[extropy-chat] Betting on Global Warming

[Brett Paatsch]

Robin Hanson wrote:

> Several of you have speculated on legal loopholes.  The biggest one
> at the moment is that corporations have a lot of discretion to base
> bonuses on whatever they like.  So internal corporate markets are being
> pursued by a dozen or two companies at the moment.  The other possible
> loophole I keep thinking about is a charity.  If the charity helps
> match bettors, but doesn't take any sort of cut or fee for helping
> those bettors, it seems possible that the charity itself would not
> be prosecuted.

Are you using charity as a synonym for not-for-profit? Reason I ask is
that I'm not currently across the legal distinctions, if any between 
charity and not-for-profit, in the US, but in strictly economic terms,
it seems to me that even a charity is going to want something to 
offset the costs of hosting such a service. 

I think of a charity as slightly different to a not-for-profit perhaps
because charity has positive connotations to most people whereas
not-for-profit may not.  A successful charity is likely to be protective
of its brand-image whereas a not-for-profit set up for the specific
purpose of providing cover, would provide some cover, but not the
same level of cover.  I don't know of anyone calling their kid 
not-for-profit. 


It would be analogous to a structure set up purely for the purposes
of avoiding tax. The public through the media would be able to 
relate to the sentiment of wanting to avoid tax but not necessarily 
care if a shell structure established primarily to do just that that
happened to be a not-for-profit took a full on media and political
hit. 

Brett Paatsch