4 ms·

That kind of charity is not controlled, is not systemic, is not broad, and is not reliable. It relies on other people liking you enough to give you their money

That kind of charity is not controlled, is not systemic, is not broad, and is not reliable. It relies on other people liking you enough to give you their money. Studies have repeatedly and reliably proven that the halo effect is real, a person in a suit can earn more while begging than homeless people, which exploits prejudices and quick but biased decision making. The reason I won’t give a person in a suit money but I will give a homeless one is because I have made that conscious choice apriori and engrained it in my subconscious. Most people don’t, and therefore see a “good guy” down on their luck and due to systemic pressure that has engraved into people’s heads that homeless people are lazy and filthy, they won’t. Homeless exists only to keep people working and slaving away at the capitalist machine. It’s a damn treatable problem one can solve. For example, the money spent on healthcare for (frequent flier) homeless people can be used instead to house them properly and significantly reduce the cost to hospitals [1]. So no amount of “neighbourly help” can save that amount of money nor help as many people. Targeted systemic changes can be vastly more efficient than relying on immutable factors (one’s appearance) and hoping that people are kind enough to help. I am fairly certain that such cases can be found everywhere. The cynic in me suggests that most people want to help their neighbour in order to feel good about themselves and see the impersonal nature of taxes as worthless or evil even because they themselves are oblivious to the consequences. When I said “local neighbourhood”, I referred to one’s vicinity and where the individual can exert control. Not physical location. [1] https://nlihc.org/resource/housing-homeless-hospital-patients-reduces-public-costs https://nlihc.org/resource/housing-homeless-hospital-patient...

germandiago 4y ago
> That kind of charity is not controlled, is not systemic, is not broad, and is not reliable. The charity should be controlled by the people who put the money, you do not see the pattern? If they cheat they are risking losing the charity donations. This is not true of any taxing system. > For example, the money spent on healthcare for (frequent flier) homeless people can be used instead to house them properly and significantly reduce the cost to hospitals If there is research that this is the effective way to do it, what prevents a charity with enough incomings to do it that way? It must be the state? It can work like a private institution or a net of them. > So no amount of “neighbourly help” can save that amount of money nor help as many people. Taxing in Spain is higher and higher and evidence says that things are not getting better. If that was true, more taxes -> more welfare. Yet public positions that make no sense grow and "productive economy" is smashed with taxes. > in order to feel good about themselves and see the impersonal nature of taxes as worthless or evil even because they themselves are oblivious to the consequences Could be, that is you or me. A bureaucrat sees a mine of gold there, instead. :) You see the problem? And they have it in their hands to prioritize it however they like it. Do you think they will take a decision against them or that, in the face of choice, for example, if it is about them or others, what do you think they choose? You guessed right, them, because humans have incentives and interests. They will do more so if they do not pay the consequences, which is exactly what happens all the time. I have lots of examples of it that in a private or personal setup just do not happen just because you will pay the consequences directly. There is no tax magic. Taxes are managed by humans with incentives. Careful with that. Same for private institutions that receive money. The difference is that for a private institution you turn back and go at the first suspicious move. With taxes you are literally captured, kidnapped by law, no matter what they do.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  > Taxing in Spain is higher and higher and evidence says that things are not getting better. If that was true, more taxes -> more welfare. Yet public positions that make no sense grow and "productive economy" is smashed with taxes. You are not addressing the problem there. Don’t get me wrong, my taxes in Poland are absurdly high and my QoL is not that much higher compared to when I was in Denmark as a broke grad student barely making it through each month. A bloated public sector is not evidence that collective assistance is bad, it is not. In the example I gave above, local information suggests to simply not help the homeless, but global information finds that housing them cuts the costs and improves the situation for everyone. What prevents “a” charity from doing what I describe is that charities are run by people, and most of them are not effective, which is why effective altruism is a thing in the first place. The aim of effective altruism is to maximise the net impact of individual people’s charity by avoiding giving money to bad ones. Still, EA does not have the capacity to see the complete picture because it still lacks data and can not organise large scale operations across multiple sectors whereas individual charities are very limited in scope.
  - germandiago 4y ago
    > A bloated public sector is not evidence that collective assistance is bad, it is not. In the example I gave above, local information suggests to simply not help the homeless, but global information finds that housing them cuts the costs and improves the situation for everyone. This is more nuanced than you seem to suggest. It is for me evident that if collective assistance through coactive systems have a lot of the incentives shifted or reversed (you manage but do not suffer consequences, for example), then what will happen is that resources will not be used well and... it happens all the time! So for me this is clearly evidence. > The aim of effective altruism is to maximise the net impact of individual people’s charity by avoiding giving money to bad ones And the aim of communism is that we are all equal and everyone works for the good of all the others. Now tell me where you saw that. Even with the use of coaction was a failure... Intentions can be whatever you want, what counts is the results. A system where incentives are not aligned (as in compatible) with human nature are a recipe for failure. It is of paramount importance that if there is research in the psychology field that says that if you collectivize responsibility noone takes care efficiently or just start to ignore the problems, then the logical step is to put more self-reliance and concrete reponsibles for things, to give just an example. Incentives must make sense or things do not work, that is what historic data taught us. > Still, EA does not have the capacity to see the complete picture because it still lacks data and can not organise large scale operations across multiple sectors whereas individual charities are very limited in scope I do not see the problem in gathering public information and adapting to the market needs. A state has to emit laws, is rigid, do giant budgets and moves slow. In the time a state moves, private companies do so several times faster. Shetty hospitals example: did anyone try something like that before? No that I know of. Why? Because the incentive of the state is to justify tax paying and education and health care are two of their biggest justifications. If someone comes to show they are doing it wrong that talks very bad about states, indeed, and people will start to think it is a scam to pay a health care that is three or four times more expensive when they can have a similar one cheaper. At this time there is a big reason to move the state away from that sector unless they compete with the same rules.

