A classic argument against social benefit companies is that they tend to do neither for-profitting or social benefitting that well—it would be more efficient to optimize for one or the other. What do you think of that?
I think I clarify in my note at the bottom of the post that I’m not thinking about these as “social benefit” companies. They could be perfectly useless companies, they merely must by their certification donate some stipulated funds out of their revenues to the EA movement / causes.
In your response to your other comment, I applaud your contributions, but there could be other options for those who can’t contribute similarly.
A classic argument against social benefit companies is that they tend to do neither for-profitting or social benefitting that well—it would be more efficient to optimize for one or the other. What do you think of that?
I think I clarify in my note at the bottom of the post that I’m not thinking about these as “social benefit” companies. They could be perfectly useless companies, they merely must by their certification donate some stipulated funds out of their revenues to the EA movement / causes.
In your response to your other comment, I applaud your contributions, but there could be other options for those who can’t contribute similarly.