Do you want to learn about power laws to where it literally hurts? Business it is! Thats why business people (more, "Fat Tony" like) are sometimes wiser than MBAs and academics. The key word here is, "sometimes" and it's worth thinking about why MBAs and academic financialists aren't, "entrepreneuring" beyond, "they weren't successful."
Thank you for you continued output! If you've got a minute I've got a question that you might help resolve; I'm wondering how we as admirers of the Incerto works might address this nascent criticism-- whilst, "skin in the game" does indeed make a lot of sense it seems like that historically western economic culture seems to explode when we see the emergence of the limited liability as it allows the ruinous risk of entrepreneurship to be mitigated at least partially by off-setting the potential downside to the public (the term "invisible mouth" might be meaningful here) and in lieu of the social malignancies this seems to foster-- (we might consider William Blake and Dickens as well as Chaplin's, "Modern Times;") -that the incredible amount of wealth this ends up creating for society is so significant that in lieu of, "common sense" intuitions there's some obvious give-and-take that must be considered when we start throwing around the Code of Hammurabi likes it's something to live up to. As much as a I hate tail-risks I don't like the idea of the carpenter that framed my parents home being prosecuted due to an unseen materials error. Simultaneously the downside we all share from toxic incentive structures is so significant that progressives that are worried social progress since World War II could be undone by populist extremism working its way into mainstream politics. There's an invisible hand, an invisible mouth, and an invisible asshole. In archaic cultures they eat with their hand. They wipe with another. It seems like in the Incerto dialogue we're asking, "how much can I wipe my asshole with my hand without exposing myself to sickness whilst mitigating the risk of wiping my shitty hand on the common cloth which might make other sick?" The historical gold standard is digging latrines for the power-law performant excellence class ie. Harvard/Yale/MIT sphere of influence and foundations for the middle class and the poor that are far enough away from the latrines that even if there's a significant shit storm it's just the latrines that are negatively effected. It seems like that while we love to, "shit" on the financial class for Enron, Dotcom, mortgage backed securities, ect... we forget it's the outgrowth of the intellectualized upper middle class (IYI) that parallels the development of almost every major social development in the west since the beginning of the post-war period. I don't think this is a coincidence. How can we create massive amounts of wealth like we saw in the post-war period without being exposed to tremendous downsides? The answer can't be a simple utilitarian heuristic. It requires as Richard Rorty describes, "abandoning ethical principles as an excuse to not think about things." If I am a communist with my family does that mean that I might tolerate situations where my family is engaged in malignant risk taking at another's peril? Certainly not. That doesn't make sense but does that mean that if I apply this heuristic rigorously that I would have an equal or lesser amount of tolerance in the larger group where-in I would be a Libertarian? That works idealistically but are Saudi oil sheiks beheading their kids in public for breaking haram? Did the United States foster a vibrant culture in the 19th and 20th century because of our stringent laws or due to our tradition of stringently challenging those laws? If we're to make an appeal to utilitarianism we end up having a conversation about, "how anti-social we're permitted to be in-regard to some scaling of some group one is involved in" which practically just ends up fueling the fire of the toxic risk takers. It seems contemporary society(s) and institutions needs to go beyond, "mitigating the individual risk of executive decision makers by exposing the group to a potentially fatal or malignant unseen downside" (ie. toxic neoliberalism) but at the same time we need to be able to, "harness" the potential for, "toxic tail risking" rather than trying to snuff it out and expecting the seen and unseen positives to remain. Rich. Low exposure to downsides. Ethical. Pick two. I'm wanting to be proven wrong here. This is the key issue of 21 century power dynamics. It applies to the CCP, to ultra rich Saudis, Berkshire heirs, the U.S. Government remaining solvent through the 21st century and many other situations where in preserving system dynamicism. My thinking is that you either get pragmatism where-in the potential downside is shared by the decision making process itself which is itself a kind of conversation between stakeholders which is effectively just democracy in all its geographical mutations or we try to find ways to apply shared stakeholder heuristics (constitutions, charters) to dynamically changing criteria which is way, way too close to, "resiliency vs. antifragility;" in the negative sense. Taking institutions at naive face value and having the means to enter into determinative discourse when institutions fail either major stakeholders including the public or their own established values seems like a real way forward in the sense that it's dynamic enough to meet unseen future challenges but can be defined critically enough that we know when, "conversation has failed." SITG makes a lot of sense as a kind of intuition and I think it has enormous value in the sphere of policy making where-in John Dewey and Noam Chomsky's educational work becomes meaningful in the public discourse.
