1 - I don’t think this question is really well formed. discount rates compound so it doesn’t really matter how far in the future some gain is, all else equal. if you are curious, this is closely related to why IRRs only make sense if you assume you can reinvest *at the IRR*. what matters is your liquidity constraints (i.e. you wouldn’t accept a 100% p.a. return if you didn’t actually get it for 500 years). but liquidity constraints are largely influenced by time preference, so it seems pretty obvious to me that with properly sound money providing a base of savings you can rely on, you won’t need as much liquidity from your legitimate investments and you can think about them over more and more appropriately longer terms.

2 - 2 reasons, both of which stem from (reversing) inflation in capital goods and financial assets. the main reason a lot of “real” investments aren’t made in fiat clown world is that inflation pushes everybody’s liabilities to the point that the humdrum return doesn’t cut it, so you need to get more and more speculative and go further and further out the risk curve. OR, alternatively, you take a humdrum return and lever it to the tits, which only makes this problem even worse because then critical infrastructure becomes incredibly fragile (look at Thames Water for a contemporary example of exactly this), which is just more of the same inflationary problem. the subtler reason is that this desperate chase for yield bids up the price of capital goods so your starting point is distorted as well.