Actually, maybe I should say more about the disciplines-as-a-whole question. Suppose macroeconomics as a whole provides an incentive to produce nonsense — I lack the expertise to tell, though Roemer’s critique is convincing to my surface-level knowledge — the participants still have personal risk, it’s just that the game they have skin in is the wrong game. Lots of macroeconomists get their careers ended for not being good enough at doing the stuff that macroeconomics counts as success, it isn’t some kind of French aristocratic sinecure — it’s just that the discipline is confused about what should count as success.

This doesn’t seem like the same problem Taleb was talking about. There’s still personal accountability, it’s just personal accountability relative to a mistaken standard that isn’t good for the world. The solution is to change the standards, not to change the nature of the enterprise. (It’s the same as saying a tobacco company founder doesn’t have skin in the game because she doesn’t go broke when people get lung cancer from her products — she has skin in the game, but the game is fucked up.)