[rewqfdsa]

> The fact that those things don't have a return of 15% shouldn't be a justification for, we, as a society, not doing them.

Isn't it, though? Doesn't ROI define what it means for something to be "worth doing"? If you think we should be doing X and X is not currently profitable, what's effective isn't expressing disappointment that X isn't being done. What's effective is changing the incentive structure so that X is profitable.

By the way, it's not a 15% return that's necessary. Right now, the current reserve on US federal bonds is 2.56% over 30 years. Investors are buying these things like crazy. It's really fucking sad that our society is so hard-pressed for things to do that 2.56% over 30 years looks like a great opportunity.

[RobertoG]

"Doesn't ROI define what it means for something to be "worth doing"?"

No, it doesn't. That was my point.

[rewqfdsa]

There is an infinite universe of actions we can take. We can sleep all day. We can wave our arms for hours. We can all decide to dress up as Ross Perot. We need some way to determine which actions are worth doing and which are not. You appear to reject the use of return on investment as this filter. With what do you propose to replace it?

[RobertoG]

I know. The resources are properly allocated by the market.

How do we know they are properly allocated? because in other case, the market would be allocating them in another way.

Don't you think there is a circular reasoning there somewhere?

Even when the economy is under-performing, and there are obviously underutilized resources, we have to accept it because there is not profit in perspective to make. This is the logic that, for instance, pursue austerity in Europe instead of counter-cyclic policies that would be the logic thing to do.

What about using markets as a tool for accomplish society goals instead of as the way to define the goals? What about defining goals using that other tool we have: democracy.

[nopassrecover]

You seem to be pricing risk at $0.

As a simple and relevant example, would you rather invest in a company that has a 10% chance at a 1000% return (but otherwise returns 0%), or take the 2.56% bond?

The EV of the first option is 100% return (with high risk), whereas the other is 231% compounded (guaranteed).