This could be a nit-pick, but your risk aversion should be factored into your utility function
Not according to Against Discount Rates …and I agree—though this may be a tangent.
I think these are two different things. I’d agree in opposing temporal discounting, but I’m not sure there’s anything (normatively) problematic about being risk-averse with money.
(Also, I believe Larks’s statement “your risk aversion should be factored into your utility function” didn’t mean to imply necessarily “you should be risk averse”; I just read it to mean “if you’re risk-averse, you don’t need to put that outside the framework of expected utility maximization, and decide not to always maximize expected utility; rather, your utility function itself can represent however much risk aversion you have”.)
Not according to Against Discount Rates …and I agree—though this may be a tangent.
It is better if risk aversion is dynamically generated.
I think these are two different things. I’d agree in opposing temporal discounting, but I’m not sure there’s anything (normatively) problematic about being risk-averse with money.
(Also, I believe Larks’s statement “your risk aversion should be factored into your utility function” didn’t mean to imply necessarily “you should be risk averse”; I just read it to mean “if you’re risk-averse, you don’t need to put that outside the framework of expected utility maximization, and decide not to always maximize expected utility; rather, your utility function itself can represent however much risk aversion you have”.)