3 ms·
The linked article from Nassim Taleb is fascinating. He's discussing Lebanon vs Syria, but he could just as easily be talking about bitcoin vs the traditional f
by paulsutter 9y ago
The linked article from Nassim Taleb is fascinating. He's discussing Lebanon vs Syria, but he could just as easily be talking about bitcoin vs the traditional financial system:
"Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos, and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy to the fragile. What’s more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms, a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.
"For countries, fragility has five principal sources: a centralized governing system, an undiversified economy, excessive debt and leverage, a lack of political variability, and no history of surviving past shocks. Applying these criteria, the world map looks a lot different. Disorderly regimes come out as safer bets than commonly thought—and seemingly placid states turn out to be ticking time bombs.
- rrecuero 9y agoGlad you enjoyed it. I had similar thoughts while reading it
- cableshaft 9y agoI'd recommend reading Antifragile, although read it with a bit of a grain of salt. I read it for the first time earlier this year, and I was drawing all sorts of comparisons to cryptocurrencies (as well as how I should approach my professional career) while reading it. That being said, the part that really threw the rest of the book into question for me was that Taleb is very anti-academia and spends several pages in the book claiming that academia had basically zero involvement in the development of computers, which just sounds like he'd never heard of Alan Turing, Charles Babbage, Ada Lovelace, John von Neumann, John McCarthy, and many others. It really made me wonder how much of the rest of the book he was claiming to be an authority on could be trusted, even though most of it seemed to make sense intuitively.