I think people have it backwards on effective altruism. People choose their religion and belief system because it lets them do what they want to do. If your kink is guilt tripping other people for enjoying sex, then you choose a sexually repressive religion. If your fun is killing or torturing people for [Insert Reason Here], you have a broad choice of religions and philosophies that you can adopt that will encourage you in your proclivity and grant you suitable approbation. If your wish is to accrue massive wealth, take on big risks and ignore the problems of the present, you can choose effective altruism and both indulge yourself and feel good about it.
Rolling double or nothing indefinitely only works if you are immortal and have infinite resources. Taking on huge risks makes sense for people with a family trust, a good supply of f--k you money or a sexy bod admired by venture capital bros you can fall back on. Ignoring the problems of the present can work within one's individual life span, for example, Louis XV died on his throne well loved.
"Rolling double or nothing indefinitely only works if you are immortal and have infinite resources. Taking on huge risks makes sense for people with a family trust”—YES!!
I agree. But that's why I said important for "macroeconomics." For the government to invest according to NPV>0, which does depend on the vector of the real discount rate, I think of as "microeconomics" :) But I do not think Krugman's readers got the message about which projects and in what amounts the government should be investing in.
BTW technical question. Within the framework in which NPV>0 is the investment rule. what is the tax rule?
I think people have it backwards on effective altruism. People choose their religion and belief system because it lets them do what they want to do. If your kink is guilt tripping other people for enjoying sex, then you choose a sexually repressive religion. If your fun is killing or torturing people for [Insert Reason Here], you have a broad choice of religions and philosophies that you can adopt that will encourage you in your proclivity and grant you suitable approbation. If your wish is to accrue massive wealth, take on big risks and ignore the problems of the present, you can choose effective altruism and both indulge yourself and feel good about it.
Rolling double or nothing indefinitely only works if you are immortal and have infinite resources. Taking on huge risks makes sense for people with a family trust, a good supply of f--k you money or a sexy bod admired by venture capital bros you can fall back on. Ignoring the problems of the present can work within one's individual life span, for example, Louis XV died on his throne well loved.
"Rolling double or nothing indefinitely only works if you are immortal and have infinite resources. Taking on huge risks makes sense for people with a family trust”—YES!!
Unless Krugman want to go into the financial advice business, why try to predict future real rates?
Why do macroeconomic policy makers need it.? Now for fiscal policy, yes becasue we don't want the Government investing in things with negative NPV.
It matters a lot for determining how much government should invest, and how we should finance that investing...
I agree. But that's why I said important for "macroeconomics." For the government to invest according to NPV>0, which does depend on the vector of the real discount rate, I think of as "microeconomics" :) But I do not think Krugman's readers got the message about which projects and in what amounts the government should be investing in.
BTW technical question. Within the framework in which NPV>0 is the investment rule. what is the tax rule?