Go read Paul Kelleher’s take-down of a what appears to me to be a self-evidently bad argument that one should discount future costs and future health benefits equivalently. The proponents of this argument, Weinstein and Stason, lose me with a claim that is equivalent to the idea that they’d be willing to give me $70,000 today in exchange for $70,000 in 40 years. (See steps A1 and A2 of their argument in the post.) I would really like to do business with them.
AF