germandiago 4y ago

> That kind of charity is not controlled, is not systemic, is not broad, and is not reliable. The charity should be controlled by the people who put the money, you do not see the pattern? If they cheat they are risking losing the charity donations. This is not true of any taxing system. > For example, the money spent on healthcare for (frequent flier) homeless people can be used instead to house them properly and significantly reduce the cost to hospitals If there is research that this is the effective way to do it, what prevents a charity with enough incomings to do it that way? It must be the state? It can work like a private institution or a net of them. > So no amount of “neighbourly help” can save that amount of money nor help as many people. Taxing in Spain is higher and higher and evidence says that things are not getting better. If that was true, more taxes -> more welfare. Yet public positions that make no sense grow and "productive economy" is smashed with taxes. > in order to feel good about themselves and see the impersonal nature of taxes as worthless or evil even because they themselves are oblivious to the consequences Could be, that is you or me. A bureaucrat sees a mine of gold there, instead. :) You see the problem? And they have it in their hands to prioritize it however they like it. Do you think they will take a decision against them or that, in the face of choice, for example, if it is about them or others, what do you think they choose? You guessed right, them, because humans have incentives and interests. They will do more so if they do not pay the consequences, which is exactly what happens all the time. I have lots of examples of it that in a private or personal setup just do not happen just because you will pay the consequences directly. There is no tax magic. Taxes are managed by humans with incentives. Careful with that. Same for private institutions that receive money. The difference is that for a private institution you turn back and go at the first suspicious move. With taxes you are literally captured, kidnapped by law, no matter what they do.

PartiallyTyped 4y ago
> Taxing in Spain is higher and higher and evidence says that things are not getting better. If that was true, more taxes -> more welfare. Yet public positions that make no sense grow and "productive economy" is smashed with taxes. You are not addressing the problem there. Don’t get me wrong, my taxes in Poland are absurdly high and my QoL is not that much higher compared to when I was in Denmark as a broke grad student barely making it through each month. A bloated public sector is not evidence that collective assistance is bad, it is not. In the example I gave above, local information suggests to simply not help the homeless, but global information finds that housing them cuts the costs and improves the situation for everyone. What prevents “a” charity from doing what I describe is that charities are run by people, and most of them are not effective, which is why effective altruism is a thing in the first place. The aim of effective altruism is to maximise the net impact of individual people’s charity by avoiding giving money to bad ones. Still, EA does not have the capacity to see the complete picture because it still lacks data and can not organise large scale operations across multiple sectors whereas individual charities are very limited in scope.
- germandiago 4y ago
  > A bloated public sector is not evidence that collective assistance is bad, it is not. In the example I gave above, local information suggests to simply not help the homeless, but global information finds that housing them cuts the costs and improves the situation for everyone. This is more nuanced than you seem to suggest. It is for me evident that if collective assistance through coactive systems have a lot of the incentives shifted or reversed (you manage but do not suffer consequences, for example), then what will happen is that resources will not be used well and... it happens all the time! So for me this is clearly evidence. > The aim of effective altruism is to maximise the net impact of individual people’s charity by avoiding giving money to bad ones And the aim of communism is that we are all equal and everyone works for the good of all the others. Now tell me where you saw that. Even with the use of coaction was a failure... Intentions can be whatever you want, what counts is the results. A system where incentives are not aligned (as in compatible) with human nature are a recipe for failure. It is of paramount importance that if there is research in the psychology field that says that if you collectivize responsibility noone takes care efficiently or just start to ignore the problems, then the logical step is to put more self-reliance and concrete reponsibles for things, to give just an example. Incentives must make sense or things do not work, that is what historic data taught us. > Still, EA does not have the capacity to see the complete picture because it still lacks data and can not organise large scale operations across multiple sectors whereas individual charities are very limited in scope I do not see the problem in gathering public information and adapting to the market needs. A state has to emit laws, is rigid, do giant budgets and moves slow. In the time a state moves, private companies do so several times faster. Shetty hospitals example: did anyone try something like that before? No that I know of. Why? Because the incentive of the state is to justify tax paying and education and health care are two of their biggest justifications. If someone comes to show they are doing it wrong that talks very bad about states, indeed, and people will start to think it is a scam to pay a health care that is three or four times more expensive when they can have a similar one cheaper. At this time there is a big reason to move the state away from that sector unless they compete with the same rules.