁ600 of NO

Found this because I wanted to find and/or create some similar markets but shorter term, like 5 and 10 years. Would also like to isolate productivity, population growth and inflation.

Does anything already exist like that? Anyone want to collaborate on best framing?

Do off world activities count (e.g. moon and mars colonies, or von Neumann probes)?

predicts NO

It is interesting that all the reputable 20-30y sovereign debt returns much less than the 6% we expect for nominal gdp growth. So your purchasing power as a percentage of the economy automatically declines if you invest in that. Probably first-world equity indexes do somewhat better than 6%, and developing market equity indexes are a wildcard because of rampant fraud and lack of minority shareholder rights.

This market is currently predicting a bit under 10 quadrillion GWP in 2100.

Trying to understand the formula. If we think it'll grow 1% per year I should bet... "Prob 10*1.01* or 10.1 price? So anything above ten percent a year's price is 100?

@StrayClimb sorry I forgot a -1 in the formula after you raise it to the power of (1/77) but before you multiply it by 10. 1% per year would be 10% in this market, and anything above 10% resolves YES.

@JonathanRay ah great thanks. It's tough people can't bet below zero or above ten but it should be interesting still. Making a chart so people don't have to run the calc themselves might get more people joining

bought Ṁ2,500 of YES

Given you paid to boost this, I’ll leave some feedback.

My initial thought when I see this market is basically, why would I buy this if I’ll be dead before it resolves? I think conceptually it is very good, but ideally a market like this would have some way of returning funds (quicker than current loans, which don’t return profit) to make it worthwhile.

I’m buying some anyway because it’s a very cool market. I think it will eventually resolve to 100% but I’m not going to buy it there or obviously I have nobody to sell to if I ever want to profit, and I’ll be waiting 100 years.

Potential future problem could be if the global currency changes, which metrics would you use to compare future GDP to current day?

Thanks for spending time to test new ideas despite the problems, I hope better tools become available to incentivise this type of investing/predicting.

@Gen I think manifold loans make the risk free rate asymptote around 4% for any duration, and resale value makes it worth investing in things that won't resolve in your lifetime (like tech stocks that haven't ever paid a dividend and won't in your lifetime).

If dollars cease to exist during the interval, I'll use the next largest fiat currency at the last available exchange rate from dollars to that currency. (e.g., if 1 USD = 4 Yuan just before the dollar ceases to exist, then the 2100 world gdp will be measured in Yuan and divided by 4 to convert it to the dollars that no longer exist)

predicts YES

@JonathanRay I think these markets could benefit from some type of system that enables them to “resolve at market” at random (or partially do so) to encourage price accuracy and an opportunity to cash out and discourage manipulation

This market in particular does have the ability to track onto a real world thing, but ultimately there is no reason to buy it, kind of like /JamesDillard/will-ai-wipe-out-humanity-before-th Which is trading at 35% even though it should be 1% and resolves in 100 years

I still think it’s a cool idea though. Like your comparison to a stock that doesn’t pay dividends, if enough people buy in it will self perpetuate, but there is always the possibility that they will decide to return funds to shareholders. If people stopped buying growth stocks, they’d start issuing dividends. That isn’t the case with markets like this

@Gen at any point, you can sell your shares at the market clearing price (in this case a highly subsidized one, so you even get an immediate and consistently good price). Why force those who don't want to to do so through early resolution?

predicts YES

@RobertCousineau I’m not saying anyone should be forced, but evidently, people don’t care about markets that won’t resolve before they die

predicts NO

@Gen Many stocks won’t pay dividends before you die but their resale value still tracks the underlying business.

predicts YES

@JonathanRay Yeah, we already had this exact discussion: at any time, those stocks can declare a dividend (my suggestion above). If a company said it wouldn’t return any money to shareholders until 2500 we might not see the same behaviour.

