Not when the article says flat out:

> In its simplest form, the long game isn’t really debatable. Everyone agrees, for example, we should spend less than we make and invest the difference.

Which conveniently brushes aside the fact that there are good reasons not to play the long game.

Here's a very non-standard example: If I do not have nor can I afford health insurance, then I shouldn't invest the difference between expenses and wages:

As time goes on the probability that I have a bankruptcy due to medical bills approaches unity, so any money I save I will likely never get to see the results of.