Tous les prix incluent la TVA.
& Retours GRATUITS
Retournez cet article gratuitement
  • Les retours gratuits sont disponibles pour l'adresse d'expédition que vous avez choisie. Vous pouvez retourner l'article pour n'importe quelle raison dans son état neuf et inutilisé, sans frais de retour.
  • En savoir plus sur les retours gratuits.
Livraison à 0,01 € vendredi 1 juillet. Détails
Ou livraison accélérée jeudi 30 juin. Commandez dans les 2 h 16 min. Détails
En stock.
Comme alternative, l'ebook Kindle est disponible maintenant et peut être lu sur n'importe quel appareil avec l'application Kindle gratuite. Vous préférez l’écouter ? Essayez Audible.
[{"displayPrice":"27,27 €","priceAmount":27.27,"currencySymbol":"€","integerValue":"27","decimalSeparator":",","fractionalValue":"27","symbolPosition":"right","hasSpace":true,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"Cixru4fJnwofh5fx7HDW8i0sQxOVyTv2lDCkCPYkmW%2BbQWIPgnOhzkSczjhjeTBgy6IgELzCVdxDgZ%2B1mOOvirTtNbb7lJ1CWmUDQK2YzNqep5oJu8eZGdL4pUzGksJyv6g3HCUHVCs%3D","locale":"fr-FR","buyingOptionType":"NEW"},{"displayPrice":"11,50 €","priceAmount":11.50,"currencySymbol":"€","integerValue":"11","decimalSeparator":",","fractionalValue":"50","symbolPosition":"right","hasSpace":true,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"Cixru4fJnwofh5fx7HDW8i0sQxOVyTv2KE8jwUNP9LTWZUZahIYYqFMvH9Iw4vdKozYyTpBSIdbJB1co5u6bzz5DQl%2Bjv0TJLtDUWnV7xebNTtu0j1hxxZlhO8cT2I573Qq2XHjdMwCllVwWnK%2FHEiy4CTbp3Njg8OmOD7yV5FCXZUGEZu%2F02g%3D%3D","locale":"fr-FR","buyingOptionType":"USED"}]
27,27 € () Options sélectionnées incluses. Comprend le paiement mensuel initial et les options sélectionnées. Détails
Prix
Sous-total
27,27 €
Sous-total
Ventilation du paiement initial
Les frais d’expédition, la date de livraison et le total de la commande (taxes comprises) indiqués lors de la finalisation de la commande.
Votre transaction est sécurisée
Nous nous efforçons de protéger votre sécurité et votre vie privée. Notre système de paiement sécurisé chiffre vos données lors de la transmission. Nous ne partageons pas les détails de votre carte de crédit avec les vendeurs tiers, et nous ne vendons pas vos données personnelles à autrui. En savoir plus
Expédié par
Amazon
Vendu par
Amazon
Expédié par
Amazon
Vendu par
Amazon
Skin in the Game: Hidden ... a été ajouté à votre Panier
Livraison à 0,01 € 19 - 29 juillet. Détails
D'occasion: Bon | Détails
Vendu par Welcome Back Books
État: D'occasion: Bon
Commentaire: Book ships from USA, takes 4-14 days for delivery.Spine creases, wear to binding and pages from reading. May contain limited notes, underlining or highlighting that does affect the text. Possible ex library copy, that will have the markings and stickers associated from the library. Accessories such as CD, codes, toys, may not be included.
Partager <Intégrer>
Vous l'avez déjà ?
Autres vendeurs sur Amazon
Ajouté
25,81 €
+ 0,01 € Livraison
Vendu par : Book Depository UK (FR)
Vendu par : Book Depository UK (FR)
(335788 évaluations)
93 % positif au cours des 12 derniers mois
Habituellement expédié sous 3 à 4 jours.
Frais d'expédition et Politique de retours
Ajouté
28,12 €
+ 0,01 € Livraison
Vendu par : livres PBS
Vendu par : livres PBS
(74203 évaluations)
90 % positif au cours des 12 derniers mois
Habituellement expédié sous 2 à 3 jours.
Frais d'expédition et Politique de retours
Ajouté
31,83 €
+ 2,99 € Livraison
Vendu par : RAREWAVES USA
Vendu par : RAREWAVES USA
(34258 évaluations)
91 % positif au cours des 12 derniers mois
Habituellement expédié sous 4 à 5 jours.
Frais d'expédition et Politique de retours
Image du logo de l'application Kindle

Téléchargez l'application Kindle gratuite et commencez à lire des livres Kindle instantanément sur votre smartphone, tablette ou ordinateur - aucun appareil Kindle n'est requis. En savoir plus

Lisez instantanément sur votre navigateur avec Kindle Cloud Reader.

