It also seems surprisingly easy to have an outsize influence in the money-in-politics landscape. Peter Thiel’s early investment in Trump looks brilliant today (at accomplishing the terrible goal of installing a protectionist).
This is naive. The low amount of money in politics is presumably an equilibrium outcome, and not because everyone has failed to consider the option of buying elections. And the reasonable conclusion is that Thiel got lucky, given how close the election was, not that he single-handedly caused Trump’s victory.
The stake of the public good in any given election is much larger than the stake of any given entity, so the correct amount for altruists to invest in an election should be much larger than for a self-interested corporation or person.
not that he single-handedly caused Trump’s victory.
Yes, you’re right that altruists have a more encompassing utility function, since they focus on social instead of individual welfare. But even if altruists will invest more in elections than self-interested individuals, it doesn’t follow that it’s a good investment overall.
Sorry for being harsh, but my honest first impression was “this makes EAs look bad to outsiders”.
it doesn’t follow that it’s a good investment overall
Yes, it doesn’t by itself—my point was only meant as a counterargument to your claim that the efficient market hypothesis precluded the possibility of political donations being a good investment.
This is naive. The low amount of money in politics is presumably an equilibrium outcome, and not because everyone has failed to consider the option of buying elections. And the reasonable conclusion is that Thiel got lucky, given how close the election was, not that he single-handedly caused Trump’s victory.
The stake of the public good in any given election is much larger than the stake of any given entity, so the correct amount for altruists to invest in an election should be much larger than for a self-interested corporation or person.
Didn’t claim this.
Not sure what this adds.
Yes, you’re right that altruists have a more encompassing utility function, since they focus on social instead of individual welfare. But even if altruists will invest more in elections than self-interested individuals, it doesn’t follow that it’s a good investment overall.
Sorry for being harsh, but my honest first impression was “this makes EAs look bad to outsiders”.
Yes, it doesn’t by itself—my point was only meant as a counterargument to your claim that the efficient market hypothesis precluded the possibility of political donations being a good investment.