Re: Market failure to sufficently weigh the future?

From: J. R. Molloy (
Date: Sat Oct 28 2000 - 14:10:22 MDT

Hal Finney asked,

> If you would not pay $2.60 to give your ten year ago self $1, isn't this
> equivalent to saying that you regret that you didn't save $1 ten years
> ago so that you could have $2.60 today?

No, it is not equivalent because a ten year ago self could purchase something
that could appreciate in value. A ten year ago self could buy a tool with which
to make something, build something, create something. That ten year ago $1.00
tool could produce much more value than $2.60 could buy today. Extropy abides by
expansion in more directions than wise investment.

> And if this is the case for most people, doesn't it imply in effect that
> most of us regret most of the consumption we have done in the past?

I don't think so. If we ("most of us") had most of the money (compounded
quarterly) that we ("most people") ever spent on consumables, we'd all be dead.
Rich maybe, but dead to the experience of life, dead to the extropic potential
of every fleeting moment. What kind of tight-assed totalitarian economy wants to
stop the consumption we have done in the past? I should complain because I don't
have fifty grand a year to retire on? I've already outlived 85% of the people on
the planet. How greedy would I have to become to outdo the other 15%?

Stay hungry,

--J. R.
3M TA3

You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow
the first one.
-- Rush Limbaugh, in a moment of unaccustomed profundity 17 Aug 1993
[From the Eric Raymond file]
In case you've forgotten the First:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:19 MDT