Future Wealth

By | August 10, 2005

Via GeekPress, Joanna Glasner has an interesting piece on Wired
News
about the advisability of investing in life extension technologies.
She makes a cautious case that such investments could prove worthwhile,
if entered into carefully, and she ends the piece with this thought:

Still, investors focusing on life-extending breakthroughs have time to be
patient. If it all works out, and we really do live forever, that should provide
plenty of time for a portfolio of biotechnology stocks to turn a profit.

Hmmm…if it does pan out, and we do live forever…or even, say, 500 years…what kinds
of investments make sense? Einstein is reputed once to have quipped that compound
interest is the most powerful force in the universe. For those of us who only
get to piddle around with it for 50 years or so, that may be a little hard to
believe. But given enough time — and that’s what life extension ultimately
promises, more than enough time — we gain some perspective.

Putting money into
a 401K for a few decades is like accidentally leaving the garden hose on overnight.
You get up the next morning, and yeah, it’s pretty squishy back there, but no
big deal. Given enough time, however, even a muddy little trickle like the Colorado
river can carve out the Grand Canyon. Likewise, even a small amount of money,
compounded at a modest rate over sufficient time, will yield a fortune.

Lazarus Long
explained it like this:

$100 placed at 7 percent interest compounded quarterly for 200 years will
increase to more than $l00,000,000—by which time it will be worth nothing.

Not too encouraging. But then again, old Woodrow Wilson Smith tends to be a
little more cynical than he really needs to. Let’s examine that "it will
be worth nothing" thing. I can think of three possible reasons why that
might be the case:

  1. Two hundred years from now, you’ll be dead. So the money is worth nothing
    to you. (Kind of a strange argument for a man who lived more than 1,000 years
    to make.)

  2. Two hundred years from now, for whatever reason — maybe you forgot? —
    you will not care about the money, once again making it worthless to you.

  3. Two hundred years from now, because of inflation, $100,000,000 just won’t
    be worth that much.

money-stacked.jpgFor the sake of simplicity, we can skip the first two interpretations. Let’s
assume that life extension will work and that, 200 years from now, we’ll still
be interested.

How much will our money be worth? I’m going to simplify LL’s formulation a
bit and compound the interest annually rather than quarterly. At that rate,
in 200 years the $100 dollars will have grown "only" to a little more
than $70 million. That still sounds like a lot of money to me.

Of course, we need to adjust for inflation. (I’m not going to try to adjust
for other possibilities, such as the decline of the dollar or its eventual
replacement with another currency. Could happen. I doubt it. Anyway, we’ll assume
that, as savvy, long-term investors, we’ll keep our money in the best currency
to ensure long-term growth and stability. That’s probably going to be the US
dollar, anyway.)

Inflation is a very difficult thing to measure long-term. But if goods and
services tended to go up, on average, 3%
in price over the course of the 20th century
, that is probably as good a
guesstimate as any as to what we can expect to happen over the next 200 years.

So, not being an economist I do the math as follows:

Actual Rate of Growth   7%
Rate of Inflation - 3%
Effective Rate of Growth = 4%

If our $100 grew at 4% interest for 200 years, it would be worth about $123,000.

So Lazarus is wrong. Our investment isn’t worthless, it’s just "worth
less" than it looks. In the year 2205, $70 million simply won’t buy what
it used to. What will it buy? Approximately what $123,000 will today. So over
time, you have multiplied your initial $100 worth of spending power by a factor
of more than a thousand.

Not too shabby!

Anyway, whoever heard of just investing a hundred dollars? The real trick would
be to pay into your future wealth account over a period of years and then just
let it go to work."Set it and forget it" as they say on the infomercials.

So let’s put $600 a year into our account (that’s a measly $50 a month) for
twenty years and then revisit it after a total of 150 years has elapsed. After
all, 150 years is just a drop in the bucket to someone with an indefinite lifespan.

By then, our initial disciplined investment will have grown to more than $160
million. After doing the inflation buzzkill adjustment, we see that in the year
2155, $160 million will get you right around what $3 million will today. That’s
not bad. Plus, if you can hang in there for another 50 years — take a part-time
job, write a book, I’m sure you can think of something to kill the time — you
will have a little more than $28 billion (yep, billion with a B) which will
buy you approximately what $21 million (with an M) will today.

