3 ms·

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 w

by 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.
- kolbe 5y ago
  To answer basically all of your questions: you glossed over charities using the money fraudulently or irresponsibility (e.g. hiring their friends for no good philanthropic reason) by simply claiming they have to fill out reports. Filling out a report is not a sufficient check on power. If you don’t like that answer, then I hope you treat all endeavors with the same disregard for the possibility of human corruption and indecency.
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    You HOPE I do that? why would you hope that? i don't think you're paying attention to what I am writing. Right, when I said "misuse", I understand that as including using the money fraudulently or irresponsibly. I am not sure what you mean beyond "filling out reports", "reporting" is the word that means documenting how you spent the money in the philanthropic world. Do you have much experience with non-profits and charitable giving and how it works? There is obviously a continuum of degrees of how much time recipients (or philanthropists) spend on making sure the money is spent non-fraudulently and responsibly, right? It's not all or nothing. If 95% of philanthropic money were spent making sure the other 5% were being used responsibly and non-fraudulently, we would agree there was a problem, right? (or maybe we would not?) If we found that 5% of the total philanthropic money were being spent "irresponsibly", but to reduce that further, it would take spending 25% more of the total on "oversight" -- would that be an appropriate trade-off, even though it actually results in net 20% less to "responsible" uses? So it's a question of the "appropriate" balance, and who gets to decide what that is and what it looks like and what "responsible" spending of the money looks like.
    - kolbe 5y ago
      And if, in your hypothetical, assisting philanthropists in doing proper research into the usage of funds takes less than 5% of their time, then it’s a net benefit. What is the appropriate balance? Luckily you nor I get to decide. People donating their money get to choose what level is appropriate for them. And the overwhelming number of experienced philanthropists do research into whether or not the organizations they donate to are doing what they claim to do. Again, I hope you apply this same flippancy to the possibility of human misbehavior in the rest of your life. Do you buy Dell computers with no research because they claim to be the best? Do buy whatever item on Amazon has the highest rating? Do you invest in bloodwork startups because they say they have nationwide deals with Walgreens? If you do, then cool, you’re just a really trusting person. And that’s fine. But if not, you’re giving a free pass to some people and not to others, and I cannot fathom what makes some organization formed around a non-profit structure inherently more trustworthy than one formed around profitability.

by kolbe 5y ago

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.

kolbe 5y ago
To answer basically all of your questions: you glossed over charities using the money fraudulently or irresponsibility (e.g. hiring their friends for no good philanthropic reason) by simply claiming they have to fill out reports. Filling out a report is not a sufficient check on power. If you don’t like that answer, then I hope you treat all endeavors with the same disregard for the possibility of human corruption and indecency.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  You HOPE I do that? why would you hope that? i don't think you're paying attention to what I am writing. Right, when I said "misuse", I understand that as including using the money fraudulently or irresponsibly. I am not sure what you mean beyond "filling out reports", "reporting" is the word that means documenting how you spent the money in the philanthropic world. Do you have much experience with non-profits and charitable giving and how it works? There is obviously a continuum of degrees of how much time recipients (or philanthropists) spend on making sure the money is spent non-fraudulently and responsibly, right? It's not all or nothing. If 95% of philanthropic money were spent making sure the other 5% were being used responsibly and non-fraudulently, we would agree there was a problem, right? (or maybe we would not?) If we found that 5% of the total philanthropic money were being spent "irresponsibly", but to reduce that further, it would take spending 25% more of the total on "oversight" -- would that be an appropriate trade-off, even though it actually results in net 20% less to "responsible" uses? So it's a question of the "appropriate" balance, and who gets to decide what that is and what it looks like and what "responsible" spending of the money looks like.
  - kolbe 5y ago
    And if, in your hypothetical, assisting philanthropists in doing proper research into the usage of funds takes less than 5% of their time, then it’s a net benefit. What is the appropriate balance? Luckily you nor I get to decide. People donating their money get to choose what level is appropriate for them. And the overwhelming number of experienced philanthropists do research into whether or not the organizations they donate to are doing what they claim to do. Again, I hope you apply this same flippancy to the possibility of human misbehavior in the rest of your life. Do you buy Dell computers with no research because they claim to be the best? Do buy whatever item on Amazon has the highest rating? Do you invest in bloodwork startups because they say they have nationwide deals with Walgreens? If you do, then cool, you’re just a really trusting person. And that’s fine. But if not, you’re giving a free pass to some people and not to others, and I cannot fathom what makes some organization formed around a non-profit structure inherently more trustworthy than one formed around profitability.