5 ms·

> we believe that teams with experience on the front lines of challenges will know best how to put the money to good use, we encouraged them to spend it however

by mabbo 5y ago

> we believe that teams with experience on the front lines of challenges will know best how to put the money to good use, we encouraged them to spend it however they choose I think this is the key to a lot of good charity work today. We need to stop saying "I'm giving you this money so you can do the thing I think will help" and instead give money to the people who know what will help because they've dedicated their lives to trying to help. It's about trusting that someone else knows more than you do, which seems to be more and more difficult in a world where the very basic facts about anything are available to anyone instantly.

akudha 5y ago
I remember listening to an interview by an Italian man who did lot of volunteer work in Africa. He said when he was young, he went to Africa (I forgot which country) - he saw very fertile soil and thought "why aren't the locals planting anything here?". Acting smug, he went ahead and planted some stuff, the locals raised eyebrows but said nothing. One morning he goes to the field, the entire place is trashed, like a warzone. The night before, wild pigs had had a good time partying in his beloved field! If he had asked the locals first, they would've told him to take care of the wild pigs problem before planting anything. He said that was the last time he assumed he knew more than locals because of his fancy degrees and elite upbringing. This is also my main complaint with organizations like the Gates foundation. They do a lot of good, but they also act on the firm belief (arrogance?) that they know more than anyone else in the room, especially the locals. Examples below https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/africans-speak-out-against-the-mass-circumcision-campaign-300370353.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/africans-speak-out-... https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-melinda-gates-foundation-education-initiative-failure-2018-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-melinda-gates-foundatio...
- nceqs3 5y ago
  I have many family members who work in the development world. The Gates Foundation is a punchline of sorts and many people do not like them. Melinda is very christian and refused for years to fund contraception or abortions. Meanwhile melinda travels the world being fawned over as a feminist queen. The other valid criticism of these development nonprofits is that they are propping up dictators. People won't rise up against their terrible governments if they have free everything from the US/Europe. Looking at you USAID.
  - WaltPurvis 5y ago
    >Melinda is very christian and refused for years to fund contraception or abortions. Melinda Gates has called expanding access to contraception the cause of her life and has funded it to the tune of more than $1 billion. https://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/health/melinda-gates-contraception/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/health/melinda-gates-contrace... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/health/melinda-gates-birth-control-poverty.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/health/melinda-gates-birt... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/opinion-melinda-gates-contraceptive-global https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/opinion-m...
- sumedh 5y ago
  > they would've told him to take care of the wild pigs problem Why cant the locals take care of the pigs problems themselves? Just hunt them or dig a ditch around the farm so that they cant cross it.
  - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
    They probably can, but solving that problem is not the point of the anecdote.
  - raincom 5y ago
    it is not as easy as it sounds. When your farming land is next to forests, you get these wild pigs. You can't hunt them at nights every day. And your digging option or building a 6 foot wall is not profitable. In India, people just set up a thick aluminum wire around their farms, then energize around 6 pm. You end up seeing many pigs getting electrocuted. This has other affects: sometimes, even humans get electrocuted. I know someone, whose mom and whose sister got electrocuted by such a wire when these women went to collect some hay. Now people are afraid to walk around these lands after sunset.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      > You end up seeing many pigs getting electrocuted. ... Hey, at least those farmers are getting some free bacon out of the deal. Must be worth the risks once you take that into account.
    - sumedh 5y ago
      > your digging option or building a 6 foot wall is not profitable. If the other option is to not use the farmland then I dont see why you wont invest the time to dig a ditch or build a wall.
  - kthejoker2 5y ago
    Wow, you read that post about not being smug and not assuming you know better than the experts on the ground ... and decided to throw in a couple of 3%-baked (at best) "solutions" complete with a "Just" to let everyone know how dumb they are not to see this obvious thing? Hubris doesn't do it justice ...
nhumrich 5y ago
The people who have the big bucks to give, usually made that money by being "right" a lot. I would wager that it is very difficult for those same people to relinquish control, when doing so flies in the face of everything they have taught themselves to get to that point. You are correct, they need to trust the people who know how to help. My guess is, that is a very difficult thing to do.
