
The Global Rebellion Against “No-Skin-In-the-Game” Insiders - MollyR
http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/15/nassim-taleb-the-global-rebellion-agains
======
CM30
I think the best part of the article, and perhaps the best summary why this is
happening is this single line:

"who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to
speak, 4) how to think...and 5) who to vote for."

People are seeing right through the political class and media, and it's making
them extremely worried. They see an elite that seems to utterly hate them,
ignore things they consider issues (while attacking anyone who disagrees as
'bigots') and who who seem more interested in lining their own pockets than
actually helping society.

~~~
x5n1
It has always been this way for humans for the past 10,000 years since we
invented society. In small groups you can actually care about people, in large
hierarchical groups you can't possibly care about anyone other than your small
tribe. The solution to this is to break countries into much smaller units of
representation while at the same time reducing the population significantly,
we don't need more than a few hundred million people on this planet, ever.
Essentially making a war on hierarchy and massive conglomeration of people.

Without these two moves, things will continue to get worse or perhaps better
depending on perspective. It's evident to anyone with a mind that civilization
as it exists now is completely and utterly a mad experiment which has at least
as much chance in total failure as it does in success... and success might not
be something which is positive, i.e. everyone hooked into the Matrix or
something akin to that. Robots doing everything and reducing people to
something akin to wild animals with no economic purpose.

~~~
_yosefk
When you say that "we" (you?) don't need most of the people living today, or
their offspring, ever, isn't it the perfect example of inability to care about
people?

~~~
x5n1
That does not necessarily mean that no one should have any kids. It means that
people should be forced to have at most one child, by probably compulsory
sterilization after the first child's birth. Puerto Rico is an example of a
place where this policy worked just fine. And it should apply to everyone, not
certain groups and classes of people which is where such a policy errors. So
no it has nothing to do with caring for people. In fact the geometric
population reduction would have the exact impact of reducing the population
and therefore creating more appreciation for people.

~~~
overdrivetg
You are trolling [1] here [2], right?

[1]
[http://racerelations.about.com/od/historyofracerelations/a/T...](http://racerelations.about.com/od/historyofracerelations/a/The-
U-s-Governments-Role-In-Sterilizing-Women-Of-Color.htm)

[2] [http://stanford.edu/group/womenscourage/cgi-
bin/blogs/family...](http://stanford.edu/group/womenscourage/cgi-
bin/blogs/familyplanning/2008/10/23/forced-sterilization-in-puerto-rico/)

~~~
x5n1
Not trolling, most of those articles are just whining about how inhumane it
is... really more appeals to emotion than any sort of logic. Capitalists
simply coerce people not to have children by making their economic lives
miserable. So that they are so tied up in work and the economy, with limited
pay, that they can not logically think of having children. That only increases
misery. All while the Capitalists import people from the third world to
increase competition and misery. All of this humaneness at the end does not
reduce misery or create happiness, it does the exact opposite while breeders
argue about freedom and other things, they deprive their children of any sort
of freedom or happiness. Most people simply produce slaves for the economy.
People whose lives center around being exploited by other people. To me
slavery exists on a spectrum, the more competition and worse the working
conditions in terms of the so-called work life balance, the more akin a job
becomes to slavery.

~~~
overdrivetg
So the logical extension where I can't see the link is that cavemen way way
back must have either have been slaves, or had better lives than everyone on
today's slavery spectrum. Is that right?

~~~
x5n1
When I am out hunting something or in nature, I feel generally much better
than while in society. Much like slaves, stress for modern humans is constant
and never ending. Stress for primitive human hunter gatherers was acute and
they were adapted to it after millions of years of evolution. Humans love
coming with with rhetoric to justify how much better off they are, while at
the same time knowing they are all miserable and dislike their specialist
jobs, but there isn't much to do about that other than create more rhetoric
about how much better everything is and how much better it will be in the
future. While the constant amount of stress, the feelings of helplessness,
lack of balance, etc, simply persist if not increase.

~~~
jabgrabdthrow
> Much like slaves, stress for modern humans is constant and never ending.

> While the constant amount of stress, the feelings of helplessness, lack of
> balance, etc, simply persist if not increase.

I think you are projecting. If you have internet access and the depth of
knowledge of most people that read HN, then you have the tools to be self-
sustaining and carefree. All you've said is you personally have hobbies you
find relaxing but are unhappy with niches you've found for spending the rest
of your time.

------
fiatmoney
It's not only "no skin in the game", it's also "in the game to lose". For
instance, Democratic victories in the US are really great for GOP fundraising.
Given the choice between no job in a Trump administration, and a sinecure
complaining about the policies a President Clinton enacts, many of the GOP
establishment prefer the latter.

