The evolution of Taleb's thinking is interesting. He has come to embrace the concrete and tangible over the abstract. In parallel with this, his occasional commentary on politics has taken a conservative turn.
From the article:
In this chapter I will propose that effectively what people resent or should resent is the person at the top who has no skin in the game, that is, because he doesnt bear his allotted risk, is immune to the possibility of falling from his pedestal, exiting the income or wealth bracket, and getting to the soup kitchen. Again, on that account, the detractors of Donald Trump, when he was a candidate, failed to realize that, by advertising his episode of bankruptcy and his personal losses of close to a billion dollars, they removed the resentment (the second type of inequality) one may have towards him.
There is something respectable in losing a billion dollars, provided it is your own money.
In addition, someone without skin in the game say a corporate executive with upside and no financial downside (the type to speak clearly in meetings) is paid according to some metrics that do not necessarily reflect the health of the company; these (as we saw in Chapter x) he can manipulate, hide risks, get the bonus, then retire (or go to another company) and blame his successor for the subsequent results.
We will also, in the process, redefine inequality and put the notion on more rigorous grounds. But we first need to introduce the difference between two types of approaches, the static and the dynamic, as skin in the game can transform one type of inequality into another.
Take also the two following remarks:
True equality is equality in probability
and
Skin in the game prevents systems from rotting
I like the articles intent, but the execution is painful.
The stupid and the lazy are clearly unequal. They get exactly what they deserve. Leeching off the working class is a poor occupation of liberals everywhere.