Great video, thanks Till. I just had a thought about future videos- would you ever consider doing a Q&A as it relates to Bitcoin and/or economics? I’d love to submit some questions. Thanks again for the valuable content.
You can always shoot your question in the comments. Some videos I‘ve done have been inspired by comments! I either answer them here directly or work on video scripts that go more in-depth to explore the questions :)
These are great videos. Keep it up - you will have a large subscriber base in no time. I love the format - taking critical thinking and wisdom, condensing into salient points, with clips breaking it up in the middle. Nice stuff!
One day a very close friend of mine made me a "job" proposal that was like that: he would have to work for 3 days for a organization but he couldnt show up the first 2 days because he had more important things to do so he suggested me fill in the first 2 days for him and the third he would came back to finish the schedule. He said that we would split the money and I agreed however the money would be sent to his bank account since he did the contract himself. No problem so far. But when the money came in he said that the organization only paid half the money he was supposed to get paid (which was a lie) so he gave me only 50% of the money I was supposed to get. Moral of the story: all corruption arises from the detachment of property and control.
I worked for a bank for over 20 years, the amount of times i had to remind people that we manage risk, not eliminate risk. Without taking risks a bank shouldn't exist. I'm no longer in banking.
This seems like a very surface level idea. Owning a business just means that you need to do what makes you money, not what's best for people or the economy. Those often aren't aligned.
It is a surface level idea. The general idea you get from 1st year economics courses is that there's a, "secret sauce" in not just the division of labor but the outgrowth of popular agrarian wealth which ironically comes from the development of city-states and later nation-states which materializes literally in the exploitation of the division of labor. It's not surprising that it's not even a full century later that you get Dickens, "Hard Times" and Blake's dark Satanic mill in the English countryside not to mention Berlin's favorite Young Hegelians describing in Smith's language what the historical fly-in-the-wall is. It's not obvious what creates so much wealth for the west especially England in the 19th century but the running myth is that it's the productivity gains made by exploiting the division of labor that gives rise to the enormous wealth of the west in general. The thing is that Smith actually argues (I think it's like page 734) that if the division of labor isn't exploited responsibly that it could be ruinous to a nation as it would create generation(s) of mindless people that lack even the simple general intelligence of a yeoman farmer or roaming peasant. People made into machines to perform one simple task. The tail risk of modernity is people in general being undermined by the gains shared technological gains allow to expand our quality of living and it gets worse over time as technology increases and doesn't obviously decrease the likelihood of ruinous outcomes for the world's poor and underprivileged. SITG policy doesn't address this well enough to give us a model where-in we get all the incredible wealth creation and social innovation that parallels the expansion of western culture in the 19th and 20th centuries while at the same time mitigating the risk associated with large wealth creation. It's the only Incerto book that I think falls a little short.
Take away of the day: “Do you want to change the world? Start a business.” Excellent analysis.
Do you want to learn about power laws to where it literally hurts? Business it is! Thats why business people (more, "Fat Tony" like) are sometimes wiser than MBAs and academics. The key word here is, "sometimes" and it's worth thinking about why MBAs and academic financialists aren't, "entrepreneuring" beyond, "they weren't successful."
This channel is a hidden gem!
Wow, new concepts.
Thanks for creating curiosity in me to read more about it.