That risk doesn’t exist for real world stocks anyway. If nobody wanted to buy growth stocks, and they stopped tracking at a reasonable price relative to the underlying assets, they’d simply start declaring dividends. The possibility to return money to shareholders is the reason they are attractive investments.

predicts NO

@Gen If any of the FAANG companies declared tomorrow that it will never pay dividends until 2500 I don’t think the stock price would change materially. Buybacks are equivalent but more tax-efficient and appropriate whenever insiders think the stock is underpriced. I routinely do market making towards my actual credence on stuff that won’t resolve until after I’m dead, because I think if I’m right the price will tend to move in my favor in anticipation of resale

predicts YES

@JonathanRay Sure, you can’t do buybacks here either? You need a “bigger sucker”. For the purposes of this argument, there is no meaningful difference between a buyback and a dividend. Company money returning to shareholders is the only relevant component, which cannot happen on a manifold market.

Expecting the price to move, so you can resell to someone else who cannot benefit in their lifetime, might feel like it’s a clever thing to do but it’s totally valueless. If I sell an IOU for a bar of gold, but I tell everyone that you cannot cash it until the year 99999999999999, what do you think the value of that IOU is? It’s obviously not worth a bar of gold, and the only reason to buy it, is to resell it, until time approaches a reasonable distance from the activation year.

IF the bar of gold had 1% chipped off one year and distributed to the person holding the IOU, it would be a different story.. the asset would be worth more, even if it still wasn’t worth exactly the same as a bar of gold.

If the bar of gold had a board, with a fiduciary responsibility to their IOU holders, they would be pressured to chip some off, distribute it or buy it back, whenever the price dropped too far. That’s what keeps growth stocks in balance.

predicts NO

@Gen I that case you’re chaining the counterparty risk through 99999999999 years which is why the IOU loses most of its value relative to actual gold. If you’re trying to predict things far in the future there’s inevitably some risk that manifold no longer exists, but that affects the Yes and No sides equally unless one of the outcomes is correlated with manifold still existing. So it should still be GTO in most cases to arb things to the correct probability no matter how far in the future they are

predicts YES

@JonathanRay Yeah, except instead of counterparty risk, it’s just “party” risk, lmao, because it’s about the user not existing, not manifold.

Yes, it affects YES and NO equally, by discouraging both 100%. It’s totally pointless, which is why nobody trades markets 100 years out seriously. There is no difference between a market 100 years out and a meme stock that exists to be manipulated on a whim (knowing it will never be forcibly resolved to an underlying condition, before everyone trading it is dead)

Maybe in 40 years this market will start tracking closer to reality.

predicts NO

@Gen You can get rich in the short term by correcting mispricings of very long term markets. You don’t have to wait for resolution to get paid. You just have to have to wait for other people to update.

predicts YES

@JonathanRay Obviously you can, but there’s no reason to do it. Trading on a market that won’t/can’t resolve in your lifetime is literally just waiting for a bigger sucker to resell to. There is no underlying value if the market won’t resolve

predicts NO

@Gen So basically we disagree about mana discount rates. You think a payoff in 4000 is worth less than I do. So it follows that you think my resolves yes in 4000 market is overpriced. Please buy some NO at 1% so you can sell it at 90% when the yes holders run out of greater fools to sell to ;)

predicts YES

@JonathanRay a payoff in 2000 years is worthless to me, yes, if you think it has value, that's ok, but I'm not going to ever open that market. I participated in this one because it was a cool idea, but it has unfortunately proven totally worthless as well

I won't buy NO, because I would not expect anyone else to buy NO either... Same goes for buying YES. It is totally pointless, as the market will never resolve. It doesn't matter what the resolution criteria are, it's literally a game of who has more mana to swing it, and there is no reason (other than people's immediate bias to the question) that anyone should favour YES over NO.

If you are so bought in to this value proposition of the 2000 year payoff, please put a limit order at 99% YES for all of your mana, for your risk-free return.