A Quote by Nassim Nicholas Taleb

A system, artificially stabilized, and of course you have hidden risks under the surface, and you don't know where the risks are. — © Nassim Nicholas Taleb
A system, artificially stabilized, and of course you have hidden risks under the surface, and you don't know where the risks are.
When large companies take on risk, then they impose risks on the rest of the system. And these are systemic risks and these systemic risks we never used to think were really that important, but as soon as we recognize how the financial sector - the risks the financial sector takes on can impact the entire global economy, we realize that those risks needed to be controlled for the social good.
The trouble is that the risks that are being hedged very well by new financial securities are financial risks. And it appears to me that the real things you want to hedge are real risks, for example, risks in innovation. The fact is that you'd like companies to be able to take bigger chances. Presumably one obstacle to successful R&D, particularly when the costs are large, are the risks involved.
While it may be theoretically possible to demonstrate the risks inherent in any treaty... the far greater risk to our security are the risks of unrestricted testing, the risks of a nuclear arms race, the risks of new nuclear powers.
There are some risks we choose to take because the benefits from taking them exceed the possible costs. Optimal behavior takes risks that are worthwhile. This is the central paradigm of finance: we must take risks to achieve rewards, but not all risks are equally rewarded.
From my perspective, as an entrepreneur, one is wired to take risks. You, of course, need to be smart and take calculated risks, and then do all you can to make it worth the risk.
If designers are willing to take risks, I think buyers should take risks, as well with press taking risks.
When gene therapy was believed to harbor latent risks, research was largely put on hold until the risks were better understood. Sometimes, the theoretical risks have led to a principle of absolutist precaution that impedes progress.
I like to take risks as long as they're healthy, you know. They're good, smart risks.
This is boxing. As fighters we know the risks, we know we are risking our health everytime you step into the ring, but it's a risk we are willing to take because we know with those risks come great reward.
The trick is to take risks and be paid for taking those risks, but to take a diversified basket of risks in a portfolio.
Our research indicates that, for example, the physical risks of climate change - both the direct risks to facilities, but also the indirect risks to economic growth and otherwise, are more pronounced and happening more quickly than a traditional perspective would suggest.
You never know who you will meet along life's journey. You have to be open to risks, but calculated risks, open to winning.
The thing I preach constantly is do your research; build your knowledge base. Don't just go into business on a whim or a prayer - and don't think 'I'm an entrepreneur so I have to take risks'. Entrepreneurs don't take risks. They take calculated risks; only the good ones.
people who refuse to take risks live with a feeling of dread that is far more severe than what they would feel if they took the risks necessary to make them less helpless - only they don't know it!
Diversifying sufficiently among uncorrelated risks can reduce portfolio risk toward zero. But financial engineers should know that's not true of a portfolio of correlated risks.
We run enormous risks and we know what kind of reductions of greenhouse gases are necessary to drastically reduce risks. Reducing emissions by half by 2050 is roughly in the right ballpark. It would bring us below 550 ppm.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!