jrochkind1 5y ago
It also eliminates so much overhead if you don't require the recipient to explain and justify exactly how they are going to use all the money, and then document the proof they used it in exactly the ways they said they would (or explain why they didn't).
- kolbe 5y ago
  Unfortunately, due diligence is an essential element of any monetary transaction. Do you know how much time the world would collectively save if products just worked the way manufacturers claimed? If companies were straightforward with everything they do?
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    So I don't know what sort of reporting requirements Scott's giving has, if any. I am interested to learn this. Regardless of what sort of reproting requirements she has as the giver, the recipients, especially if 501-c-3's, will still have standard reporting requirements for their tax exempt status, they can't use it in blatantly corrupt ways even if the giver were fine with that. I think what you are saying is that if there isn't sufficient "due dilligence" (whatever that is) the money might be "mis-used". There is an alternate question: What percentage of philanthropic money can be used on applying for that money, and documenting and reporting how it was used, before we consider that "mis-use"? 20%? 50%? 75%? There is definitely some number. Why is the giver more qualified to decide what "mis-use" is than the recipient? If some % of the money is "mis-used", will that be significantly less than the money saved begging for and justifying to philanthropists that the money was used how the philanthropists would prefer? Again the pull-quote from Scott: > we believe that teams with experience on the front lines of challenges will know best how to put the money to good use, we encouraged them to spend it however they choose"? Are you suggesting that's an irresponsible approach? Again, I don't know what sort of application or reporting requirements Scott has, if any, and I am curious to learn more. But I am confident that this philosophy will lead to a lot less time spent begging for money and documenting the proof that you used it exactly how you begged for it, and that this will make the money go much further. What does"due dillegence" mean, are there differnet ways to do it and why is it an "essential element" of philanthropic giving? What are the possible consequences if you don't make recipients spend enough time explaining exactly how they will use the money and documenting they did so? What are the consequences if you make them spend too much time? Who gets to decide the "correct" balance? I don't think it's irresponsible for Scott to decide she shouldn't get to make all the decisions around that just because she is one of the richest people on the planet.
rayiner 5y ago
That doesn’t actually overcome the problem, though. Vast swaths of these organizations are good at raising money and little else. Donors who don’t know how to solve the underlying problem don’t necessarily know who is best placed to solve it. Think of it like VC funding. Why do VCs hire people with tons of experience in the specific domains in which they’re investing? Because otherwise you can’t tell good investments from bad investments. Social investment isn’t any easier, and in fact it’s much harder. This is why Bill Gates’ approach is so brilliant. (But obviously hard to replicate.) Social enterprises need skilled allocators of capital just as much as private enterprises do. That’s something Gates brings to the table that Scott doesn’t.
kolbe 5y ago
The trade off, of course, is that while someone else may be more knowledgeable, they don’t necessarily share the same incentives as you. Mackenzie may want to have her grant support the arts in underprivileged communities, but the head of that program may prefer handing out five new high paying jobs to her family members instead.
mchusma 5y ago
It sounds like her strategy given her words and this list, is to look for teams who have executed well and not give much thought into what they are actually doing. There is not 1 ounce of effective altruism in this post, and this list of charities wouldn't likely fair well in expected impact. This is in sharp contrast to the Gates foundation or Musk's work, where they think a lot about what they can do to build a better future, then work from there. I'm pretty skeptical looking at this list that this teams-first approach will deliver as much results. For example, if she gave $10M to Cal State Fullerton, a state funded institution with a back of the envelope funding of $300m/year, it's hard to think how that would deliver much. And maybe that is the point, she's hoping it might contribute somehow to 100-10,000 additional productive members of society. But all these bets seem similar. It will be very hard to know if it did any good for the world. I'm trying to not be too critical, I think philanthropy has a role ideally to fill the white space between government and for profit industries. And her money is enough to really do clear good in the world. I am really hoping she becomes a new mega-force for good.
- phillipcarter 5y ago
  > where they think a lot about what they can do to build a better future What they're really doing is thinking about the future that they personally want and selectively funding that in a way that they ensure they also continue to gain wealth. That's my interpretation, at least. I don't like "effective altruism".
  - kthejoker2 5y ago
    Yeah, I don't understand why we as a society trust billionaires to decide what our most important problems are, much less how best to solve them.

