My reading is clear: the intellectual stature and experience of all players involved in the controversy prove that there is no single policy or one optimal approach that could be defined in a vacuum. Every policy option has its costs and benefits: there is no such thing as a free lunch.
The key is to choose whether we want to avoid “going long” or “falling short”. Naturally, beyond any attempt to mitigate this trade-off, the strategy and policy choice will crucially depend on the attitudes of the government and its people towards risk. It will also depend on their intertemporal considerations, because the profit and loss profile of alternative regimes will not always coincide.