Taleb has written literally hundreds of pages on risk management and if you don't consider any of that as context, I guess you could assume he literally meant to get short some delta one treasury product. I think that's a little bit naive but whatever.
You have to switch it from Russian (ру́с) to English. He says you want an "active position" where you "benefit from rise [in rates]." The video then shows Hugh Hendry, who has basically the opposite position but for European government bonds. He is short rates (so long bonds) but he has an options position which fixes his maximum loss at some known value. Hendry spells it out, but I think given Taleb's background, he probably meant something like that (but in reverse).
He says you want an "active position" where you "benefit from rise [in rates]."
Rates went down dramatically. In fact, they were cut almost in half. He was completely wrong on this prediction over the last 5 years. Maybe he was early - doubtful - but over a 5 year time frame that's as good as wrong.
but he has an options position which fixes his maximum loss at some known value
If you are long an option then it fixes your maximum loss at some known value. If you are short an option, then your maximum loss is infinity.
But let's be real. Even if you are long an option, that option will expire. Over 5 years you probably rolled that option a minimum of a few times and more likely several dozen times. Almost every time you would've experienced a loss.
Why is it bad to admit that he Taleb was just spectacularly wrong on this position? (Just like 99% of other professional investors that expected rates to spike up dramatically from 2010 to 2015).
Okay, I watched a bit of the video now (thanks for linking to it). I still don't see what's so ambiguous about "stay short Treasury bonds", he says it quite directly, and as far as I can tell from the video he means it, but maybe I'm wrong. He also says in that video says you should buy deep out of money options on gold/other metals in case hyperinflation happens.
So first, as far as I can tell, he really did say and mean those things.
Second, the suggestions, the bet on rising interest rates, as well as the bet on hyperinflation, are, I think, ignoring basic macroeconomics, and they pretend that some really implausible outcomes can happen. Maybe you would hedge the bet, and have other trades that bound your losses, but they would still have lost money. I don't think it matters that much that with a cleverer execution they would have lost less money. The point is that they were wrong in the first place.
You can watch the full video here: http://2010.therussiaforum.com/news/session-video3/
You have to switch it from Russian (ру́с) to English. He says you want an "active position" where you "benefit from rise [in rates]." The video then shows Hugh Hendry, who has basically the opposite position but for European government bonds. He is short rates (so long bonds) but he has an options position which fixes his maximum loss at some known value. Hendry spells it out, but I think given Taleb's background, he probably meant something like that (but in reverse).