Do you see this as a linear relationship or a curve where the max rewards peak at some point, after which they yield diminishing results?
-
-
-
That’s the question that popped into my mind too. I’d think it would be more logarithmic than linear. If you believe that to be true, then the question becomes at what point does capping rewards begin to have a negligible impact on risk taking?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
a.k.a socialism.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Isn't it also true that often the rewards and risks are unclear? So, reward is proportionate to *perceived* risk?
-
I would think that most often, the risks are clearer than the rewards
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I'd refine it to "reward is proportionate to risk-taking" . the current phrasing suggests(atleast to me) about risk from external factors.(like climate change risk)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
it’s not really risk if there are rewards
-
Rewards are in the upside generally, and there is only some chance to attain them. If we limit the rewards, which were already speculative to begin with, that’s a double whammy that often kills any willingness to take risk
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is a very important point for price controls on drugs. Right now, uncapped rewards in the US are the main thing fueling further research. If we cap in US like everyone else, rewards drop dramatically. Pls remember that next time someone says single payer works everywhere
-
In many cases, the US government spending is the main thing fueling further research. in an increasingly connected world, US won’t continue to pay $2000 for drugs that sell for $8 in Australia when the drug Dev and trial was paid for by US gov.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.