  Imagine that well-being is bounded above no matter how large consumption happens to be. Let \(U\) be the numerical measure of well-being that DM chooses to work with. (All positive affine transformations of \(U\) would be equally legitimate measures of well-being.) Let \(B\) be the lowest upper bound of \(U\).  Ramsey christened it “Bliss”. Because the rate of return on investment \((F_K)\) in his model is positive, consumption would grow indefinitely and tend to infinity in the long run if saving rates were suitably chosen. That means there are possible paths of economic development in which \(U(C(t))\) tend to \(B\) in the long run. But that implies there are possible paths of economic development in which the short-fall of \(U(C(t))\) from \(B\) tends to zero in the long run. If the short-fall tends to zero fast enough, the undiscounted integral of the difference between \(U(C(t))\) and \(B\) would exist, and DM could seek to maximize the modified integral. So we have Ramsey Mark II, which reads as