Do nothing

Two and a half years ago I passed out. My wife called an ambulance which took me to the A&E. The physicians went through the usual battery of tests. Everything was fine, so I was sent back home. The following day I went to the GP. In my mind the right thing to do was to do many more tests until the cause was identified. I was taken aback by the GP's reaction:

GP: "More tests? I really don't think it's necessary."
Me: "But I passed out!"
GP: "How old are you?"
Me: "38"
GP: "Is this the first time you passed out?"
Me: "Yes?!"
GP: "Well, you should be grateful."

His point was: these things happen and we have very limited understanding why. Unless I passed out again, the best thing would be to do nothing.

I was reminded of the above reading the paper today. Nassim Taleb, identified as a philosopher, wrote about our tendency to act when in many cases the best thing to do would be . . . . you got it right, nothing.

I am more of the 'Let's sleep on it' school of thought. If I am about to react in anger, anguish or fury I always try to wait until the next day and reconsider the situation once the blood has redistributed itself from my hot head to the rest of the body. It is an off shoot from the 'Do nothing' school: do nothing for a while, then decide whether or not to do something.

Anyway, the reason I am telling you all this is that I have a major bone to pick with Mr Taleb. You see, he jumps seamlessly from talking about 'doing nothing' versus 'doing something' to the talking about 'omission' versus 'commission'. Now, I agree that 'commission' is very close to 'doing something'. I completely disagree with the second part. Omission is 'not doing something specific' or even stopping to do it, not 'doing nothing'. Not the same.

Taking it to the topic Taleb is focusing on - the financial system - the 'omission' suggested by Taleb: deciding to avoid regulation altogether, is not the same as not changing the regulatory system. Indeed, one may not accept regulation as the 'natural' state of events, but it is the status quo. Changing the status quo is not 'do nothing'. So, my problem with Taleb's argument is in the realm of philosophy. In the realm of economics I just think he's plain wrong.

PS 600km down. 400km to go.