Utilisation de l'appareil photo de votre téléphone portable - scannez le code ci-dessous et téléchargez l'application Kindle.

Code QR pour télécharger l'application Kindle

Repliez vers l'arrière Repliez vers l'avant
Ecoutez Lecture en cours... Interrompu   Vous écoutez un extrait de l'édition audio Audible
En savoir plus

Suivre l'auteur

Une erreur est survenue. Veuillez renouveler votre requête plus tard.

Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life Relié – 27 février 2018

4,5 sur 5 étoiles 2 586 évaluations

Prix Amazon
Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
Format Kindle
Relié
27,27 €
25,81 € 11,50 €
Livraison GRATUITE (0,01€ pour les livres) en point retrait (selon éligibilité des articles). Détails
Récupérez votre colis où vous voulez quand vous voulez.
  • La livraison est GRATUITE sans minimum d'achats (0,01€ pour les livres). Les membres Amazon Prime bénéficient de livraisons gratuites illimitées toute l'année
  • Choisissez parmi 20 000 points retrait en France et en Belgique, incluant points relais et consignes automatiques Amazon Lockers
Comment commander vers un point retrait ?
  1. Trouvez votre point retrait et ajoutez-le à votre carnet d’adresses
  2. Sélectionnez cette adresse lors de votre commande
Plus d’informations

Améliorez vos achats

Produits fréquemment achetés ensemble

  • Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life
  • +
  • Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets
  • +
  • Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder
Prix total:
Pour voir notre prix, ajoutez ces articles à votre panier.
Choisir les articles à acheter ensemble.

Description du produit

Extrait

Chapter 1

Why Each One Should Eat His Own Turtles: Equality in Uncertainty

Taste of turtle—Where are the new customers?—Sharia and asymmetry—There are the Swiss, and other people—Rav Safra and the Swiss (but different Swiss)

You who caught the turtles better eat them, goes the ancient adage.

The origin of the expression is as follows. It was said that a group of fishermen caught a large number of turtles. After cooking them, they found out at the communal meal that these sea animals were much less edible than they thought: not many members of the group were willing to eat them. But Mercury happened to be passing by—Mercury was the most multitasking, sort of put-together god, as he was the boss of commerce, abundance, messengers, the underworld, as well as the patron of thieves and brigands and, not surprisingly, luck. The group invited him to join them and offered him the turtles to eat. Detecting that he was only invited to relieve them of the unwanted food, he forced them all to eat the turtles, thus establishing the principle that you need to eat what you feed others.

A Customer Is Born Every Day

I have learned a lesson from my own naive experiences:

Beware of the person who gives advice, telling you that a certain action on your part is “good for you” while it is also good for him, while the harm to you doesn’t directly affect him.

Of course such advice is usually unsolicited. The asymmetry is when said advice applies to you but not to him—he may be selling you something, or trying to get you to marry his daughter or hire his son-in-law.

Years ago I received a letter from a lecture agent. His letter was clear; it had about ten questions of the type “Do you have the time to field requests?,” “Can you handle the organization of the trip?” The gist of it was that a lecture agent would make my life better and make room for the pursuit of knowledge or whatever else I was about (a deeper understanding of gardening, stamp collections, Mediterranean genetics, or squid-ink recipes) while the burden of the gritty would fall on someone else. And it wasn’t any lecture agent: only he could do all these things; he reads books and can get in the mind of intellectuals (at the time I didn’t feel insulted by being called an intellectual). As is typical with people who volunteer unsolicited advice, I smelled a rat: at no phase in the discussion did he refrain from letting me know that it was “good for me.”

As a sucker, while I didn’t buy into the argument, I ended up doing business with him, letting him handle a booking in the foreign country where he was based. Things went fine until, six years later, I received a letter from the tax authorities of that country. I immediately contacted him to wonder if similar U.S. citizens he had hired incurred such tax conflict, or if he had heard of similar situations. His reply was immediate and curt: “I am not your tax attorney”—volunteering no information as to whether other U.S. customers who hired him because it was “good for them” encountered such a problem.

