So I'm not criticizing Trump here per se (I mean I really dislike him, but that wasn't what I was getting at.) My point is more that this distinction between "s

So I'm not criticizing Trump here per se (I mean I really dislike him, but that wasn't what I was getting at.) My point is more that this distinction between "skin in the game"/"no skin in the game" that Taleb portrays as binary is really quite murky, and people's perceptions of who's taking risks are affected by factors other than the truth. I agree that bankruptcy laws often add value, but that wasn't the point; they add value precisely because they reduce the "skin in the game" of the person going bankrupt, whereas Taleb had indicated that Trump had shown his risk-taking by losing his own money. And it's exactly this idea that leasing out one's name, putting one's reputation on the line, turning yourself into a celebrity could also be considered having "skin in the game" that makes this distinction murky: isn't that what Taleb's IYIs do? Aren't all columnists, academics, journalists and so on playing in the same system, and self-promoting as a form of hustling their way to the top? It depends more on your perspective than on any objective definition of "skin in the game." Also with respect to Trump being "successful on his merits"... being born into hundreds of millions is better than most connections. More importantly, Taleb isn't talking about success/failure on one's own merits, but taking on risk, and I think that's one of his better points. That's the difference between the "skin in the game" concept and judging based on some abstract idea of meritocracy: people understand that Trump was given advantages in his life, but they respect him because (they perceive!) he's opened himself up to risk and put those earnings, unfairly gotten as they may be, on the line.