Let me order a kindle copy of incerto serious.
one of your best videos! keep it up 🙏
Love from INDIA, Please continue this series......you are such a gem
This series is completed, I covered all of Nassim Talebs books :)
Best comprehensive video on skin on the game
Excellent! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Thank you for you continued output! If you've got a minute I've got a question that you might help resolve; I'm wondering how we as admirers of the Incerto works might address this nascent criticism-- whilst, "skin in the game" does indeed make a lot of sense it seems like that historically western economic culture seems to explode when we see the emergence of the limited liability as it allows the ruinous risk of entrepreneurship to be mitigated at least partially by off-setting the potential downside to the public (the term "invisible mouth" might be meaningful here) and in lieu of the social malignancies this seems to foster-- (we might consider William Blake and Dickens as well as Chaplin's, "Modern Times;") -that the incredible amount of wealth this ends up creating for society is so significant that in lieu of, "common sense" intuitions there's some obvious give-and-take that must be considered when we start throwing around the Code of Hammurabi likes it's something to live up to. As much as a I hate tail-risks I don't like the idea of the carpenter that framed my parents home being prosecuted due to an unseen materials error. Simultaneously the downside we all share from toxic incentive structures is so significant that progressives that are worried social progress since World War II could be undone by populist extremism working its way into mainstream politics. There's an invisible hand, an invisible mouth, and an invisible asshole. In archaic cultures they eat with their hand. They wipe with another. It seems like in the Incerto dialogue we're asking, "how much can I wipe my asshole with my hand without exposing myself to sickness whilst mitigating the risk of wiping my shitty hand on the common cloth which might make other sick?" The historical gold standard is digging latrines for the power-law performant excellence class ie. Harvard/Yale/MIT sphere of influence and foundations for the middle class and the poor that are far enough away from the latrines that even if there's a significant shit storm it's just the latrines that are negatively effected. It seems like that while we love to, "shit" on the financial class for Enron, Dotcom, mortgage backed securities, ect... we forget it's the outgrowth of the intellectualized upper middle class (IYI) that parallels the development of almost every major social development in the west since the beginning of the post-war period. I don't think this is a coincidence. How can we create massive amounts of wealth like we saw in the post-war period without being exposed to tremendous downsides? The answer can't be a simple utilitarian heuristic. It requires as Richard Rorty describes, "abandoning ethical principles as an excuse to not think about things."
If I am a communist with my family does that mean that I might tolerate situations where my family is engaged in malignant risk taking at another's peril? Certainly not. That doesn't make sense but does that mean that if I apply this heuristic rigorously that I would have an equal or lesser amount of tolerance in the larger group where-in I would be a Libertarian? That works idealistically but are Saudi oil sheiks beheading their kids in public for breaking haram? Did the United States foster a vibrant culture in the 19th and 20th century because of our stringent laws or due to our tradition of stringently challenging those laws? If we're to make an appeal to utilitarianism we end up having a conversation about, "how anti-social we're permitted to be in-regard to some scaling of some group one is involved in" which practically just ends up fueling the fire of the toxic risk takers. It seems contemporary society(s) and institutions needs to go beyond, "mitigating the individual risk of executive decision makers by exposing the group to a potentially fatal or malignant unseen downside" (ie. toxic neoliberalism) but at the same time we need to be able to, "harness" the potential for, "toxic tail risking" rather than trying to snuff it out and expecting the seen and unseen positives to remain. Rich. Low exposure to downsides. Ethical. Pick two. I'm wanting to be proven wrong here.
This is the key issue of 21 century power dynamics. It applies to the CCP, to ultra rich Saudis, Berkshire heirs, the U.S. Government remaining solvent through the 21st century and many other situations where in preserving system dynamicism. My thinking is that you either get pragmatism where-in the potential downside is shared by the decision making process itself which is itself a kind of conversation between stakeholders which is effectively just democracy in all its geographical mutations or we try to find ways to apply shared stakeholder heuristics (constitutions, charters) to dynamically changing criteria which is way, way too close to, "resiliency vs. antifragility;" in the negative sense. Taking institutions at naive face value and having the means to enter into determinative discourse when institutions fail either major stakeholders including the public or their own established values seems like a real way forward in the sense that it's dynamic enough to meet unseen future challenges but can be defined critically enough that we know when, "conversation has failed." SITG makes a lot of sense as a kind of intuition and I think it has enormous value in the sphere of policy making where-in John Dewey and Noam Chomsky's educational work becomes meaningful in the public discourse.
