4 ms·

I wish she would give to governments :-/ There are thousands of governments in the US (and many more globally). Towns, cities, counties and states and of cour

by AdamN 5y ago

I wish she would give to governments :-/ There are thousands of governments in the US (and many more globally). Towns, cities, counties and states and of course the federal government. Many of these governments are accountable and effective in a way that charities aren't.

adflux 5y ago
LOL Is this satire?
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  It is very easy to see that governments are flawed and imperfect, but people forget that the reason we can calmly laugh at our governments from our air conditioned homes, with clean water etc (except in Flint Michigan) is because in the context of human civilization they are incredible institutions, without which we would be roaming a mad max wasteland.
  - wyager 5y ago
    Still hard to tell if this is satire.
    - AdamN 5y ago
      Not a satire. I notice that people who presume government itself is incompetent haven't lived in multiple jurisdictions and seen how impactful effective government is vs ineffective government.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    As a Canadian/American dualie - I have a lot of faith in my government... now that I've emigrated to Canada - it isn't perfect but it is very good at holding itself to account. Governments in the US might still be the best places to invest to get bang for your buck - but I can certainly sympathize with people who feel distrust after the extreme levels of partisanship and neo-liberalism down there.
nickff 5y ago
Have you seen how governments spend foreign aid receipts?
wyager 5y ago
I’m not familiar with a single credible analysis suggesting governments are more effective per dollar than charities. Note that none of the effective altruism people ever advise “give your money to the Chicago city government” or whatever. The conclusion I’ve reached is that, if you have a low time preference, investing in high-risk R&D is the highest social return strategy.
munk-a 5y ago
It is really, really easy to have a lack of faith in governments (well in the US at least) right now due to the extremely neo-liberal bent that's been ingrained into governance starting with Regan. I think that investing in non-profit organizations in the US might be optimal, while abroad I do agree - governments have much better inherent oversight and market knowledge than most other participants.
- pcstl 5y ago
  Is there any evidence that "non-neoliberal" countries do better re: governance? Let me explain my situation, which I believe provides a significant counterpoint. I live in a third-world country where government is constantly pushed into supporting more and more benefits, high salaries and job safety for an educated public servant class which has the connections and resources needed to pressure the government successfully. Meanwhile the general populace - who lack the qualifications for the highest-paying government jobs and can only ever qualify for the lowest-tier ones (which are not good, but still better than going into the private sector - more on this going forward) - is constantly impoverished by the inflationary pressure created by the government's need to finance spending on the high-tier public servants. The private sector is also extremely bad, as the government constantly passes anti-business laws in the name of fighting "neoliberalism". Of course, this does not at all hinder multinational corporations - supposedly the face of "neoliberalism" - as these can pay for the armies of lawyers needed to navigate the constantly-changing legal environment, and the ludicrous worker obligations created in the name of "protecting the working class". Meanwhile, smaller businesses - mostly owned by the dwindling lower-middle class, as middle- and upper-middle class people either leave the country to find skilled work elsewhere, go into the high-paying government jobs or work for the multinational corps - die constantly, as they cannot deal with the legal insecurity and fees created by this environment. Most poorer people actually do not have any legal worker's protections even though our law is EXTREMELY generous to workers on paper, because only mega-corps can afford to hire people within the law - most people work outside of legal parameters just to survive. So you end up with an environment where most workers have immensely generous rights on paper, government is extremely powerful and constantly passes measures which are justified as protecting the country from "neoliberalism", which we are told is coming to make us enslaved to foreigners and impoverish us all from our "birthright". Said "birthright" consists of very bloated public services which generally suck for most of the population and serve mostly to produce sinecures for rich, well-educated people. The private sector consists mostly of foreign mega-corps who are, paradoxically protected from competition by laws passed in order to prevent "neoliberalism" from ravaging the country. The country is, as you can imagine, corrupt to its core and runs on shady deals between the people in power, the people running mega-corporations and the high-level public servants (these groups have significant overlap, as one might imagine). Sorry for rambling on, but whenever I see people - ostensibly from the first world - talk about the evils of "neoliberalism", I wish they would look more at how trying to prevent the supposed evil of "neoliberalism" has ravaged the third world and raised oligarchies to power.
pcstl 5y ago
Do you have any credible analysis which supports your assertion that governments are more effective than charities at their goals? My conclusion is usually that governments are good _coercion_ mechanisms for dealing with situations where the actions of individual players cannot lead to a good outcome for all unless they are somehow forced to go against their self-interest (i.e. collective action problems), but that as _execution_ mechanisms it is a pretty clear point that they are tremendously wasteful.
- AdamN 5y ago
  I live in Seattle and the water is clean, the electricity is constant, the safety is high, the air is breathable. This is the same and different than other places I've lived like Nairobi, NY, Austin, Long Island, the UK, etc... Governments are the big differences between these places. While there is a coercion aspect to it (people can't burn trash in their yards), there is also an execution aspect to it (roads are paved, electric lines are maintained). Some governments are better than others and many are truly evil. Grantors like Scott could give to the best governments and reward them for their effectiveness and accountability. This is similar to how she gives to high quality charities but not low quality ones. She could do the same with government recipients.
revel 5y ago
That was a charitable donation so the government literally got paid a negative amount in tax on $2.7B of wealth created. That's $0 from capital gains that otherwise would have been collected and it also reduces her tax burden; probably for the rest of her life, down to $0.