Indeed, in the dozen or so cases I can pull from memory, it always turns out that what is presented as good for you is not really good for you but certainly good for the other party. As a trader, you learn to identify and deal with upright people, those who inform you that they have something to sell, by explaining that the transaction arises for their own benefit, with such questions as “Do you have an ax?” (meaning an inquiry whether you have a certain interest). Avoid at all costs those who call you to tout a certain product disguised with advice. In fact the story of the turtle is the archetype of the history of transactions between mortals.

I worked once for a U.S. investment bank, one of the prestigious variety, called “white shoe” because the partners were members of hard-to-join golf clubs for proto-aristocrats where they played the game wearing white footwear. As with all such firms, an image of ethics and professionalism was cultivated, emphasized, and protected. But the job of the salespeople (actually, salesmen) on days when they wore black shoes was to “unload” inventory with which traders were “stuffed,” that is, securities they had in excess in their books and needed to get rid of to lower their risk profile. Selling to other dealers was out of the question as professional traders, typically non-golfers, would smell excess inventory and cause the price to drop. So they needed to sell to some client, on what is called the “buy side.” Some traders paid the sales force with (percentage) “points,” a variable compensation that increased with our eagerness to part with securities. Salesmen took clients out to dinner, bought them expensive wine (often, ostensibly the highest on the menu), and got a huge return on the thousands of dollars of restaurant bills by unloading the unwanted stuff on them. One expert salesman candidly explained to me: “If I buy the client, someone working for the finance department of a municipality who buys his suits at some department store in New Jersey, a bottle of $2,000 wine, I own him for the next few months. I can get at least $100,000 profits out of him. Nothing in the mahket gives you such return.”

Salesmen hawked how a given security would be perfect for the client’s portfolio, how they were certain it would rise in price and how the client would suffer great regret if he missed “such an opportunity”—that type of discourse. Salespeople are experts in the art of psychological manipulation, making the client trade, often against his own interest, all the while being happy about it and loving them and their company. One of the top salesmen at the firm, a man with huge charisma who came to work in a chauffeured Rolls Royce, was once asked whether customers didn’t get upset when they got the short end of the stick. “Rip them off, don’t tick them off” was his answer. He also added, “Remember that every day a new customer is born.”

As the Romans were fully aware, one lauds merrily the merchandise to get rid of it.

The Price of Corn in Rhodes

So, “giving advice” as a sales pitch is fundamentally unethical—selling cannot be deemed advice. We can safely settle on that. You can give advice, or you can sell (by advertising the quality of the product), and the two need to be kept separate.

But there is an associated problem in the course of the transactions: how much should the seller reveal to the buyer?

The question “Is it ethical to sell something to someone knowing the price will eventually drop?” is an ancient one—but its solution is no less straightforward. The debate goes back to a disagreement between two stoic philosophers, Diogenes of Babylon and his student Antipater of Tarsus, who took the higher moral ground on asymmetric information and seems to match the ethics endorsed by this author. Not a piece from both authors is extant, but we know quite a bit from secondary sources, or, in the case of Cicero, tertiary. The question was presented as follows, retailed by Cicero in De Officiis. Assume a man brought a large shipment of corn from Alexandria to Rhodes, at a time when corn was expensive in Rhodes because of shortage and famine. Suppose that he also knew that many boats had set sail from Alexandria on their way to Rhodes with similar merchandise. Does he have to inform the Rhodians? How can one act honorably or dishonorably in these circumstances?

We traders had a straightforward answer. Again, “stuffing”—selling quantities to people without informing them that there are large inventories waiting to be sold. An upright trader will not do that to other professional traders; it was a no-no. The penalty was ostracism. But it was sort of permissible to do it to the anonymous market and the faceless nontraders, or those we called “the Swiss,” some random suckers far away. There were people with whom we had a relational rapport, others with whom we had a transactional one. The two were separated by an ethical wall, much like the case with domestic animals that cannot be harmed, while rules on cruelty are lifted when it comes to cockroaches.

Diogenes held that the seller ought to disclose as much as civil law requires. As for Antipater, he believed that everything ought to be disclosed—beyond the law—so that there was nothing that the seller knew that the buyer didn’t know.