by mabbo 5y ago

akudha 5y ago

I remember listening to an interview by an Italian man who did lot of volunteer work in Africa. He said when he was young, he went to Africa (I forgot which country) - he saw very fertile soil and thought "why aren't the locals planting anything here?". Acting smug, he went ahead and planted some stuff, the locals raised eyebrows but said nothing. One morning he goes to the field, the entire place is trashed, like a warzone. The night before, wild pigs had had a good time partying in his beloved field! If he had asked the locals first, they would've told him to take care of the wild pigs problem before planting anything. He said that was the last time he assumed he knew more than locals because of his fancy degrees and elite upbringing. This is also my main complaint with organizations like the Gates foundation. They do a lot of good, but they also act on the firm belief (arrogance?) that they know more than anyone else in the room, especially the locals. Examples below https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/africans-speak-out-against-the-mass-circumcision-campaign-300370353.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/africans-speak-out-... https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-melinda-gates-foundation-education-initiative-failure-2018-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-melinda-gates-foundatio...

nceqs3 5y ago
I have many family members who work in the development world. The Gates Foundation is a punchline of sorts and many people do not like them. Melinda is very christian and refused for years to fund contraception or abortions. Meanwhile melinda travels the world being fawned over as a feminist queen. The other valid criticism of these development nonprofits is that they are propping up dictators. People won't rise up against their terrible governments if they have free everything from the US/Europe. Looking at you USAID.
- WaltPurvis 5y ago
  >Melinda is very christian and refused for years to fund contraception or abortions. Melinda Gates has called expanding access to contraception the cause of her life and has funded it to the tune of more than $1 billion. https://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/health/melinda-gates-contraception/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/health/melinda-gates-contrace... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/health/melinda-gates-birth-control-poverty.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/health/melinda-gates-birt... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/opinion-melinda-gates-contraceptive-global https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/opinion-m...
sumedh 5y ago
> they would've told him to take care of the wild pigs problem Why cant the locals take care of the pigs problems themselves? Just hunt them or dig a ditch around the farm so that they cant cross it.
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
  They probably can, but solving that problem is not the point of the anecdote.
- raincom 5y ago
  it is not as easy as it sounds. When your farming land is next to forests, you get these wild pigs. You can't hunt them at nights every day. And your digging option or building a 6 foot wall is not profitable. In India, people just set up a thick aluminum wire around their farms, then energize around 6 pm. You end up seeing many pigs getting electrocuted. This has other affects: sometimes, even humans get electrocuted. I know someone, whose mom and whose sister got electrocuted by such a wire when these women went to collect some hay. Now people are afraid to walk around these lands after sunset.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    > You end up seeing many pigs getting electrocuted. ... Hey, at least those farmers are getting some free bacon out of the deal. Must be worth the risks once you take that into account.
  - sumedh 5y ago
    > your digging option or building a 6 foot wall is not profitable. If the other option is to not use the farmland then I dont see why you wont invest the time to dig a ditch or build a wall.
- kthejoker2 5y ago
  Wow, you read that post about not being smug and not assuming you know better than the experts on the ground ... and decided to throw in a couple of 3%-baked (at best) "solutions" complete with a "Just" to let everyone know how dumb they are not to see this obvious thing? Hubris doesn't do it justice ...

nhumrich 5y ago

The people who have the big bucks to give, usually made that money by being "right" a lot. I would wager that it is very difficult for those same people to relinquish control, when doing so flies in the face of everything they have taught themselves to get to that point. You are correct, they need to trust the people who know how to help. My guess is, that is a very difficult thing to do.

jrochkind1 5y ago

It also eliminates so much overhead if you don't require the recipient to explain and justify exactly how they are going to use all the money, and then document the proof they used it in exactly the ways they said they would (or explain why they didn't).

