6 ms·
The point of this option would be that those wouldn't go to CEO at all.
by iaml 6y ago
The point of this option would be that those wouldn't go to CEO at all.
- newen 6y agoMoney is fungible.
- jlokier 6y agoNot when conditions are attached to the payment or donation.
- newen 6y agoEven when it is. This should be obvious. Not even sure why I'm spelling this out. Say total amount of money an organization has is $X + $Y. Group A is assigned $X in funding. Group B is assigned $Y in funding. Group A gets $Z in donation with conditions attached so it only gets used by Group A. Then the organization assigns $X - $Z funding to Group A and assigns $Y + $Z funding to Group B. Group A is happy because it still has $X from the donation and doesn't complain. Group B is happy because it can now spend $2.5 million on the CEO.
- jlokier 6y agoCounterpoints, which I'm surprised I have to spell out, are: 1. Limits. The above doesn't apply when $Z > $X, above which the attachment has full effect. 2. Reputation. The sources of recurring $X + $Y have decision making powers with a time lag. They may not be willing to give $X + $Y again if they know it was entirely spent on group B last time. 3. Anticipation. Organization decision makers know 2. Which makes donations with conditions attached into a signal with some effect, rather than something freely fungible with no pressure. If we were to plot a curve of notional pressure and effect on the organization's budgeting decisions, I would expect a curve increasing with the ratio $Z/($X+$Y). A very shallow curve perhaps. But not a flat zero in the range 0..$X as you are suggesting.
- newen 6y agoI simplified a lot obviously but an organizational can last years and years before seeing the effects of reputation pressure. And above applies fine even if $Z > $X modulo nitpicking.