4 ms·
" Realistically, anything less than 10 years seems to me a very long shot." Except in the case of climate change the time horizon under consideration should be
by someguydave 10y ago
" Realistically, anything less than 10 years seems to me a very long shot."
Except in the case of climate change the time horizon under consideration should be more like 100 to 1000 years.
- candiodari 10y agoThis is known as a fallacy in economics. You should have a time horizon on your decisions, and of course, it should not exceed, let's say, 10 years less than your expected lifespan. So something like 50-60 years is the longest considered timespan. Rewards on that sort of timeframe have to be extreme (essentially 1.0450=7, as in 7 times ROI would be the risk-free rate. For an investment with minimal risk a factor 30 or so would be required)
- someguydave 10y agoIndeed, I was pointing out that anti-global-warming policies are not likely to be economically viable on a living individual's time scale.