Take away of the day: “Do you want to change the world? Start a business.” Excellent analysis.

It makes me sad that every human on earth isn't going to watch this video.

This channel is a hidden gem!

one of your best videos! keep it up 🙏

Love from INDIA, Please continue this series......you are such a gem

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.

Excellent! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾

Great video Till. Cheers

Best comprehensive video on skin on the game

Great video!

Great Video as always..

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!

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.

0:28 I think I heard a banker laugh somewhere

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.

What does he mean by saying: rent-seeking?

May i ask which Mbti Type you are? (I think your an INTJ btw )

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.