kolbe 5y ago
Unfortunately, due diligence is an essential element of any monetary transaction. Do you know how much time the world would collectively save if products just worked the way manufacturers claimed? If companies were straightforward with everything they do?
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  So I don't know what sort of reporting requirements Scott's giving has, if any. I am interested to learn this. Regardless of what sort of reproting requirements she has as the giver, the recipients, especially if 501-c-3's, will still have standard reporting requirements for their tax exempt status, they can't use it in blatantly corrupt ways even if the giver were fine with that. I think what you are saying is that if there isn't sufficient "due dilligence" (whatever that is) the money might be "mis-used". There is an alternate question: What percentage of philanthropic money can be used on applying for that money, and documenting and reporting how it was used, before we consider that "mis-use"? 20%? 50%? 75%? There is definitely some number. Why is the giver more qualified to decide what "mis-use" is than the recipient? If some % of the money is "mis-used", will that be significantly less than the money saved begging for and justifying to philanthropists that the money was used how the philanthropists would prefer? Again the pull-quote from Scott: > we believe that teams with experience on the front lines of challenges will know best how to put the money to good use, we encouraged them to spend it however they choose"? Are you suggesting that's an irresponsible approach? Again, I don't know what sort of application or reporting requirements Scott has, if any, and I am curious to learn more. But I am confident that this philosophy will lead to a lot less time spent begging for money and documenting the proof that you used it exactly how you begged for it, and that this will make the money go much further. What does"due dillegence" mean, are there differnet ways to do it and why is it an "essential element" of philanthropic giving? What are the possible consequences if you don't make recipients spend enough time explaining exactly how they will use the money and documenting they did so? What are the consequences if you make them spend too much time? Who gets to decide the "correct" balance? I don't think it's irresponsible for Scott to decide she shouldn't get to make all the decisions around that just because she is one of the richest people on the planet.

rayiner 5y ago

That doesn’t actually overcome the problem, though. Vast swaths of these organizations are good at raising money and little else. Donors who don’t know how to solve the underlying problem don’t necessarily know who is best placed to solve it. Think of it like VC funding. Why do VCs hire people with tons of experience in the specific domains in which they’re investing? Because otherwise you can’t tell good investments from bad investments. Social investment isn’t any easier, and in fact it’s much harder. This is why Bill Gates’ approach is so brilliant. (But obviously hard to replicate.) Social enterprises need skilled allocators of capital just as much as private enterprises do. That’s something Gates brings to the table that Scott doesn’t.

kolbe 5y ago

The trade off, of course, is that while someone else may be more knowledgeable, they don’t necessarily share the same incentives as you. Mackenzie may want to have her grant support the arts in underprivileged communities, but the head of that program may prefer handing out five new high paying jobs to her family members instead.

mchusma 5y ago

It sounds like her strategy given her words and this list, is to look for teams who have executed well and not give much thought into what they are actually doing. There is not 1 ounce of effective altruism in this post, and this list of charities wouldn't likely fair well in expected impact. This is in sharp contrast to the Gates foundation or Musk's work, where they think a lot about what they can do to build a better future, then work from there. I'm pretty skeptical looking at this list that this teams-first approach will deliver as much results. For example, if she gave $10M to Cal State Fullerton, a state funded institution with a back of the envelope funding of $300m/year, it's hard to think how that would deliver much. And maybe that is the point, she's hoping it might contribute somehow to 100-10,000 additional productive members of society. But all these bets seem similar. It will be very hard to know if it did any good for the world. I'm trying to not be too critical, I think philanthropy has a role ideally to fill the white space between government and for profit industries. And her money is enough to really do clear good in the world. I am really hoping she becomes a new mega-force for good.

phillipcarter 5y ago
> where they think a lot about what they can do to build a better future What they're really doing is thinking about the future that they personally want and selectively funding that in a way that they ensure they also continue to gain wealth. That's my interpretation, at least. I don't like "effective altruism".
- kthejoker2 5y ago
  Yeah, I don't understand why we as a society trust billionaires to decide what our most important problems are, much less how best to solve them.