Think it does suggest, at the very least, that firms capitalized by charitable equity don’t have a governance disadvantage.
I do think the explanations for a causal relationship between FOF (foundation-owned firm) and increased performance makes senses though, particularly better motivation to work harder/​smarter if it’s for a worthy cause and ability to focus on the long term.
I get the skepticism for the probability of Guided Consumption taking over the economy (charities receiving 5%+ global net profits) in absolute terms being super high (though that is my belief and position). What is pretty baffling to me is position that efforts to advance firms with popular effective charities (such as charities in Global Health and Development spaces) in the equity position are not extremely high EV. Getting such firms out there in economic contexts that make sense and making the public aware of the ability to help charities by buying stuff they would already is intuitively a clear path to high impact. Sure, maybe it won’t work, but it definitely merits exploration.
Awesome to hear… I’m gonna be launching an agent-centered post on Guided Consumption Theory in probably a week and a half. I’ll focus on the motivations of two main groups, Altruistic Agents , who are fine bearing costs and are interested in maximizing impact and Economic Discriminators, who want to do good when it’s low cost, no cost, or negative cost. Basically it’s super high value for AAs to create environments for EDs to discriminate in favor of charities.
I take your point.
Think it does suggest, at the very least, that firms capitalized by charitable equity don’t have a governance disadvantage.
I do think the explanations for a causal relationship between FOF (foundation-owned firm) and increased performance makes senses though, particularly better motivation to work harder/​smarter if it’s for a worthy cause and ability to focus on the long term.
I get the skepticism for the probability of Guided Consumption taking over the economy (charities receiving 5%+ global net profits) in absolute terms being super high (though that is my belief and position). What is pretty baffling to me is position that efforts to advance firms with popular effective charities (such as charities in Global Health and Development spaces) in the equity position are not extremely high EV. Getting such firms out there in economic contexts that make sense and making the public aware of the ability to help charities by buying stuff they would already is intuitively a clear path to high impact. Sure, maybe it won’t work, but it definitely merits exploration.
I agree that it’s probably high EV! I just think we should focus on the good conceptual arguments for that instead of shaky evidence.
Awesome to hear… I’m gonna be launching an agent-centered post on Guided Consumption Theory in probably a week and a half. I’ll focus on the motivations of two main groups, Altruistic Agents , who are fine bearing costs and are interested in maximizing impact and Economic Discriminators, who want to do good when it’s low cost, no cost, or negative cost. Basically it’s super high value for AAs to create environments for EDs to discriminate in favor of charities.