He can certainly bet that way (and does — though it’s not paying off), but it’s a bad idea to make society anti-fragile.
Let me define a few words describing potential responses to volatility:
- fragile — Taleb means systems that break when catastrophic volatility is applied; he’s thinking of people who deep short volatility or at least indirectly bet on stability
- robust — like a bridge, or an earthquake-resistant building: built to withstand shocks
- agile — able to adapt to shocks
- anti-fragile — shock-loving; shock-seeking; volatility-loving; risk-avid
Taleb points out that there is no word for “the opposite of fragile”; only for “not fragile”. True.
But we really shouldn’t try to make the system break in the case of no catastrophes. Imagine a bridge that shattered only-and-always, when no cars drove on it. Or a building that toppled only-and-always, when no earthquakes were shaking it. (Those would be anti-fragile things.)
It would be stupid to build things that way. Same with the financial system — we want to be prepared for bad times but also, ready to capitalise on good times. A mouse who’s so afraid of cats that it never goes to look for food, will die.
What makes anti-fragility an especially bad idea in finance, is that people might try to sabotage, tweak, or influence the system to make their bet pay off. Let’s say some powerful crook is long volatility — that is, s/he will only get paid if some huge catastrophe happens within the next year. Maybe s/he will engineer a catastrophe. That could be truly terrible.
UPDATE: @nntaleb has clarified on twitter that he does intend “antifragility” to mean “long gamma”.
— Nassim N. Taleb (@nntaleb) November 24, 2012