So, it looks like going back to 2017, there’s only been one week in which returns were negative , which was late March 2020: https://ycharts.com/indicators/3_month_t_bill . And that was (clearly) a very unusual moment so I’m not worried per se about rates truly going below zero. I am more worried about rates going to zero, in which case, yeah, we’d have to figure out some other low-risk investment opportunities for the model to keep working. This is on my research agenda—get a good sense of the ROI of, say, short-term bonds from all the OECD countries, rank them by yield and perceived risk, and then rank things that fall near that on the risk/reward scale but that still definitely qualify as conventionally safe. I’m afraid I haven’t gotten to it yet, this week I’ve been focused on writing something up about why we are donating to GiveDirectly and not some other great charity (e.g. GiveWell’s top ranked charities, which as of this week no longer include GiveDirectly; GD’s response is interesting https://www.givedirectly.org/giving-directly-still-means-giving-well/).
Yeah, it looks like, the rates stayed close to zero between 2008 and 2015, and more recently as well, March of 2020 to January of 2022.
I took a look at GiveDirectly’s response. They mention the multiplier effect of cash, and the possibility that Givewell might lower its cost-effectiveness requirements from 10X. Now I am confused about GiveWell’s estimates of the cost-effectiveness of cash and in what circumstances GiveWell actually makes the comparison.
GiveDirectly’s point about meeting the needs of its charity recipients while respecting the choices of the recipients is an interesting point. Pro and con arguments might track arguments about UBI in general. Your efforts here could reflect your philosophy about UBI, I think.
So, it looks like going back to 2017, there’s only been one week in which returns were negative , which was late March 2020: https://ycharts.com/indicators/3_month_t_bill . And that was (clearly) a very unusual moment so I’m not worried per se about rates truly going below zero. I am more worried about rates going to zero, in which case, yeah, we’d have to figure out some other low-risk investment opportunities for the model to keep working. This is on my research agenda—get a good sense of the ROI of, say, short-term bonds from all the OECD countries, rank them by yield and perceived risk, and then rank things that fall near that on the risk/reward scale but that still definitely qualify as conventionally safe. I’m afraid I haven’t gotten to it yet, this week I’ve been focused on writing something up about why we are donating to GiveDirectly and not some other great charity (e.g. GiveWell’s top ranked charities, which as of this week no longer include GiveDirectly; GD’s response is interesting https://www.givedirectly.org/giving-directly-still-means-giving-well/).
Hope that helps!
Yeah, it looks like, the rates stayed close to zero between 2008 and 2015, and more recently as well, March of 2020 to January of 2022.
I took a look at GiveDirectly’s response. They mention the multiplier effect of cash, and the possibility that Givewell might lower its cost-effectiveness requirements from 10X. Now I am confused about GiveWell’s estimates of the cost-effectiveness of cash and in what circumstances GiveWell actually makes the comparison.
GiveDirectly’s point about meeting the needs of its charity recipients while respecting the choices of the recipients is an interesting point. Pro and con arguments might track arguments about UBI in general. Your efforts here could reflect your philosophy about UBI, I think.
I wish you the best of success with your efforts!