John, the world that you propose sounds fundamentally dispiriting.
Seth Miller
21

Placing “all your skin in the game” is not the point. Place SOME skin in the game is. A 10 year time horizon for your predictions to come true is the very definition of “no skin in the game”.

I suppose some of it is a matter of perspective. To you it is dispiriting, and to me it in heartening.

In my view the ‘no skin in the game’ issue is the preeminent issue of ur time. Everything from economists with no real world experience running monetary policy which is driving inequality to extremes, to bankers taking on massive leverage while not losing a cent when it all blows up, right on down to climate scientists demanding everyone else pay much higher prices to change their ways because the model they built (using funds that only keep coming if they keep seeing dire consequences), said so.

In fact, all of those above are not just ‘no skin in the game’, but also ‘the skin of others in your game’.

Pollution is real, man-made climate change is debatable. If you dont think its debatable, then you are talking opnion, not science.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.