Nice! Just note that I don’t think you mention medium-term indirect effects. Arguably this should cause a convergence between resources directed at the global poor e.g. because making the US richer will spillover (a little bit) to other countries.
Read more: http://reflectivedisequilibrium.blogspot.ae/2014/01/what-portion-of-boost-to-global-gdp.html
There may also be other general reasons for convergence between interventions (e.g. regression to the mean): http://reducing-suffering.org/why-charities-dont-differ-astronomically-in-cost-effectiveness/
For these reasons, I think it’s better to deflate a “direct only” effects estimate by 3-10x, so arguably your dollar only goes 3-50x further overseas.
If you also try to factor in the long-term effects on existential risk etc. then the comparison becomes even less clear. It’s plausible that many US-directed interventions do more to reduce existential risk than global poverty focused ones. See more here: https://80000hours.org/articles/extinction-risk/#2-broad-efforts-to-reduce-risks
I mention them briefly in point 1 under Methodology, but they are not included in my calculation.
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
Nice! Just note that I don’t think you mention medium-term indirect effects. Arguably this should cause a convergence between resources directed at the global poor e.g. because making the US richer will spillover (a little bit) to other countries.
Read more: http://reflectivedisequilibrium.blogspot.ae/2014/01/what-portion-of-boost-to-global-gdp.html
There may also be other general reasons for convergence between interventions (e.g. regression to the mean): http://reducing-suffering.org/why-charities-dont-differ-astronomically-in-cost-effectiveness/
For these reasons, I think it’s better to deflate a “direct only” effects estimate by 3-10x, so arguably your dollar only goes 3-50x further overseas.
If you also try to factor in the long-term effects on existential risk etc. then the comparison becomes even less clear. It’s plausible that many US-directed interventions do more to reduce existential risk than global poverty focused ones. See more here: https://80000hours.org/articles/extinction-risk/#2-broad-efforts-to-reduce-risks
I mention them briefly in point 1 under Methodology, but they are not included in my calculation.