I suppose the operative question would be what is the total funding capacity for all programs that are demonstrably more cost-effective than Givedirectly? Would it be in the tens of billions? Hundreds of billions? Trillions?
Direct cash transfers to the global poor could likely absorb in the trillions annually and still be very cost effective. But if there’s no risk of exhausting the lower hanging fruit any time soon, I suppose it is not a concern.
Yes but we are far from exhausting better solutions then giving money directly and I doubt we ever will. And then there is the scaling problem—as long as Give Directly is small then problems such as inequity, corruption, inflation and the free-loader problem are all negligible. If we scaled Give Directly to be significant then how would these problems grow?
My nonprofit, the Consumer Power Initiative, has a plan to leverage consumer sentiment to direct a significant portion of our global economy to effective charities. This might create the scenario where we’ve plucked the lower hanging fruit than Givedirectly.
I actuality suspect that Givedirectly would become more efficient an judicious with its resources with scaling, while the extent of need would allow it to absorb hundreds of billions annually without large utility losses.
To learn more about my project, here’s my most recent newsletter.
I suppose the operative question would be what is the total funding capacity for all programs that are demonstrably more cost-effective than Givedirectly? Would it be in the tens of billions? Hundreds of billions? Trillions?
Direct cash transfers to the global poor could likely absorb in the trillions annually and still be very cost effective. But if there’s no risk of exhausting the lower hanging fruit any time soon, I suppose it is not a concern.
Yes but we are far from exhausting better solutions then giving money directly and I doubt we ever will. And then there is the scaling problem—as long as Give Directly is small then problems such as inequity, corruption, inflation and the free-loader problem are all negligible. If we scaled Give Directly to be significant then how would these problems grow?
My nonprofit, the Consumer Power Initiative, has a plan to leverage consumer sentiment to direct a significant portion of our global economy to effective charities. This might create the scenario where we’ve plucked the lower hanging fruit than Givedirectly.
I actuality suspect that Givedirectly would become more efficient an judicious with its resources with scaling, while the extent of need would allow it to absorb hundreds of billions annually without large utility losses.
To learn more about my project, here’s my most recent newsletter.
https://​​drive.google.com/​​file/​​d/​​1jXeT6SHoLoaXfkoT_7YCSgpMGHTiDwFU/​​view?usp=drivesdk