4 ms·

As per the other replies, you've seriously misunderstood some fundamentals about EA. But aside from that: > The better solution is to (1) increase tax rates o

by Joeboy 3y ago

As per the other replies, you've seriously misunderstood some fundamentals about EA. But aside from that: > The better solution is to (1) increase tax rates on the wealthiest sectors of the economy by restoring 1960s-era tax brackets for income, corporate, and capital gains and (2) change how those funds are spent at the federal and state level, i.e. move away from funding foreign wars and towards fixing all the basic domestic problems. Why are these mutually exclusive? Why can't I favour progressive taxation and better foreign / domestic policies, while also making donations to stop people dying of preventable diseases? Obviously EA people aren't all the same, but I'd say that was a fairly typical position among EAs, and I see nothing wrong with it. If there is some slight way in which donating to malaria prevention as at odds with taxing the rich, is it really worth the large death toll associated with withdrawing funding from the former?

photochemsyn 3y ago
Malaria is a good example. It used to be endemic in the southeastern United States but was eradicated within a couple of decades - not by billionaire philanthropy, but by a robust government-managed public health effort: > "Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933. The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated." https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.html https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.htm... In the absence of basic local public health infrastructure and disease monitoring and response agencies, i.e. government services, malaria eradication is highly unlikely and all the mosquito nets in the world won't change that.
- Joeboy 3y ago
  How will it help if people stop donating to the Against Malaria Foundation? It seems to me that'll cost a lot of lives and not benefit public health infrastructure one jot.

by Joeboy 3y ago

photochemsyn 3y ago

Malaria is a good example. It used to be endemic in the southeastern United States but was eradicated within a couple of decades - not by billionaire philanthropy, but by a robust government-managed public health effort: > "Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933. The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated." https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.html https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/about/history/elimination_us.htm... In the absence of basic local public health infrastructure and disease monitoring and response agencies, i.e. government services, malaria eradication is highly unlikely and all the mosquito nets in the world won't change that.

Joeboy 3y ago
How will it help if people stop donating to the Against Malaria Foundation? It seems to me that'll cost a lot of lives and not benefit public health infrastructure one jot.