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"It feels like one easy decision by the U.S. president is quietly killing so many lives"
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/31/world/asia/trump-usaid-freeze.html
Corner case question: Imagine, hypothetically, that Scott Alexander is a strong NO, that Eliezer Yudkowsky is a "maybe kinda sort of", and a seemingly clear majority of other rationalist voices are arguing for YES. The overall vibes are something like "surprisingly plausible" or "hotly contested". In that unlikely universe, how would you imagine you'd resolve this?
@dreev Good question, I'm not sure. For something that is on the edge like this, I think we'd need to experience it.
FWIW, I think it's much more likely that rank and file rationalists will think NO, while the top few think YES.
If this wasn't a vibes-based market where the creator has the largest YES stake, I'd bet much more NO.
I've skimmed the comments, but not seen much clarification of who the "top rationalist voices" are considered to be. I'm very confident that Scott Alexander won't come out saying Trump was the best president of the last 68 years, but I don't follow other rationalists and some of them might have some pretty weird views. (Like, I'm sure you won't do this, but could somebody make the case that Musk is a rationalist?)
It would be very helpful if you could add a list to the description of 4 or 5 names you expect to be considering.
@Fion I think that "resolve based on my judgment of the rationalist vibes" is entirely different from "my own gut sense of Trump's impact". First, I predict there won't be any ambiguity about this. (Almost all of my probability mass is on OBVIOUS NO and almost all the rest is on things like "holy crap, Trump, through no personal merit, managed to massively improve the economy". Leaving almost none for "well, kind of, if you look at it like so...". If there does turn out to be ambiguity like that, I imagine James will find a way to minimize his conflict of interest.
In conclusion, I think it's perfectly safe to go all in on NO on this (I am, at least at the current price of 18%).
@dreev oh yeah, I wouldn't take part in the market at all if it was just the market creator's opinion.
I think your breakdown is sensible, and I think you're probably right that it's safe to be very heavy on NO. The one thing I'm worried about though is that I just don't know the rationalist scene well enough to be sure there aren't some pro-Trump people among them who will claim against all the evidence that he was great. (Obviously we'd hope that anybody who calls themselves a "rationalist" would be more rational, but I'm not too confident.)
And rationalists like heterodoxy! They say that reversed stupidity is not intelligence but sometimes I worry they forget it...
Anyway, all of my worries would be cleared up if James would add a list of "prominent rationalists" he intends to use to resolve the market.
Rationalists like foreign aid, even if the US gov is doing it, right?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/24/politics/us-freezes-foreign-aid/index.html
@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.