I think some of my other critiques and suggestions (note I am fairly positive on this idea, just trying to red team in a helpful way) were not addressed. Will list in separate comments to enable discussion.
Low-lying-er fruit: Why not (first) target billionaires who are already philanthropists and who own consumer facing companies, and encourage them to market their products in such a way? Seems easier, higher value, less risky, quicker than trying to start new companies?
To be clear, the Patagonia method of a PFG coming to exist (the founder and vast majority shareholder donating stock to a charitable trust or foundation) would be excellent.
We would certainly encourage any very rich, philanthropic people to turn their businesses into PFGs. For instance, if @Dustin Moskovitz wanted to buy back sufficient Asana stock and put an amount above 90% into a philanthropic trust benefiting EA charities, that would be great.
Was this not argument #7? I think the giving by proxy research addresses it and I don’t see much reason to believe the net effect on other giving would be negative rather than positive.
I think some of my other critiques and suggestions (note I am fairly positive on this idea, just trying to red team in a helpful way) were not addressed. Will list in separate comments to enable discussion.
Low-lying-er fruit: Why not (first) target billionaires who are already philanthropists and who own consumer facing companies, and encourage them to market their products in such a way? Seems easier, higher value, less risky, quicker than trying to start new companies?
To be clear, the Patagonia method of a PFG coming to exist (the founder and vast majority shareholder donating stock to a charitable trust or foundation) would be excellent.
We would certainly encourage any very rich, philanthropic people to turn their businesses into PFGs. For instance, if @Dustin Moskovitz wanted to buy back sufficient Asana stock and put an amount above 90% into a philanthropic trust benefiting EA charities, that would be great.
Shouldn’t we be concerned that consumers who think they are ‘donating’ through these product purchases will reduce their other charitable giving?
[I think there’s a good response to this, but it seems worth addressing explicitly.]
Was this not argument #7? I think the giving by proxy research addresses it and I don’t see much reason to believe the net effect on other giving would be negative rather than positive.