Here we totally disagree. If you inherit a fortune from your parents, it's your parents skin in the game the one you end up holding. If you waste your inherited fortune you waste their life of savings, not yours. It did cost you nothing to get that fortune. This is why most people who are winning a lottery end up losing everything. It does cost them nothing to get the fortune - to buy a lottery ticket is not really a cost, nor a merit - and the "skin-in-the-game" value of that fortune is zero. When the skin-in-the-game value of something you are holding is zero your pain in losing it is infinitely lower than the pain of losing something where's a lot of YOUR skin-in-the-game. If you make a mistake which leads you to lose all the savings of all your life you are much more inclined to commit suicide than if you make a mistake which leads you to lose the saving of someone's elses life, which happened to be in your possession just by the way of luck because you have won it or inherited it.
In my Ivory Tower post I'm mentioning also modern politicians ruling without skin in the game. Of course if they make mistakes they have something to lose - their power, but they don't really have to pay the whole price of their mistakes, like it would happen in a distant past. The same applies to top bankers. It's not THEIR skin-in-the-game at stake. All those aspects have been widely and well described by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book "Skin in The Game". Understanding the meaning of skin-in-the-game is not limited to the concept of "having something to lose", but it deals with the true subjective value of what you have to lose in a game.