This tends to engender some frustration.

A lot of government policy around things like welfare enrollment, security
theater, or certain categories of crime follows similar incentives. "Solve the
problem", especially in a cost effective way, and you're out of a job.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
_" Solve the problem", especially in a cost effective way, and you're out of a
job._

Or redefine your mission. Which is what happened when there was a vaccine
invented for Infantile Paralysis.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_March_of_Dimes#Change_of_m...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_March_of_Dimes#Change_of_mission)

~~~
fiatmoney
March of Dimes was a almost pure fundraising / fund distribution organization
- it's very easy for such organizations to change direction when their
putative target changes.

------
Animats
_" What we are seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the
rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking
"clerks" and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-
intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-
driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat,
3) how to speak, 4) how to think...and 5) who to vote for."_

That's Taleb describing himself.

~~~
terravion
Especially since he's not going to starve for evidence-less anti-GMO policies.
I'd like to see him name who should starve for the precautionary principle--
would he?

~~~
choicewords
So why is there such a strong lobby against GMO labeling laws?

~~~
mikeyouse
I've seen a few reasons that make sense;

1\. GMO is really _really_ hard to define. Figuring out what would need to be
labeled would be ripe for manipulation. (i.e. is material genetically inserted
from the same species, like doubling up a promoter region, GMO? Or if you
discover something through a GM but recreate it 'naturally', is that still
considered GM?)

2\. The average consumer knows very little science, they'll likely avoid
products that are labeled GM, whether or not it makes any sense to do so.
Handicapping a potentially important technology to appease the scientifically
ignorant seems like pretty bad policy.

From my perspective, opt-in initiatives like the non-GMO project are a better
way to handle the labeling requirements.

------
shas3
One can come up with a completely alternative explanation for what's happening
with Trump/Sanders, Farage/Corbyn, Modi, etc. based on constructs like 'end of
average' and income inequality. These are social consequences of the growing
gap between highly skilled and low-skilled workers. The former are more and
more important to the economy even as the latter become less so with
technological progress and globalization. The tectonic shifts in jobs, wealth,
etc. are causing a realignment of electoral coalitions. Low skilled jobs are
automated or shifted offshore at an increasingly faster pace. The status quo
of the last 40 years is being challenged: in the US with the reshaping of the
economic and social landscape of the country, and elsewhere in the world with
the emergence of new uncertainly-oriented behemoths in China and India.

A libertarian magazine like Reason would be more than happy to seek and
celebrate a libertarian revolution, whether one really exists or not.

~~~
wycx
I would suggest that the growing gap you describe is a symptom of continued
application of neoliberal policies. It is not that there was a status quo for
the last 40 years, it is that the last 40 years has seen accelerating erosion
of the conditions/social contract established in western countries in the post
depression/WW2 era.

Placing the rights of capital above all others, particularly giving capital a
level of mobility that is not afforded labour, combined with an unquestioning
embrace of trade liberalisation results in a race to the bottom for labour.

It is only due to the stranglehold of neoliberal thinking on modern economic
thought that globalisation is considered inevitable.

~~~
dnautics
I would suggest that the growing gap comes because government steals from the
poor and gives to the rich through inflation.

One ought to have seen a dividend for the working guy due to lowered prices
from increased efficiency brought about by technology, but instead the Fed has
chosen to favor "stable prices" which is done by lowering interest rates (I.e.
making it easier for rich people to access capital)

~~~
thisislame
Deflation, not inflation, steals from the poor and gives to the rich.
Deflation depresses wages and increases the value of assets (including
outstanding debts! rich people use debt, poor people have debt.)

~~~
underdown
I'd argue both hurt poor people. Wage growth typically lags behind inflation.

------
andrewclunn
One of the reasons I refuse to self identify as a 'skeptic' is because the
supposed reverence for science and empiricism is largely just deference to
academia. There's also a feigned distaste for personal experience (and really
who can or should dismiss their own life experience). Ultimately this isn't
about libertarianism, it's about allowing individuals to choose their own
standards for evidence, trusted authorities, and process for making their own
decisions. The "educated elite" really truly believe that their standards are
superior and that it's their duty to help others by making the decisions for
them. This is ultimately a religion attempting to impose itself on others, but
because it doesn't call itself one people don't recognize it as doing such.

~~~
choicewords
The 'higher standards' are often influenced by large amounts of money coming
from corporations. I would not so much think of it as a religion, then, as
another means of propaganda from the overall system.

~~~
ams6110
Most of the money in academic research comes from the government.

