why aren't humans traded on the markets yet?

They still do it the old fashioned way in parts of Africa and the middle east

make sure everyone shorts this "intern in IB"

Is this a slavery joke in 2025 or are you actually this stupid?

Interesting degenerate discussion. The thing is that betting on someone's outcome already exists: Epstein outcomes, Trump, Netanyahu, mayoral elections, criminal charges in notorious cases, etc., but we can't replicate it at individual level because of a mixture of transparency into one’s decisions (including the costs of maintaining that transparency), conflicts of interest and manipulation when the subject of the trade knows his actions can shift expectations about him, and external manipulation when others push you toward or away from a decision.

On top of that, there are billions of people worldwide, which means massive information asymmetry about someone’s potential, mindset, history of decisions, or track record of successes and failures. This creates an illiquid market: if you know your friend extremely well, you might take a position based on that knowledge. But I, as the counterparty, would hesitate, since I’d assume you have superior information. In that setup, the opposite bet is rarely taken, because the outcome isn’t random. 

For the cases that I mentioned (Epstein, Trump, famous people, etc.), the reason to bet is that information is publicly available, and people believe their judgment gives them an edge + there is an expectation that those people aren't involved in those markets to manipulate them and whoever is betting on those market has no power to manipulate their decisions so as to get a material gain. However, on the setting you propose, if I’m considering betting on your friend John, I may assume the other side is John himself or someone close to him, who is 100% certain of the outcome. If I decide to outsmart and say that John won't do it, then you might tell John to not do it and you'll split the profits or just persuade him, which would influence him not to, meaning the other side wins regardless. It’s a zero-sum game where, 99.5% of the time, the other side has an information edge and has the ability to manipulate the outcome given that it would be an extremely illiquid market because of those aymmetries in information.

Also, there is the extremely pervesive initatives to destroy someone's life to get a material gain. If you be that Michael will advance in its career, and there's a 100% chance of that happening with a  pool of $980k put at play in case someone dares to take the opposite decision, then I might take 2% position on the opposing side (put 20k to make a1M pool), and then sabotage Michael's career at whatever length needed so I can win the bet, effectively getting a payoff of +4900% (people kill themselves for 5k, so you can imagine the temptation of making 980k for those who really need the money...)

P.S. a correction, this isn’t securitization. Crypto/Gen Z guys like to call it that to sound serious so they sound serious guys putting money at play like Soros breaking the BoE, but it’s just gambling. Same with “coin IPOs.”

I think you are 200 years or so too late. Abe Lincoln (and many people in the Civil War) died for this not to be a thing. It's impressive you have come up with a degen policy that would somehow not be supported by both sides in America, given how polarized we are!

Sounds like a more retarded version of NFTs

I don't think OP could safely share a room with literal slaves that crossed the middle passage in 18th century Virginia. Comparing their trauma to wage work for an upper middle class salary and a lifestyle in the 99.999th% of every human that has ever lived......they'd prob deck you and I wouldn't blame them 

I get the joke but it lacks self awareness imo

Spreads would be too wide because there's too much risk that the reference asset trades his own stock ahead of an event he controls.  

I feel like this was kinda, sorta, just a little outlawed by 1865. 

Finally! My dreams of buying and selling people has been voiced, oh wait, the 13th Amendment.

This was similar to indentured servitude in the early Colonial days in the US.

That's a very thought-provoking question that gets right to the heart of what it means to be a human in a market-driven world. While it's interesting to think about from a purely economic standpoint, the fundamental reason humans can't be traded on markets comes down to both legal and ethical constraints.

Our societies and legal systems are built on the idea that humans are not property. This is a core philosophical principle that prevents the commodification of people. From an economic perspective, our "value" isn't static; it's constantly changing based on skills, health, and a host of unpredictable factors, which would make pricing an impossible task. It's a fascinating thought experiment, but thankfully, not a reality.

 

Such a zog slop comment

Sounds wild basically turning students’ career paths into tradable assets like a stock market for life outcomes.

That sounds like dystopian fantasy finance, where people's lives are reduced to tradable commodities.

It's basically a moral and legal dead end. Once you start securitizing people, you remove consent from the equation. Even if someone 'voluntarily' sold shares of their future income, it would still turn into debt servitude under another name