>So what does ‘skin in the game’ even mean? It’s kind of irrelevant. No it’s not. It’s precisely the topic of debate. I see where you’re coming from though. Yo

>So what does ‘skin in the game’ even mean? It’s kind of irrelevant. No it’s not. It’s precisely the topic of debate. I see where you’re coming from though. Your concern is with the author’s authority over the phrase, whereas mine is with the nature of the critique, namely the carelessness and inaccuracy resulting in it’s practice. I have never read this book, but it’s synopsis alludes no more than free market theory; numbingly basic material. Does this catch-phrase add anything to the argument? I cannot imagine how it would. This is nuance-free run-of-the-mill narcissist apologism as motivational speak. Don’t be fooled.