------
TeMPOraL
I feel that this global rebellion against authority will seriously damage us
as a civilization. This is mass insanity caused by somewhat justifiable lack
of trust, amplified millionfold by the media. It's psychological reactance
happening at scale, and we're doing it to one another.

What I mean is - even though probably half of psychology (and definitely more
than half of dietetics) is wrong, it gets made wronger 10 times more by
journalists. If you, dear "rebel against 'no-skin-in-the-game' insiders" are
reading popular media crap and believing it, instead of standing in front of
their offices with pichforks, you're responsible for this. If you repeat that
bullshit further, you're responsible more, and God forbid you actually make a
business from propagating it to people. And either way, you're _still_ much
better off listening to half-wrong field of psychology than to your
grandmother. They at least have some context and _try_ to get it not terribly
wrong.

Also the funny thing: the very ethics of capitalism was always "if I mind my
own business and/or maybe even benefit for myself at others' expense, things
will turn out Good for everyone". Greedy optimization ("greedy" in the CS
sense of the word). Now that it turned the world into such a mess, what's the
answer? _More_ individualism, _more_ minding your own business, _more_ greedy
optimizing? Seriously, how do people arrive at this conclusion?

The idea that local optimization is better than global baffles me completely.
Where do people get it from?

~~~
guard-of-terra
We no longer have any authority. We no longer have anyone to trust. No
politicians, no thinkers, no idealists.

This is a very serious crisis of trust and you can't make it go away by
shouting at people; much less by shouting at the wrong people.

~~~
ams6110
Honestly this is why so many people like a person like Donald Trump. They
crave an alpha leader: strong, unafraid, confident. Which he definitely is.
He's 180 degrees from the thoughtful, intellectual, politically correct yet
fundamentally dishonest and self-serving leaders we've had for the past 30
years. It's in our primal pack psychology from when we all lived in tribes.

------
guard-of-terra
This is very very true. While I don't share his sentiments about GMO, the
principle applies to immigration and asylum seekers - where politicans living
in their own walled world tell us mere mortals how letting random people into
the country is the right thing to do and also beneficial to the economy.

------
dforrestwilson1
I don't know whether to applaud or cry.

Worrisome trends:

Globally 1\. Massive population explosion 2\. Declining cross-border trade 3\.
Declining Pax-Americana

Domestically 1\. Declining educational standards leading to a less-skilled
middle class 2\. Corruption (government) * Greed (corporate) 3\. Justifiable
distrust of media and political class 4\. Revolt against free-trade due to #1
5\. Separation between the ultra rich and the rest 6\. Political upheaval due
to #1-5

It's been almost a decade since the world experienced a major war or epidemic.
Means tend to revert, and socio-economic upheaval tends to lead to one or
both.

People who feel desperate take desperate measures. It's my belief that people
who haven't been in a war are more likely to start them, especially when they
can self-reinforce their own bellicosity through like-minded media groups.

I don't know how to solve for all the variables, and I'm not sure we will.

------
civilian
Taleb is an idiot:
[https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/682361866321002496](https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/682361866321002496)

~~~
skolos
I'm pretty sure that you comment is down-voted due to choice of words.

Taleb is a snake oil salesman and other than catchy term "black swan" his
words should be ignored as much as possible. There are many blog posts on web
that go into details to prove this. In addition to the above link, here is
another set of links:

[http://theweek.com/articles/453558/nassim-taleb-used-hero-
bu...](http://theweek.com/articles/453558/nassim-taleb-used-hero-but-today-
hes-just-plain-wrong)

[http://www.cnbc.com/id/31386309](http://www.cnbc.com/id/31386309)

[https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/nassim-
taleb-c...](https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/nassim-taleb-clown-
of-quantitative-finance/)

[https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/11/03/is-
nassim-...](https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/11/03/is-nassim-taleb-
a-dangerous-imbecile-or-just-on-the-pay-of-the-anti-gmo-mafia/)

~~~
jessaustin
The "Precautionary Principle" nonsense has always been my least favorite
aspect of Taleb's shtick. You're asking too much of Taleb, however. It is not
his place to be right all the time. Rather, he must always point out how often
those in charge are wrong. That is how he can contribute to the progress of
humanity.

------
KingMob
Ehh. Another "libertarian" discussion without any reference to the fact that
prior to the mid-late 20th c. in America, and in most of the world even today,
"libertarian" is a synonym for "anarchist". Unfortunately, it got mangled
along the way.

As always on political terminology, Orwell was most astute:

"Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is,
the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer
to think he means something quite different."

"It would seem that, as used, the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely
meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in
print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit,
corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941
Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's
broadcasts, youth hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I don't know what else."

