My firing from the hip guess is that the lifetime effects of having more money to donate effectively dwarfs the extra harm caused by a bank investing slightly more money in bad things. The intuition mostly comes from the idea that a) the harmful investments aren’t trying to cause the most harm, but your donations are (or should be) aimed at doing the most good, and b) I’d guess that if there is an evil thing with a good return, it’ll be invested in anyway, whether your bank can do it or not (whereas a great charity with a good impact return generally has a major funding gap).
Keen to hear any updates I should make to my from-the-hip model here. I currently don’t worry too much about what my bank does with my money, as long as I get a decent return.
My firing from the hip guess is that the lifetime effects of having more money to donate effectively dwarfs the extra harm caused by a bank investing slightly more money in bad things. The intuition mostly comes from the idea that a) the harmful investments aren’t trying to cause the most harm, but your donations are (or should be) aimed at doing the most good, and b) I’d guess that if there is an evil thing with a good return, it’ll be invested in anyway, whether your bank can do it or not (whereas a great charity with a good impact return generally has a major funding gap).
Keen to hear any updates I should make to my from-the-hip model here. I currently don’t worry too much about what my bank does with my money, as long as I get a decent return.