Stupid grammar, making that sentence ambiguous. I can't decide if I'm annoyed that you would post one sentence saying you agreed with the article (there's a little arrow for that), or if I'm cowed into meditating on the idea that quests for perfection are doomed.
The grammar is perfect. Do we want chance of extended pain or foreshortened? Given the purportedly uncharted macroeconomics, each solution could give us either outcome. It's a many-worlds interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation).
But boy, if will be wonderful wasteful fireworks, 2 trillion manically disbursed.
