Try to fund groups which will pivot on their advocacy faster
Yes, I agree that there are drawbacks to funding ‘single issue’-ish lobbying groups that can’t pivot. For instance, if your org’s name is ‘EmployAmerica’ (which is OpenPhil-funded) and then you see even Krugman saying yesterday that the ‘job market is running unsustainably hot. Cooling that market off will probably require accepting an uptick in the unemployment rate’ then it’s hard to pivot and argue against employment… so they started using awkward language last week:
“we are now at employment and wage levels that are consistent or nearly consistent with a full recovery from the pandemic-induced recession.
In our view, once workers who would have remained employed—absent the recession—have been brought back to work, it is more defensible to slow down the labor market for the sake of lower inflation.”
Whereas if your groups name would be “Optimal macroeconomic policy” then that might be better. But then perhaps the groups focus is not as value aligned with the funder because different people have different ideas about what optimal means.
I actually noticed that when I crowdfunded for Center for Clean Energy Innovation at ITIF, which is a think tank focused on, well, clean energy innovation. The policy they work on that I think the most effective is Mission Innovation, an initiative to coordinate clean energy R&D spending globally (which incidentally just got honorable mention in the FTX future fund ideas thread.) But because the Center is run by an academic, they also do other things in the area of clean energy innovation, which might dilute their impact (or, probably they know better than me because it’s run by an academic with a lot of experience in this field).
Fund advocacy of the opposite, now
It’s seems a bit too late… Central banks already pivoting and I think the advocacy groups are coming around to it.
Go further and try funding or creating a think tank that is actually committed to targets instead of unidirectional force
Some other possible takeaways that I would lean toward:
Try to fund groups which will pivot on their advocacy faster
Fund advocacy of the opposite, now
Go further and try funding or creating a think tank that is actually committed to targets instead of unidirectional force
Yes, I agree that there are drawbacks to funding ‘single issue’-ish lobbying groups that can’t pivot. For instance, if your org’s name is ‘EmployAmerica’ (which is OpenPhil-funded) and then you see even Krugman saying yesterday that the ‘job market is running unsustainably hot. Cooling that market off will probably require accepting an uptick in the unemployment rate’ then it’s hard to pivot and argue against employment… so they started using awkward language last week:
Whereas if your groups name would be “Optimal macroeconomic policy” then that might be better. But then perhaps the groups focus is not as value aligned with the funder because different people have different ideas about what optimal means.
I actually noticed that when I crowdfunded for Center for Clean Energy Innovation at ITIF, which is a think tank focused on, well, clean energy innovation. The policy they work on that I think the most effective is Mission Innovation, an initiative to coordinate clean energy R&D spending globally (which incidentally just got honorable mention in the FTX future fund ideas thread.) But because the Center is run by an academic, they also do other things in the area of clean energy innovation, which might dilute their impact (or, probably they know better than me because it’s run by an academic with a lot of experience in this field).
It’s seems a bit too late… Central banks already pivoting and I think the advocacy groups are coming around to it.
Yes, maybe one should consider fund nominal GDP targeting initiatives like the Koch brothers. Or more generally.
Single issue lobbying group called “2%”, perhaps. Or 5% if NGDP.