5 ms·

> It's just a vehicle to drive sales. I'll bite - Why is this a problem? Let's assume (Red) is using funds properly (not going to touch that). If selling prod

> It's just a vehicle to drive sales. I'll bite - Why is this a problem? Let's assume (Red) is using funds properly (not going to touch that). If selling products that carve out a portion of profits get donated then isn't this great? > Because the only effect it has is suckers that really care about AIDS giving more money to Product Red. If more money is going to the right causes why the holier-than-art-thou thought process. It was the same criticism with the ice bucket challenge. "people don't care about ALS..." "nor about <fit your cause here>". It gets more money into good causes. If <said thing> didn't exist, they'd have less money.

Vinnl 4y ago
See also "The Copenhagen interpretation of ethics": https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...
- nickpp 4y ago
  Oh this is a beautiful concept - I didn't know about it. Explains so much. Thank you!
- hoosieree 4y ago
  I'm afraid to respond saying how thought provoking that article is, because then I might be on the hook to actually do something to make the world a better place.
- jmpman 4y ago
  Nice article, but sounds like it was written by an Uber product manager justifying their decision for surge pricing. My cynical view is that Uber predominantly benefits from surge pricing, and they pass the minimal amount on to their drivers, drenching their disadvantaged potential passengers with much higher prices.
squeaky-clean 4y ago
> If <said thing> didn't exist, they'd have less money The "Criticisms" portion of the article has one response to this sort of argument. Most of Red's aid is in the form of purchasing pharmaceutical treatments for those who need it. It sounds good in the short term, but it's essentially a private subsidy to the pharmaceutical companies and an excuse to keep drug prices high and not bother with government pricing regulations or government funded treatment programs. The argument is that the money could be better spent on lobbying for government aid and price limits.
- gambiting 4y ago
  >>The argument is that the money could be better spent on lobbying for government aid and price limits. By whose judgement? If someone comes to me and asks for money for their medical treatment, of course I'm going to give them it. They need it now, I'm going to help. Or are we going to argue that this money that I spent would have been better off donated to an organisation that lobbies government for regulating medicine prices(while the person who needs help now suffers because they aren't getting the meds). It just strikes me as such armchair judgement of the situation(not you personally, I mean the general criticism around this).
- marcinzm 4y ago
  >The argument is that the money could be better spent on lobbying for government aid and price limits. So it's better for lobbyists to get the money to encourage pharma companies to increase US prices to give Africa free doses? I don't see how that is a better use of the money. Now you've spent twice as much money on this. Once for lobbyists and then again from US price increases and pharma companies make just as much in the end.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  The idea that there's some kind of globally-optimizing resource allocation for altruism and that you're open to criticism for failing to adhere to someone's line on it is just so fucked up.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
My interpretation of the ice-bucket challenge criticism was that it had a lot of people dunking ice buckets on their heads on social media; but it is unclear how many wrote checks instead (or as well). At least in this case there's pretty clearly money flowing to the cause rather than just teenagers doing teenager stuff on social media with added warm fuzzies.

Vinnl 4y ago

See also "The Copenhagen interpretation of ethics": https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth...

nickpp 4y ago
Oh this is a beautiful concept - I didn't know about it. Explains so much. Thank you!
hoosieree 4y ago
I'm afraid to respond saying how thought provoking that article is, because then I might be on the hook to actually do something to make the world a better place.
jmpman 4y ago
Nice article, but sounds like it was written by an Uber product manager justifying their decision for surge pricing. My cynical view is that Uber predominantly benefits from surge pricing, and they pass the minimal amount on to their drivers, drenching their disadvantaged potential passengers with much higher prices.

squeaky-clean 4y ago

> If <said thing> didn't exist, they'd have less money The "Criticisms" portion of the article has one response to this sort of argument. Most of Red's aid is in the form of purchasing pharmaceutical treatments for those who need it. It sounds good in the short term, but it's essentially a private subsidy to the pharmaceutical companies and an excuse to keep drug prices high and not bother with government pricing regulations or government funded treatment programs. The argument is that the money could be better spent on lobbying for government aid and price limits.

gambiting 4y ago
>>The argument is that the money could be better spent on lobbying for government aid and price limits. By whose judgement? If someone comes to me and asks for money for their medical treatment, of course I'm going to give them it. They need it now, I'm going to help. Or are we going to argue that this money that I spent would have been better off donated to an organisation that lobbies government for regulating medicine prices(while the person who needs help now suffers because they aren't getting the meds). It just strikes me as such armchair judgement of the situation(not you personally, I mean the general criticism around this).
marcinzm 4y ago
>The argument is that the money could be better spent on lobbying for government aid and price limits. So it's better for lobbyists to get the money to encourage pharma companies to increase US prices to give Africa free doses? I don't see how that is a better use of the money. Now you've spent twice as much money on this. Once for lobbyists and then again from US price increases and pharma companies make just as much in the end.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
The idea that there's some kind of globally-optimizing resource allocation for altruism and that you're open to criticism for failing to adhere to someone's line on it is just so fucked up.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

My interpretation of the ice-bucket challenge criticism was that it had a lot of people dunking ice buckets on their heads on social media; but it is unclear how many wrote checks instead (or as well). At least in this case there's pretty clearly money flowing to the cause rather than just teenagers doing teenager stuff on social media with added warm fuzzies.