That’s the ticket. And you know, even though you may not (to coin a phrase)
live to see it, in a world where lives are getting longer, wouldn’t something
like this be worth a shot? At the very worst, you would be leaving a nice (NICE!)
nest egg for your long-lived children or grandchildren.

  • blacknail

    Okay, some I’m a little freaked. Does it really seem possible that we’ll all be sitting around with hundreds of millions of dollars in 200 years (let along billions). I understand the adjustment for inflation and all, but really, come on. Am I really gonna be buying push-ups from the ice cream man for 5 grand a pop? I don’t know how history has taken care of these currency issues, but it just seems like there’s got to be some point when everything adjusts down, so I can spend a buck and something that’s actually worth a buck. I don’t think too many people will complain either. Cuz if they’re like me, they aint got no money anyway.

  • Phil Bowermaster

    Blacknail –

    It may all get adjusted down, but it’s the spending power that’s important.

    Still, people can adapt to things. I remember when I was a kid there was this TV ad set in “the future” in which the husband and wife were shopping in the supermarket (which looked almost bare but with very futuristic lighting, and they were dressed in futuristic foil suits, by the way) and the wife comments that hey, look, top sirloin is only $10 a pound.

    “Yeah, well it’s still expensive,” the husband says.

    Think how outrageous it sounded in the seventies to talk about paying $10 a pound for steak. It was a joke! The commercial was meant to be funny.

    And yet…

    So we may yet see the $5,000 push-up. But when that day comes, it won’t seem all that strange

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Stephen Gordon

    Blacknail/Phil:

    I’d be tempted to say that when an ice-cream costs $5,000 our basic unit of currency will be different. Cents and even dollars might be too small to worry with – The “M” note ($1,000) might be the basic unit of currency…

    Except…

    I seriously doubt that we’ll be using paper or coin for currency anymore. And plastic credit cards will be gone too. Like other technology, our currency will be invisible.

    Either way, you wouldn’t have to hand the ice-cream man a suitcase of money to buy your kid a push-up.

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Stephen Gordon

    For long-term investments I can’t think of anything better than investing in potential life extension technology.

    Why?

    Well, if it works, people will pay for it. Think Viagra’s a blockbuster? You won’t need that drug if your body is young and buff.

    It would be the most valuable tech in the world. And guess who’ll have the money to pay for it? Those who invested in it.

    And, hey, if it doesn’t work you won’t have too much time to regret your poor investment. :-)

    More seriously, investing in tech that could blossom into life extension will pay off even if life extension is delayed beyond our time. It’s just medical tech – and that’s not a bad area to consider investing in anyway.

  • blacknail

    Oh, I get it. I’m dumb and you’re smart. I’m small and you’re big. I’m dead and you’re not. Sometimes, I’ll admit, I don’t get what you kids are up to. It’s a little weird. I can tell you what, though. I’m not with you guys on the life extension kick. Frankly, I think living forever is gonna really f*** things up. Be like a swarm of flies at a fruit cake convention. Basically, we’re talkin’ all-hell-breakin-loose pand-e-monium. Death is a measure. It defines existence. Frankly, I think if we go on livin’ forever, we’d get so bored, we’d start offin’ ourselves just for kicks. And let’s face it, some folks really shouldn’t be livin’ on-n-on. You know, like the sick-o’s.

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Phil Bowermaster

    Aw, crap. Blacknail’s gone off his meds again.

    By the way, pal, you don’t have to use the ****’s. We all watch Battlestar Galactica. We all know the word “frack” and are comfortable with it.

  • blacknail

    Well, I thought this was a family site, so I was just mindin’ my P’s and Q’s. So what’s this “we” business, anyway? You got a mouse in your pocket?

    BTW, are you talking about the new BG or the old one? The new one looks hot.

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Phil Bowermaster

    We = me, Virginia Postrel, and other important futurist personages.

    Yeah, the new one. It rocks. Interestingly, though, I believe the word frack was used in both. Compare with the use of frel (frell?) in Farscape.

    Interesting.

  • blacknail

    I thought for a moment there this Virginia was posting to your blog. And I was all “Whoa”. But, alas, it is was all just a grammatical ambiguity.