This article is an amazing amount of rubbish and choses to cherry pick what the author wants it to be while neglecting everything to the contrary. Example from

This article is an amazing amount of rubbish and choses to cherry pick what the author wants it to be while neglecting everything to the contrary. Example from the wikipage mentiioned: "In 2007 Spitznagel founded the firm Universa Investments L.P. with Taleb as an adviser using black swan portfolio hedging strategies similar to Empirica's." So, Taleb (Tooleb?) is still in business and why would Spitznagel work with him if Taleb was useless. After all, Spitznagel made very good money in 2008 as well as in 2015 and early 2016. In terms of Taleb's academic credentials: since Daniel Kahneman as well as Benoit Mandelbrot were not only happy to meet Taleb but Mandelbrot jointly published an FT article with Taleb http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5372968a-ba82-11da-980d-0000779e2340.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5372968a-ba82-11da-980d-0000779e23... while Kahneman joined him for this discussion https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2013/02/06/nassim-taleb-and-daniel-kahneman-black-swan-shows-fragility-under-heavy-weight-of-anchoring/ https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2013/02/06/nassim-ta.... It can be assumed neither of the two qualify in your view either and you woould dismiss this as proof that Taleb is well established in academia. These examples are only scratching the surface and can easily be googled by anyone who want to write a proper article. Don't quite know why I waste my time to reply to this one but I though BS sometimes has to be called out when it is so obvious.