I don’t think calling it “rational financial planning” is a great idea. All I’m saying is that it’s better than calling it “optimal financial planning”. It’s probably a good thing to replace “rational” with “optimal” if you have good reason to believe your approach is in fact optimal. But financial planning is a game of such complexity and with so many possible moves that it would be the height of hubris to regard your approach as an actual optimum.
ETA: Ah, I see this in one of your links:
Optimal on the other hand doesn’t so much require specific contrast because pretty much everything is suboptimal by default to some degree or another—optimizing is understood as an ongoing and very relativistic process.
See this and this (and this) :)
I don’t think calling it “rational financial planning” is a great idea. All I’m saying is that it’s better than calling it “optimal financial planning”. It’s probably a good thing to replace “rational” with “optimal” if you have good reason to believe your approach is in fact optimal. But financial planning is a game of such complexity and with so many possible moves that it would be the height of hubris to regard your approach as an actual optimum.
ETA: Ah, I see this in one of your links:
Fair enough. Disregard my whining.