What I’m primarily looking for is information regarding which banks most direct their INVESTMENTS in an EA direction. For example, whether a bank is a member of GABV (Global Alliance for Banking on Values) would be the kind of thing that I would want to influence a bank’s EA rating.
In my opinion, credit, when it is socially-minded, is charity-lite. However, since there is so much more credit available in the world (in the form, primarily, of the investments that banks make with people’s savings) than charitable funds, it seems possible to me that EA evaluations of banks could be even more impactful than EA evaluations of charities. (...Especially, if people’s deposits are insured (eg. FDIC), and interest rates are extremely low (as they currently are and have been for quite some time)).
Ramiro—you brought up microfinance. I haven’t listened to the podcast that you linked to yet, but I plan to do so soon. Thanks for that!
However, even if microfinance is found to be ineffective, I think that EA evaluations of banks are still very important for two reasons:
Not all the loans that a socially-minded bank makes need to be “direct”; that is, they don’t all have to go directly to needy individuals. They can, for example, go to businesses which provide jobs or affordable goods and services which are greatly in need to people in impoverished countries, even if those businesses are large, 1st-world-based, for-profit corporations. Outsourcing, in my opinion, when it is socially-minded, is a good thing, and should be a focus of EA.
“Effective” is a relative term that I don’t think should be used in the same way for charities and for banks. As I said earlier, I think that credit (i.e. loans) is charity-lite. This means that the amount of good that credit does is inherently going to be less than the amount of good that charity does. However, it also means that the amount of money that you (i.e. the person whose savings is invested by a bank) lose is also less. Perhaps nothing! This is a much, much, much easier way for the average person to undertake the seemingly Sisyphean task of doing their part to help the world’s billions of extremely unfortunate. Therefore, as long as massive, needless, innocent, horrific suffering exists, I think there will always be a huge market for EA banking (and a much larger one at that than that for EA charity).
The question, then, for effective altruism, I think, should not be: “Is microfinance
(or credit in general) effective?” but should be: “Which possible recipient of microfinance (or credit in general) is most effective?” (...Just as the question with respect to charity should not be: “Is charity effective?” but: “Which charities are most effective?”)
What I’m primarily looking for is information regarding which banks most direct their INVESTMENTS in an EA direction. For example, whether a bank is a member of GABV (Global Alliance for Banking on Values) would be the kind of thing that I would want to influence a bank’s EA rating.
In my opinion, credit, when it is socially-minded, is charity-lite. However, since there is so much more credit available in the world (in the form, primarily, of the investments that banks make with people’s savings) than charitable funds, it seems possible to me that EA evaluations of banks could be even more impactful than EA evaluations of charities. (...Especially, if people’s deposits are insured (eg. FDIC), and interest rates are extremely low (as they currently are and have been for quite some time)).
Ramiro—you brought up microfinance. I haven’t listened to the podcast that you linked to yet, but I plan to do so soon. Thanks for that!
However, even if microfinance is found to be ineffective, I think that EA evaluations of banks are still very important for two reasons:
Not all the loans that a socially-minded bank makes need to be “direct”; that is, they don’t all have to go directly to needy individuals. They can, for example, go to businesses which provide jobs or affordable goods and services which are greatly in need to people in impoverished countries, even if those businesses are large, 1st-world-based, for-profit corporations. Outsourcing, in my opinion, when it is socially-minded, is a good thing, and should be a focus of EA.
“Effective” is a relative term that I don’t think should be used in the same way for charities and for banks. As I said earlier, I think that credit (i.e. loans) is charity-lite. This means that the amount of good that credit does is inherently going to be less than the amount of good that charity does. However, it also means that the amount of money that you (i.e. the person whose savings is invested by a bank) lose is also less. Perhaps nothing! This is a much, much, much easier way for the average person to undertake the seemingly Sisyphean task of doing their part to help the world’s billions of extremely unfortunate. Therefore, as long as massive, needless, innocent, horrific suffering exists, I think there will always be a huge market for EA banking (and a much larger one at that than that for EA charity).
The question, then, for effective altruism, I think, should not be: “Is microfinance (or credit in general) effective?” but should be: “Which possible recipient of microfinance (or credit in general) is most effective?” (...Just as the question with respect to charity should not be: “Is charity effective?” but: “Which charities are most effective?”)