No: I think that people should delay spending on global poverty/health on the current margin, not that optimal total global poverty/health spending today would be 0.
But that’s a big question, and I thought we were just trying to make progress on it by focusing one one narrow angle here: namely whether or not it is in some sense “at least 1,000x better to stimulate faster economic growth in the poorest countries today than it is to do it 100 years from now”. I think that, conditional on a country not having caught up in 100 years, there’s a decent chance it will still not have caught up in 200 years; and that in this case, when one thinks it through, initiating catch-up in 100 years is at least half as good as doing so today, more or less.
Option A. I donate all $10 billion now through GiveDirectly. It is disbursed to poor people who invest it in the Vanguard FTSE Global All Cap Index Fund and earn a 7% CAGR. In 2126, the poor people’s portfolios will have collectively grown to $8.68 trillion.
Option B. I invest all $10 billion in the Vanguard FTSE Global All Cap Index Fund for 100 years. In 2126, I have $8.68 trillion. I then disburse all the money to poor people through GiveDirectly.
Option B clearly provides no advantage to the poor people over Option A. On the other hand, it sure seems like Option A provides an advantage to the poor people over Option B.
If a philanthropist has $10 billion, I think they should prefer to arrange for Option A to happen rather than opt for Option B. But there may be other options that offer even more advantages to the poor people than Option A. So, they should seek out those options and choose an even better one, if they can.
To the extent Option B looks like it has higher impact, that’s just an artefact of how we might decide to do the accounting, rather than a true reflection of the causality involved or what’s morally best — or what the recipients of the aid would rationally prefer.
I don’t think Option A is available in practice: I think the recipients will tend save too little of the money. That’s the primary argument by which I have argued for Option B over giving now (see e.g. here).
But with all respect, it seems to me that you got a bit confused a few comments back about how to frame the question of when it’s best to spend on an effort to spur catch-up growth, and when that was made clear, instead of acknowledging it, you’ve kept trying to turn the subject to the question of when to give more generally. Maybe that’s not how you see it, but given that that’s how it seems to me, I hope it’s understandable if I say I find it frustrating and would rather not continue to engage.
I think it depends on the time horizon. If catch-up growth is not near-guaranteed in 100 years, I think waiting 100 years is probably better than spending now. If it is near-guaranteed, I think that the case for waiting 100 years ambiguous, but there is some longer period of time which would be better.
Full-length post here. Feel free to comment if you want or not comment if you don’t want.
I didn’t understand your argument about economic growth above. I was hoping you’d give an argument based on empirical data or forecasts rather than a purely theoretical argument. So, I wasn’t convinced by that. But I acknowledge there is high uncertainty with regard to future growth, and the wisdom of patient philanthropy partly depends on assumptions about growth.
Since we have no real numbers for that narrow angle and it involves important factors we can’t mathematically model, I don’t know if we can settle that narrow question.
But what about the other narrow question: that if you assume the poorest countries will grow to a per capita GDP that’s ~50% of the per capita GWP in 100 years, which we assume will continue to grow by 2% annually over that timespan, the cost-effectiveness of saving a life by donating to GiveWell’s top charities today is ~3x higher than investing for 100 years and giving in 2126? Does that sound convincing at all to you?
The most arbitrary/most uncertain part of this calculation is how the per capita GDP of the poorest countries will compare to the global average over the very long-term.
By the way, how did you determine that the current margin is either just enough or too much giving on global poverty to be optimal? Why isn’t the margin at which delaying is the right move a 10x higher or 10x lower level of aggregate spending? Or 100x higher/lower? How does one determine that? Is there a quantitative, empirical argument based on real data?
No: I think that people should delay spending on global poverty/health on the current margin, not that optimal total global poverty/health spending today would be 0.
But that’s a big question, and I thought we were just trying to make progress on it by focusing one one narrow angle here: namely whether or not it is in some sense “at least 1,000x better to stimulate faster economic growth in the poorest countries today than it is to do it 100 years from now”. I think that, conditional on a country not having caught up in 100 years, there’s a decent chance it will still not have caught up in 200 years; and that in this case, when one thinks it through, initiating catch-up in 100 years is at least half as good as doing so today, more or less.
I thought of a way to sketch this out.
Let’s say I have $10 billion to donate.
Option A. I donate all $10 billion now through GiveDirectly. It is disbursed to poor people who invest it in the Vanguard FTSE Global All Cap Index Fund and earn a 7% CAGR. In 2126, the poor people’s portfolios will have collectively grown to $8.68 trillion.
Option B. I invest all $10 billion in the Vanguard FTSE Global All Cap Index Fund for 100 years. In 2126, I have $8.68 trillion. I then disburse all the money to poor people through GiveDirectly.
Option B clearly provides no advantage to the poor people over Option A. On the other hand, it sure seems like Option A provides an advantage to the poor people over Option B.
If a philanthropist has $10 billion, I think they should prefer to arrange for Option A to happen rather than opt for Option B. But there may be other options that offer even more advantages to the poor people than Option A. So, they should seek out those options and choose an even better one, if they can.
To the extent Option B looks like it has higher impact, that’s just an artefact of how we might decide to do the accounting, rather than a true reflection of the causality involved or what’s morally best — or what the recipients of the aid would rationally prefer.
I don’t think Option A is available in practice: I think the recipients will tend save too little of the money. That’s the primary argument by which I have argued for Option B over giving now (see e.g. here).
But with all respect, it seems to me that you got a bit confused a few comments back about how to frame the question of when it’s best to spend on an effort to spur catch-up growth, and when that was made clear, instead of acknowledging it, you’ve kept trying to turn the subject to the question of when to give more generally. Maybe that’s not how you see it, but given that that’s how it seems to me, I hope it’s understandable if I say I find it frustrating and would rather not continue to engage.
Would you mind addressing the argument that patient philanthropy is empirically ~3x less cost-effective than donating now?
I think it depends on the time horizon. If catch-up growth is not near-guaranteed in 100 years, I think waiting 100 years is probably better than spending now. If it is near-guaranteed, I think that the case for waiting 100 years ambiguous, but there is some longer period of time which would be better.
Full-length post here. Feel free to comment if you want or not comment if you don’t want.
I didn’t understand your argument about economic growth above. I was hoping you’d give an argument based on empirical data or forecasts rather than a purely theoretical argument. So, I wasn’t convinced by that. But I acknowledge there is high uncertainty with regard to future growth, and the wisdom of patient philanthropy partly depends on assumptions about growth.
Since we have no real numbers for that narrow angle and it involves important factors we can’t mathematically model, I don’t know if we can settle that narrow question.
But what about the other narrow question: that if you assume the poorest countries will grow to a per capita GDP that’s ~50% of the per capita GWP in 100 years, which we assume will continue to grow by 2% annually over that timespan, the cost-effectiveness of saving a life by donating to GiveWell’s top charities today is ~3x higher than investing for 100 years and giving in 2126? Does that sound convincing at all to you?
The most arbitrary/most uncertain part of this calculation is how the per capita GDP of the poorest countries will compare to the global average over the very long-term.
By the way, how did you determine that the current margin is either just enough or too much giving on global poverty to be optimal? Why isn’t the margin at which delaying is the right move a 10x higher or 10x lower level of aggregate spending? Or 100x higher/lower? How does one determine that? Is there a quantitative, empirical argument based on real data?