The "quant" just reminds me of every arrogant drone with an excuse for the scam we call the stock market. The "Thinker" is on target. That whole "two sides to every coin" argument is what people tell themselves to rationalize doublethink. If you bet in the stock market, you're betting against the country. It is treason. Period.
sad people trying to run away from today's reality by stupid sarcastic humor. The reality is that there a massive imbalances in the world whether we are talking about govern spending or continues leveraging from the financial world. People are taking huge risks and then expect others to bail them out, and THEY DO! But who will save the savior. irresponsible actions should be punished just like in the nature, where things have their natural flow and no intervention is needed to find equilibrium.
its impossible to prepare for the unkown unkowns, you have at least to known where a schock is going to come from in order to be robust to it. Imagine a guy who transfer all his wealth to gold because he doesnt trust banks, and then the goverment confiscates his gold (like FDR in 1933) and he looses everything. He was very robust to actions from banks, but very fragile to actions from the goverment.
@LucBertolotti Don't be obtuse. If my hamster breaks free, crawls down my throat while I sleeping, and I die, that's not exactly a predictable event... but if I have life insurance, my family won't be left destitute. That's Taleb's message. Likewise: If we're heavily leveraged, we're economically fragile; lose a job, get sick, crash the car, and we're in trouble. Conversely, if we have savings, we're robust; lose a job, get sick, crash the car, and we can get by.
@jeremyemilio Of COURSE, I can't guard against everything. Maybe a meteor hits me and my savings become moot. That's not the point. The point is the financial wizards leverage up until there's no room for the smallest error, and then when a hamster crawls into the exhaust system and the car breaks down, and the credit card is maxed so they can't pay the mechanic, and can't get to work anymore, and lose their job and home and family, they say "Who could've known?" and blame the bloody hamster.
@jeremyemilio If something is "able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions" then it is "able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions". That's the definition of robust, dipstick.
@notbanker In a nutshell, I said if you hold a lot of debt you are fragile (and thus less "able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions") and if you have savings you are robust (and thus more "able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions"). Likewise, if you are insured AGAINST "adverse conditions" you are then more "able to withstand" them, and are thus robust... if you are NOT insured against "adverse conditions" you are then LESS "able to withstand" them, and are thus fragile. Got it?
Are you talking about official insurance? I don't think anyone is more robust because of it. Because that takes more money paying premiums than is warranted. Most have payed in much more than they will ever take out. Insurance is the job of the individual. Wouldn't be so hard if our dollar where not being devalued through the FED, of course.
The "quant" just reminds me of every arrogant drone with an excuse for the scam we call the stock market. The "Thinker" is on target. That whole "two sides to every coin" argument is what people tell themselves to rationalize doublethink. If you bet in the stock market, you're betting against the country. It is treason. Period.
Good stuff here.
SaveTheWheat 1 month ago
@SaveTheWheat You've done a terrific job of characterizing Taleb's audience SaveTheWheat
notbanker 1 month ago
Interesting stuff that is new to me, but I only understood snippets of it.
kaunas888 3 months ago
Absolutely pointless video
731trad 5 months ago
@731trad Sorry pal, no crib notes
notbanker 5 months ago
sad people trying to run away from today's reality by stupid sarcastic humor. The reality is that there a massive imbalances in the world whether we are talking about govern spending or continues leveraging from the financial world. People are taking huge risks and then expect others to bail them out, and THEY DO! But who will save the savior. irresponsible actions should be punished just like in the nature, where things have their natural flow and no intervention is needed to find equilibrium.
erer02ab 5 months ago
@erer02ab Sounds ecologically sound to me ... moron.
notbanker 5 months ago
someone's jealous
WHenryGuitar 8 months ago
@WHenryGuitar What's jealous and very far away?
notbanker 7 months ago
Good catch farhadekoohkan you are correct.
notbanker 9 months ago
This is really clever.
jasontoheal 9 months ago
its impossible to prepare for the unkown unkowns, you have at least to known where a schock is going to come from in order to be robust to it. Imagine a guy who transfer all his wealth to gold because he doesnt trust banks, and then the goverment confiscates his gold (like FDR in 1933) and he looses everything. He was very robust to actions from banks, but very fragile to actions from the goverment.
LucBertolotti 10 months ago
@LucBertolotti Don't be obtuse. If my hamster breaks free, crawls down my throat while I sleeping, and I die, that's not exactly a predictable event... but if I have life insurance, my family won't be left destitute. That's Taleb's message. Likewise: If we're heavily leveraged, we're economically fragile; lose a job, get sick, crash the car, and we're in trouble. Conversely, if we have savings, we're robust; lose a job, get sick, crash the car, and we can get by.
jeremyemilio 8 months ago
@jeremyemilio Of COURSE, I can't guard against everything. Maybe a meteor hits me and my savings become moot. That's not the point. The point is the financial wizards leverage up until there's no room for the smallest error, and then when a hamster crawls into the exhaust system and the car breaks down, and the credit card is maxed so they can't pay the mechanic, and can't get to work anymore, and lose their job and home and family, they say "Who could've known?" and blame the bloody hamster.
jeremyemilio 8 months ago
@jeremyemilio If something is "able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions" then it is "able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions". That's the definition of robust, dipstick.
notbanker 5 months ago
@notbanker What, precisely, did I write that runs counter to that definition?
jeremyemilio 5 months ago
@jeremyemilio What, precisely, did you say?
notbanker 5 months ago
@notbanker In a nutshell, I said if you hold a lot of debt you are fragile (and thus less "able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions") and if you have savings you are robust (and thus more "able to withstand or overcome adverse conditions"). Likewise, if you are insured AGAINST "adverse conditions" you are then more "able to withstand" them, and are thus robust... if you are NOT insured against "adverse conditions" you are then LESS "able to withstand" them, and are thus fragile. Got it?
jeremyemilio 5 months ago
@jeremyemilio No. I don't get it. Please continue the tortuous tautologies and if possible spin it into a 300 page book for us.
notbanker 5 months ago
@notbanker Sorry pal, no crib notes.
jeremyemilio 5 months ago
@jeremyemilio
Are you talking about official insurance? I don't think anyone is more robust because of it. Because that takes more money paying premiums than is warranted. Most have payed in much more than they will ever take out. Insurance is the job of the individual. Wouldn't be so hard if our dollar where not being devalued through the FED, of course.
SaveTheWheat 1 month ago