Would certainly be better but I would say ten years is not a crazy long time when it comes to borrowing decisions that often have 30 years timetables. Also doe

Would certainly be better but I would say ten years is not a crazy long time when it comes to borrowing decisions that often have 30 years timetables. Also doesn't capture in the the unequalness of gains. Which is better - the fed doing something that has 90% chance of huge gains or a 10% chance of catastrophic economy shattering loss? Or an 80% chance of huge gains and a 20% chance of gains netting 0? The first is much more desirable if maximizing a bonus and could be tempting - but I dont think we want that risk.