> A perpetual bond has a finite present value. You are onotologically correct but epistemologically confused. In the first order, bonds are just contacts that

> A perpetual bond has a finite present value. You are onotologically correct but epistemologically confused. In the first order, bonds are just contacts that are fungible enough to trade. In the second order, we have markets for them which arrange prices. In the third order, based on the practice of those markets and theorizing about them, we can up with temporal discounting and thus a way to assign finite present value. ---- > It's no more or less exploitative than a bond with finitely many payments and the same present value. And where was it said that the exploitation of the bond was solely a function of its present value? My complaint is not with present value. I am aware of these things. My complaint is with the nature of the contact in a way that is not captured by present value.