Yo dude this video was insanely insightful, thanks so much! Sparked a lot of videos for my biz and life
Thanks!
Great video, thanks Till. I just had a thought about future videos- would you ever consider doing a Q&A as it relates to Bitcoin and/or economics? I’d love to submit some questions. Thanks again for the valuable content.
You can always shoot your question in the comments. Some videos I‘ve done have been inspired by comments! I either answer them here directly or work on video scripts that go more in-depth to explore the questions :)
Great video Till. Cheers
These are great videos. Keep it up - you will have a large subscriber base in no time. I love the format - taking critical thinking and wisdom, condensing into salient points, with clips breaking it up in the middle. Nice stuff!
Thanks a lot! 🙌
It makes me sad that every human on earth isn't going to watch this video.
Share it to help 😁
@@tillmusshoff Now why didn't I think of that? 😉
Great video!
Great Video as always..
One day a very close friend of mine made me a "job" proposal that was like that: he would have to work for 3 days for a organization but he couldnt show up the first 2 days because he had more important things to do so he suggested me fill in the first 2 days for him and the third he would came back to finish the schedule. He said that we would split the money and I agreed however the money would be sent to his bank account since he did the contract himself. No problem so far. But when the money came in he said that the organization only paid half the money he was supposed to get paid (which was a lie) so he gave me only 50% of the money I was supposed to get. Moral of the story: all corruption arises from the detachment of property and control.
0:28 I think I heard a banker laugh somewhere
😂
7:52
what should be done
I worked for a bank for over 20 years, the amount of times i had to remind people that we manage risk, not eliminate risk. Without taking risks a bank shouldn't exist. I'm no longer in banking.
How can I set up the payments structure for my digital marketing business with skin in the game? Hardest issue to solve is quantitative results.
I dont understand the question, sorry.
What does he mean by saying: rent-seeking?
Increasing ones wealth without doing any productive contribution.
May i ask which Mbti Type you are? (I think your an INTJ btw )
yes, INTJ is correct
@@tillmusshoff me too :)
There are questionaires that reveal that almost all Bitcoiners are xNTx and it makes a lot of sense if you ask me.
@@tillmusshoff " Valuing something in the physical world." vs. "Conceptually figuring out what works."
Yes, makes sense.
Myers-Briggs is pseudoscience. It has little to no predictive power.
This seems like a very surface level idea. Owning a business just means that you need to do what makes you money, not what's best for people or the economy. Those often aren't aligned.
Making money in short term yes. But a business has to be lindy compatible to be sustainable.
@@239funYes lindy businesses like prostitution and slavery which are thriving globally. It's worth taking one's Taleb with a side dose of Kahneman!
It is a surface level idea. The general idea you get from 1st year economics courses is that there's a, "secret sauce" in not just the division of labor but the outgrowth of popular agrarian wealth which ironically comes from the development of city-states and later nation-states which materializes literally in the exploitation of the division of labor. It's not surprising that it's not even a full century later that you get Dickens, "Hard Times" and Blake's dark Satanic mill in the English countryside not to mention Berlin's favorite Young Hegelians describing in Smith's language what the historical fly-in-the-wall is. It's not obvious what creates so much wealth for the west especially England in the 19th century but the running myth is that it's the productivity gains made by exploiting the division of labor that gives rise to the enormous wealth of the west in general. The thing is that Smith actually argues (I think it's like page 734) that if the division of labor isn't exploited responsibly that it could be ruinous to a nation as it would create generation(s) of mindless people that lack even the simple general intelligence of a yeoman farmer or roaming peasant. People made into machines to perform one simple task.
The tail risk of modernity is people in general being undermined by the gains shared technological gains allow to expand our quality of living and it gets worse over time as technology increases and doesn't obviously decrease the likelihood of ruinous outcomes for the world's poor and underprivileged. SITG policy doesn't address this well enough to give us a model where-in we get all the incredible wealth creation and social innovation that parallels the expansion of western culture in the 19th and 20th centuries while at the same time mitigating the risk associated with large wealth creation. It's the only Incerto book that I think falls a little short.