#2 is what changed my mind a few years ago. An index fund might give me 7% annual returns, but I suspect that investing in ridding a village of malaria has a much higher ROI, just not for me. The model would’ve been much stronger if it had included this effect of increasing others’ resources.
Maybe I’m not following, but if there was a general consensus and coordination (easier said than done) for giving at the end, there would be frequent enough giving by the die-ers that it mathematically eclipses the consistent giver model… at least that’s what I saw and am asking about.
I don’t see the report considering the growth of money in recipients’ pockets. It treats giving like throwing money into a black hole, not as another investment with returns.
To put it concretely, let’s say person A is in the global top 5% income wise and person B is below the poverty line. Person A (most on this forum) can then choose to invest their money, grow it and give at death.
Let’s ignore risk of value drift and say you manage to grow it 7% annually. That’s nice, but instead giving it away means person B can
Buy a bike to reach work more quickly, letting them work more
Buy an electrical lamp their child can use to do homework without poisoning the air of their home
Upgrade the walls and roofing of that home so they’re all sick less often and can work their way out of poverty
All of these things make the money grow in person B’s pockets as well. My prior (medium epistemic status) is that this growth trumps the 7% an index fund can offer. I argue that after 60-odd years of compounding—most EAs are young and healthy—person B has more than they would’ve if they got the money all in one lump sum from person A at death.
So this model only considers the resources of person A at death, when what we really care about is the resources of persons A and B combined.
#2 is what changed my mind a few years ago. An index fund might give me 7% annual returns, but I suspect that investing in ridding a village of malaria has a much higher ROI, just not for me. The model would’ve been much stronger if it had included this effect of increasing others’ resources.
Maybe I’m not following, but if there was a general consensus and coordination (easier said than done) for giving at the end, there would be frequent enough giving by the die-ers that it mathematically eclipses the consistent giver model… at least that’s what I saw and am asking about.
I don’t see the report considering the growth of money in recipients’ pockets. It treats giving like throwing money into a black hole, not as another investment with returns.
To put it concretely, let’s say person A is in the global top 5% income wise and person B is below the poverty line. Person A (most on this forum) can then choose to invest their money, grow it and give at death.
Let’s ignore risk of value drift and say you manage to grow it 7% annually. That’s nice, but instead giving it away means person B can
Buy a bike to reach work more quickly, letting them work more
Buy an electrical lamp their child can use to do homework without poisoning the air of their home
Upgrade the walls and roofing of that home so they’re all sick less often and can work their way out of poverty
All of these things make the money grow in person B’s pockets as well. My prior (medium epistemic status) is that this growth trumps the 7% an index fund can offer. I argue that after 60-odd years of compounding—most EAs are young and healthy—person B has more than they would’ve if they got the money all in one lump sum from person A at death.
So this model only considers the resources of person A at death, when what we really care about is the resources of persons A and B combined.
In a population of givers, if the flow of donations is higher with one va the other paradigm, the effects on B are greater. Right?