4 ms·
Agreed in principle. I think the initial slope should be a little lower but after about 30 years things should REALLY start to take off. So maybe $10 a year f
by msandford 12y ago
Agreed in principle. I think the initial slope should be a little lower but after about 30 years things should REALLY start to take off. So maybe $10 a year for the first 15 years and then double it every year thereafter.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- dunham 12y agoHe's proposing $7 _total_ for the first 15 years. ($1 for the first five, $2 for the next five, and $4 for the final five years.)
- msandford 12y agoGraph the two of them and get back to me. I'm talking about the slope. I do realize that the total sum is basically trivial either way. But slope is an actual mathematical term and I used it as such.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- lacksconfidence 12y agoThen why should the initial slope be lower? If the total sum is trivial it seems it shouldn't matter
- msandford 12y agoTo pre-emptively deny the reform opponent (read "Disney lackey") the opportunity to scare monger people by trotting out the "it's exponential!!" argument. If it's a flat fee for the first 15 or 30 years then it should take a lot of wind out of their sails. If people start doing the math and saying "but at 60 years this is completely insane!" then just ask for a list of affected stakeholders that this would bankrupt. I suspect the only people on the list would be Disney.