“amounts matter” or “let’s actually do cost-benefit analysis” [...] To be clear, “amounts matter” is the usual EA stance already
I think EA is still overemphasizing high benefit-cost ratios, but it’s now better to find high benefit minus cost interventions. In other words, it used to be the case that we wanted to find a way to fill a $1m funding gap to save 1000 lives, and save a life for $1k, but now even though these small funding gaps still exist it’s quite hard to find them at scale, and we might rather want to find a billion dollar funding gap that saves lives at only $10k, but then save 100k lives which is better since amounts matter as you say.
In contrast to a movement trying to push high B/C interventions like EA, an ‘amounts matter’ / B-C movement would have much higher popular appeal as it would directly and personally affect many more people.
A few things that this movement might highlight (all ‘big, if true’):
Covid: As you say, global GDP losses from COVID are massive already $12T and 3 billion annual vaccine courses have a global benefit of $17T—a benefit of ~$576 to $989 per course. at a cost of $6 to $40 per course—and so the benefit cost ratios might not actually be as low as on the order of 10x, yet still then total benefits would be enormous.
Thanks for the link—I think the economists surveyed were not unanimous in saying that it’s a slam dunk win, and as I wrote ‘might’ and ‘big, if true’ - also note that I’m citing a link from the very left-wing think tank associated with the German Green party.
Also see that while the case for immigration boosting the economy in the long-run is strong based on economic theory, there might still be upfront cost that could have bad effect such as displacing traditional aid:
It could also be that, a la David Autor’s China shock literature, while the average economic effects of migration are positive some low-skilled domestic workers might have increased competition, which can cause populism. For instance, immigration can predict Brexit votes.
Again: big, if true and there should be more analysis. The main lesson here is if you’re dealing with trillion dollar numbers, it might be very important.
Thanks for the answer. The problem is that this is likely pointing in the wrong direction. Immigration has by itself quite large benefits for immigrants and almost all studies of the impact of immigration find positive or no effect for locals. From “Good economics for hard times” by Duflo and Barnejee there is only one case where locals ended up worse off: during the URRS, Hungarian workers were allowed to work but not live in East Germany, forcing them to spend their money at home.
Overall, it is well known that open border situations would probably boost worldwide GDP by at least 50%, possibly 100%. I sincerely think that criticising Germany for this policy requires being only worried about very short term costs, which seems more like an ideological response than a reasonable choice.
Thanks for posting this.
I think EA is still overemphasizing high benefit-cost ratios, but it’s now better to find high benefit minus cost interventions. In other words, it used to be the case that we wanted to find a way to fill a $1m funding gap to save 1000 lives, and save a life for $1k, but now even though these small funding gaps still exist it’s quite hard to find them at scale, and we might rather want to find a billion dollar funding gap that saves lives at only $10k, but then save 100k lives which is better since amounts matter as you say.
In contrast to a movement trying to push high B/C interventions like EA, an ‘amounts matter’ / B-C movement would have much higher popular appeal as it would directly and personally affect many more people.
A few things that this movement might highlight (all ‘big, if true’):
Covid: As you say, global GDP losses from COVID are massive already $12T and 3 billion annual vaccine courses have a global benefit of $17T—a benefit of ~$576 to $989 per course. at a cost of $6 to $40 per course—and so the benefit cost ratios might not actually be as low as on the order of 10x, yet still then total benefits would be enormous.
War on terror cost $6T
Ukraine war might also cost the global economy $0.5T (or more)
Syrian refugee crisis might cost Germany $0.5T
2008 financial crisis: $6-14T just for the U.S. ($50k-$120k for every U.S. household) and caused 500,000 cancer deaths worldwide, so macroprudential and generally macroeconomic policy might have huge effects
There are some public health things probably roughly on a similar level (smoking, obesity, etc.).
On some level, politics is already doing this, but I think there’s still a lot of scope insensitivity and not concrete focus on these issues.
I think it is wrong to say that Syrian refugee crisis might have cost Germany 0.5T. My source: https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/refugees-in-germany-2/. To be fair though I have not found a posterior analysis, and I am far from an expert.
Thanks for the link—I think the economists surveyed were not unanimous in saying that it’s a slam dunk win, and as I wrote ‘might’ and ‘big, if true’ - also note that I’m citing a link from the very left-wing think tank associated with the German Green party.
Also see that while the case for immigration boosting the economy in the long-run is strong based on economic theory, there might still be upfront cost that could have bad effect such as displacing traditional aid:
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/blog/using-aid-to-finance-the-refugee-crisis-a-worrying-trend
It could also be that, a la David Autor’s China shock literature, while the average economic effects of migration are positive some low-skilled domestic workers might have increased competition, which can cause populism. For instance, immigration can predict Brexit votes.
Again: big, if true and there should be more analysis. The main lesson here is if you’re dealing with trillion dollar numbers, it might be very important.
Thanks for the answer. The problem is that this is likely pointing in the wrong direction. Immigration has by itself quite large benefits for immigrants and almost all studies of the impact of immigration find positive or no effect for locals. From “Good economics for hard times” by Duflo and Barnejee there is only one case where locals ended up worse off: during the URRS, Hungarian workers were allowed to work but not live in East Germany, forcing them to spend their money at home. Overall, it is well known that open border situations would probably boost worldwide GDP by at least 50%, possibly 100%. I sincerely think that criticising Germany for this policy requires being only worried about very short term costs, which seems more like an ideological response than a reasonable choice.