Um dos grandes problemas dos dias de hoje é que a classe política tem o poder de tomar decisões que têm grande risco e impacto na vida dos cidadãos, sem que o risco e o resultado dessas decisões tenham um impacto da mesma forma nessa mesma classe política. Isto é, a classe política não tem “skin in the game“.
A expressão “skin in the game” tem sido popularizada por Nassim Taleb e é o título do seu próximo livro. A propósito deste livro, deixo um extracto de uma entrevista recente com o autor:
Nassim Nicholas Taleb: Okay, but let me tell you one thing here. If you think that there should be a minimum wage, then you should pay–people who think there should be minimum wages should voluntarily pay everybody around them the difference between whatever they are getting and that minimum wage. And, when you go to McDonald’s, you should leave a $3 tip or $4 tip to the person. If that’s really what they want to do, they should do it themselves. I’ve discussed in a book that the [?] behavior on the part of people who always have ideas of how things should be but in fact don’t pay for it themselves. Like, they argue about privilege, class privilege, but they themselves privileged; and they don’t pass their wealth to others. They want higher taxes on others but not–they don’t want to give more to charity.
Russ Roberts: I think their defense would be–I don’t find it, I’m not sure I find it compelling, but they’ll argue, ‘Well, I’m willing to chip in as long as other people are forced to, and then I’ll be happy doing it.’ So, that would be their claim.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb: Yeah, but that’s a weird argument. Virtue should be unconditional. It should not be conditional. In other words, ‘I’m going to save people from drowning only if other people save people from drowning.’ That’s not an argument that can stand on [?]. I don’t know any ethical system that is based on something like that.
Ainda a propósito do conceito de “skin in the game“, termino este post com uma citação de Thomas Sowell.