by AdamN 5y ago

adflux 5y ago

LOL Is this satire?

gameswithgo 5y ago
It is very easy to see that governments are flawed and imperfect, but people forget that the reason we can calmly laugh at our governments from our air conditioned homes, with clean water etc (except in Flint Michigan) is because in the context of human civilization they are incredible institutions, without which we would be roaming a mad max wasteland.
- wyager 5y ago
  Still hard to tell if this is satire.
  - AdamN 5y ago
    Not a satire. I notice that people who presume government itself is incompetent haven't lived in multiple jurisdictions and seen how impactful effective government is vs ineffective government.
- munk-a 5y ago
  As a Canadian/American dualie - I have a lot of faith in my government... now that I've emigrated to Canada - it isn't perfect but it is very good at holding itself to account. Governments in the US might still be the best places to invest to get bang for your buck - but I can certainly sympathize with people who feel distrust after the extreme levels of partisanship and neo-liberalism down there.

nickff 5y ago

Have you seen how governments spend foreign aid receipts?

wyager 5y ago

I’m not familiar with a single credible analysis suggesting governments are more effective per dollar than charities. Note that none of the effective altruism people ever advise “give your money to the Chicago city government” or whatever. The conclusion I’ve reached is that, if you have a low time preference, investing in high-risk R&D is the highest social return strategy.

munk-a 5y ago

It is really, really easy to have a lack of faith in governments (well in the US at least) right now due to the extremely neo-liberal bent that's been ingrained into governance starting with Regan. I think that investing in non-profit organizations in the US might be optimal, while abroad I do agree - governments have much better inherent oversight and market knowledge than most other participants.

pcstl 5y ago
Is there any evidence that "non-neoliberal" countries do better re: governance? Let me explain my situation, which I believe provides a significant counterpoint. I live in a third-world country where government is constantly pushed into supporting more and more benefits, high salaries and job safety for an educated public servant class which has the connections and resources needed to pressure the government successfully. Meanwhile the general populace - who lack the qualifications for the highest-paying government jobs and can only ever qualify for the lowest-tier ones (which are not good, but still better than going into the private sector - more on this going forward) - is constantly impoverished by the inflationary pressure created by the government's need to finance spending on the high-tier public servants. The private sector is also extremely bad, as the government constantly passes anti-business laws in the name of fighting "neoliberalism". Of course, this does not at all hinder multinational corporations - supposedly the face of "neoliberalism" - as these can pay for the armies of lawyers needed to navigate the constantly-changing legal environment, and the ludicrous worker obligations created in the name of "protecting the working class". Meanwhile, smaller businesses - mostly owned by the dwindling lower-middle class, as middle- and upper-middle class people either leave the country to find skilled work elsewhere, go into the high-paying government jobs or work for the multinational corps - die constantly, as they cannot deal with the legal insecurity and fees created by this environment. Most poorer people actually do not have any legal worker's protections even though our law is EXTREMELY generous to workers on paper, because only mega-corps can afford to hire people within the law - most people work outside of legal parameters just to survive. So you end up with an environment where most workers have immensely generous rights on paper, government is extremely powerful and constantly passes measures which are justified as protecting the country from "neoliberalism", which we are told is coming to make us enslaved to foreigners and impoverish us all from our "birthright". Said "birthright" consists of very bloated public services which generally suck for most of the population and serve mostly to produce sinecures for rich, well-educated people. The private sector consists mostly of foreign mega-corps who are, paradoxically protected from competition by laws passed in order to prevent "neoliberalism" from ravaging the country. The country is, as you can imagine, corrupt to its core and runs on shady deals between the people in power, the people running mega-corporations and the high-level public servants (these groups have significant overlap, as one might imagine). Sorry for rambling on, but whenever I see people - ostensibly from the first world - talk about the evils of "neoliberalism", I wish they would look more at how trying to prevent the supposed evil of "neoliberalism" has ravaged the third world and raised oligarchies to power.

pcstl 5y ago

Do you have any credible analysis which supports your assertion that governments are more effective than charities at their goals? My conclusion is usually that governments are good _coercion_ mechanisms for dealing with situations where the actions of individual players cannot lead to a good outcome for all unless they are somehow forced to go against their self-interest (i.e. collective action problems), but that as _execution_ mechanisms it is a pretty clear point that they are tremendously wasteful.

AdamN 5y ago
I live in Seattle and the water is clean, the electricity is constant, the safety is high, the air is breathable. This is the same and different than other places I've lived like Nairobi, NY, Austin, Long Island, the UK, etc... Governments are the big differences between these places. While there is a coercion aspect to it (people can't burn trash in their yards), there is also an execution aspect to it (roads are paved, electric lines are maintained). Some governments are better than others and many are truly evil. Grantors like Scott could give to the best governments and reward them for their effectiveness and accountability. This is similar to how she gives to high quality charities but not low quality ones. She could do the same with government recipients.

revel 5y ago

That was a charitable donation so the government literally got paid a negative amount in tax on $2.7B of wealth created. That's $0 from capital gains that otherwise would have been collected and it also reduces her tax burden; probably for the rest of her life, down to $0.