Clearly Antipater’s position is more robust—robust being invariant to time, place, situation, and color of the eyes of the participants. Take for now that

The ethical is always more robust than the legal. Over time, it is the legal that should converge to the ethical, never the reverse.

Hence:

Laws come and go; ethics stay.

For the notion of “law” is ambiguous and highly jurisdiction dependent: in the U.S., civil law, thanks to consumer advocates and similar movements, integrates such disclosures, while other countries have different laws. This is particularly visible with securities laws, as there are “front running” regulations and those concerning insider information that make such disclosure mandatory in the U.S., though this wasn’t so for a long time in Europe.

Indeed much of the work of investment banks in my day was to play on regulations, find loopholes in the laws. And, counterintuitively, the more regulations, the easier it was to make money.

Equality in Uncertainty

Which brings us to asymmetry, the core concept behind skin in the game. The question becomes: to what extent can people in a transaction have an informational differential between them? The ancient Mediterranean and, to some extent, the modern world, seem to have converged to Antipater’s position. While we have “buyer beware” (caveat emptor) in the Anglo-Saxon West, the idea is rather new, and never general, often mitigated by lemon laws. (A “lemon” was originally a chronically defective car, say, my convertible Mini, in love with the garage, now generalized to apply to anything that moves).

So, to the question voiced by Cicero in the debate between the two ancient stoics, “If a man knowingly offers for sale wine that is spoiling, ought he to tell his customers?,” the world is getting closer to the position of transparency, not necessarily via regulations as much as thanks to tort laws, and one’s ability to sue for harm in the event a seller deceives him or her. Recall that tort laws put some of the seller’s skin back into the game—which is why they are reviled, hated by corporations. But tort laws have side effects—they should only be used in a nonnaive way, that is, in a way that cannot be gamed. As we will see in the discussion of the visit to the doctor, they will be gamed.

Sharia, in particular the law regulating Islamic transactions and finance, is of interest to us insofar as it preserves some of the lost Mediterranean and Babylonian methods and practices—not to prop up the ego of Saudi princes. It exists at the intersection of Greco-Roman law (as reflected from people in Semitic territories’ contact with the school of law of Berytus), Phoenician trading rules, Babylonian legislations, and Arab tribal commercial customs and, as such, it provides a repository of ancient Mediterranean and Semitic lore. I hence view Sharia as a museum of the history of ideas on symmetry in transactions. Sharia establishes the interdict of gharar, drastic enough to be totally banned in any form of transaction. It is an extremely sophisticated term in decision theory that does not exist in English; it means both uncertainty and deception—my personal take is that it means something beyond informational asymmetry between agents: inequality of uncertainty. Simply, as the aim is for both parties in a transaction to have the same uncertainty facing random outcomes, an asymmetry becomes equivalent to theft. Or more robustly:

No person in a transaction should have certainty about the outcome while the other one has uncertainty.

Gharar, like every legalistic construct, will have its flaws; it remains weaker than Antipater’s approach. If only one party in a transaction has certainty all the way through, it is a violation of Sharia. But if there is a weak form of asymmetry, say, someone has inside information which gives an edge in the markets, there is no gharar as there remains enough uncertainty for both parties, given that the price is in the future and only God knows the future. Selling a defective product (where there is certainty as to the defect), on the other hand, is illegal. So the knowledge by the seller of corn in Rhodes in my first example does not fall under gharar, while the second case, that of a defective liquid, would.

As we see, the problem of asymmetry is so complicated that different schools give different ethical solutions, so let us look at the Talmudic approach.

Rav Safra and the Swiss

Jewish ethics on the matter is closer to Antipater than Diogenes in its aims at transparency. Not only should there be transparency concerning the merchandise, but perhaps there has to be transparency concerning what the seller has in mind, what he thinks deep down. The medieval rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (aka Salomon Isaacides), known as “Rashi,” relates the following story. Rav Safra, a third-century Babylonian scholar who was also an active trader, was offering some goods for sale. A buyer came as he was praying in silence, tried to purchase the merchandise at an initial price, and given that the rabbi did not reply, raised the price. But Rav Safra had no intention of selling at a higher price than the initial offer, and felt that he had to honor the initial intention. Now the question: Is Rav Safra obligated to sell at the initial price, or should he take the improved one?

Such total transparency is not absurd and not uncommon in what seems to be a cutthroat world of transactions, my former world of trading. I have frequently faced that problem as a trader and will side in favor of Rav Safra’s action in the debate. Let us follow the logic. Recall the rapacity of salespeople earlier in the chapter. Sometimes I would offer something for sale for, say, $5, but communicated with the client through a salesperson, and the salesperson would come back with an “improvement,” of $5.10. Something never felt right about the extra ten cents. It was, simply, not a sustainable way of doing business. What if the customer subsequently discovered that my initial offer was $5? No compensation is worth the feeling of shame. The overcharge falls in the same category as the act of “stuffing” people with bad merchandise. Now, to apply this to Rav Safra’s story, what if he sold to one client at the marked-up price, and to another one the exact same item for the initial price, and the two buyers happened to know one another? What if they were agents for the same customer?

Revue de presse

Praise for Nassim Nicholas Taleb
 
“The problem with Taleb is not that he’s an asshole. He is an asshole. The problem with Taleb is that he is right.”
—Dan from Prague, Czech Republic (Twitter)
 
“The most prophetic voice of all . . . [Taleb is] a genuinely significant philosopher . . . someone who is able to change the way we view the structure of the world through the strength, originality and veracity of his ideas alone.”
John Gray, GQ
 
“Taleb grabs on to core problems that others ignore, or don’t see, and shakes them like an attack dog on a leg.”
—Greg from New York (Twitter)
 
“For my wife and me,
Antifragile is an annual reread.”—Colle from Richmond, Virginia (Twitter)
 
“I read
Antifragile four times. First, to get the wisdom to survive. Second, as a memorial statement for Fat Tony. Third, as Das Kapital with correct mathematics. Fourth, as ethics to learn a good way to die.”—Tamitake from Tokyo, Japan (Twitter)
 
“November . . . time for my annual reread of
Antifragile.”—Johann from Vienna, Austria (Twitter)
 
“[Taleb writes] in a style that owes as much to Stephen Colbert as it does to Michel de Montaigne.”
The Wall Street Journal

Détails sur le produit

  • Éditeur ‏ : ‎ Random House (27 février 2018)
  • Langue ‏ : ‎ Anglais
  • Relié ‏ : ‎ 304 pages
  • ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 042528462X
  • ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0425284629
  • Poids de l'article ‏ : ‎ 567 g
  • Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 16.38 x 2.69 x 24.23 cm
  • Commentaires client :
    4,5 sur 5 étoiles 2 586 évaluations

À propos de l'auteur

Suivez les auteurs pour obtenir de nouvelles mises à jour et des recommandations améliorées.
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Découvrir d'autres livres de l'auteur, voir des auteurs similaires, lire des blogs d'auteurs et plus encore

Commentaires client

4,5 sur 5 étoiles
4,5 sur 5
2 586 évaluations

Meilleures évaluations de France

Traduire tous les commentaires en français
1000 PREMIERS REDACTEURS D'AVIS
Commenté en France le 5 avril 2018
14 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
Signaler un abus
Commenté en France le 26 juin 2018
5 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
Signaler un abus
Commenté en France le 30 avril 2018
4 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
Signaler un abus
Commenté en France le 25 mars 2018
3 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
Signaler un abus
Commenté en France le 25 octobre 2021
Commenté en France le 8 juillet 2019
Commenté en France le 11 mars 2018
Une personne a trouvé cela utile
Signaler un abus
Commenté en France le 25 mars 2018
2 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
Signaler un abus

Meilleurs commentaires provenant d’autres pays

anon
1,0 sur 5 étoiles An asymmetrical and disappointing read.
Commenté au Royaume-Uni le 14 août 2018
87 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
Signaler un abus
James Lizard
2,0 sur 5 étoiles Great philosopher?
Commenté au Royaume-Uni le 22 décembre 2018
50 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
Signaler un abus
John Brewer
2,0 sur 5 étoiles An Unfortunate, Highly Unexpected Event
Commenté au Royaume-Uni le 31 juillet 2018
30 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
Signaler un abus
SimpleSimon
5,0 sur 5 étoiles An Important Moral Book
Commenté au Royaume-Uni le 19 juin 2018
12 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
Signaler un abus
Alex
1,0 sur 5 étoiles Disappointing
Commenté au Royaume-Uni le 29 novembre 2020
5 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
Signaler un abus