13 ms·

It doesn't cost much to improve someone's life

• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• JohnFen 2y ago
  I've temporarily dialed back on my charitable contributions. I believe that the US is at the front end of an unprecedented economic and political disaster, so I need to use the resources available to me to protect myself and my loved ones as best as I can. Once I have that arranged, I can think about giving again.
  • hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
    Related, I was thinking earlier today about at what probabilities and timelines of regime collapse it makes sense to start seriously planning a move to another country under. A 10% chance over a 10-year timeline feels about accurate to me - low probability, but not so low it feels safe to gamble with.
    • mrtesthah 2y ago
      What formula would you even use to quantify that?
    • paulcole 2y ago
      The entire world has too much riding on the US not collapsing. I think it’s a 5% chance over the next 100 years.
      • hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
        5 over 100 feels high to me but not order-of-magnitude off. I'm at maybe a 2 myself. I agree that's an entirely unreasonable amount of risk for everyone to just be waving off though.
        • paulcole 2y ago
          I think 5 in 100 is totally reasonable to wave off. I’m not giving it a second thought personally. If it happens it will be so bad that I’ll almost certainly die as a result (due to chronic illness) so I should just keep on living as-is and not worry about it.
          • hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
            An, to be precise I really meant everyone, like including national banks and giant corporations and stuff. Ordinary folk like you and me can almost certainly ignore it, it's just weird I rarely hear people talk about how to price this kind of thing in for very long term assets.
            • fsckboy 2y ago
              the "very long term" property of assets has very little present value with any reasonable discount rate, and fewer experienced people to actually care about it.
        • financypants 2y ago
          I think any government has q 2% chance of collapse at any moment
        • zmgsabst 2y ago
          5% over 100 years is historically incredibly low. On average, governments last 250 years — which means we have a 0.4% chance per year. Using that figure, 100 years has a 33% chance of collapse — as our background. Or roughly 4% per decade. People wave off that risk because there’s not a lot that can be done: we don’t know how to make perfect governments and we’ve never discovered a good way to, eg, eliminate the ratcheting tax burdens that destabilize society.
          • hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
            Yeah, part of my argument is that that 250 year number is heavily skewed by past civilizations where life was much worse and so people were much more apt to just tear everything apart. I don't think it holds for countries at current First World standards of living. As we improve living standards further the number of years regimes will last for will stretch out even more. I'm not too crazy about this as an anarchist, mind you, I think there are better stable equilibria we could get to. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, I guess.
      • aaronblohowiak 2y ago
        I used to think this, but lately I'm not so sure. Beyond financial services, What does "the entire world" rely on US for anymore?
        • csa 2y ago
          > Beyond financial services, What does "the entire world" rely on US for anymore? Our market.
        • Loughla 2y ago
          The fact that we buy so much of everything.
        • jes5199 2y ago
          petroleum wealth
        • nouripenny 2y ago
          The US government has many military bases and troops stationed in other countries. It can project violence across the planet. Any entity with that power has strong ability to dictate what others do, and induce dependency. https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/us-sending-more-troops-middle-east-where-world-are-us-military-deployed https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/us-sending-more-troops-...
          • ambicapter 2y ago
            That isn't something that people "rely on" though. If that power is lost, some other power will come in to fill the vacuum.
            • tonyhart7 2y ago
              they aren't, EU is keeping busy with Russia, while China is growing uncheck on Asia
              • lazyasciiart 2y ago
      • Jedd 2y ago
        Can you think of any long-lived ( > 100 years), empire-scale civilisations that have collapsed despite a firm belief they were non-collapsible and/or essential to all surrounding nation states? Without consulting wikipedia, I can only think of about 17 off the top of my head.
        • paulcole 2y ago
          I am impressed that you are so well versed in history. What % chance do you think there is that the US collapses in over the next 10, 25, 50, and 100 years?
          • LoganDark 2y ago
            > I am impressed that you are so well versed in history. You know, schools used to teach this type of stuff.
            • jazzyjackson 2y ago
              This is a salient point, I don't know how other countries handled it but American schools as an institution were absolutely wrecked by covid, a significant portion of the youths just straight up stopped attending school, and I'm in a bubble but most parents I know are homeschooling at least part time now, when they wouldn't think of doing so just 5 years ago Does not bode well for the future of informed populi
              • tmpz22 2y ago
                Follow this chain of events: * The US economy nearly requires a degree for economic success * US demographics cliff results in a heavy short fall of student enrollments * US Federal government deeply cuts funding for universities * US higher education offers remote learning to attract students and reduce costs, much of which deeply lowers the standard of education * LLMs are deeply integrated into social products including snapchat and twitter * LLMs are capable of completing a significant amount of curriculum * The US Department of Education is removed, including teams responsible for tracking academic success on a national and state level Words like collapse are I think not the right word. But the long term institutional harm of this sequence of events may hit the country very hard. Bringing back factory jobs ain't gonna fix it, if tariffs are even capable of doing that.
      • nebula8804 2y ago
        What do you think of a worldwide collapse? The lazy argument is that China will take over everything, that they think in 100 year increments. However they have terrible demographics, have serious risks like food security, and have mucked up their economy through their real estate collapse. We all know of the US's issues and there is no other country that is really challenging these two....so how about everyone fails and we are all poor and destitute together?
        • amrocha 2y ago
          China had no intention to take over anywhere. They’re happy where they are.
          • blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
            No intention to take over? So they’ll walk away from Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan? Also, leading countries in Asia and Africa into debt traps and dependence on them through the BRI is not very different from taking over.
            • amrocha 2y ago
              HK and Xinjiang are already part of china. Tibet and Taiwan have historical ties. China has no expansionist ambitions, they just want what they perceive as theirs. And like, idk if you know this, but the world bank and the IMF are the ones offering the predatory loans. Countries choose to work with China instead exactly because the terms of their loans are better than the western alternatives.
              • hollerith 2y ago
                >China has no expansionist ambitions According to Rudyard Lynch, China has invaded Vietnam 27 times.
                • amrocha 2y ago
                  According to me they haven’t. I can make a youtube channel too if that adds to my credibility.
      • csomar 2y ago
        That is true and a big part of the reason why the world let the US get away with lots of stuff. But I think if the nature of the economical relation changes too much (ie: the US demand more juice to flow back to it), I can see how these countries might seriously consider (and maybe go for it) to break from the system. Will be a very wild ride.
      • mpreda 2y ago
        But the US is efficiently disentangling itself from the entire rest of the world as we speak; so that argument may not hold anymore in the near future.
    • rufus_foreman 2y ago
      You should write down your predictions and take a look at them 5 years from now.
      • SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
        I can’t speak for the original commenter, but I predicted 4 years ago that Trump was done in politics because the American people wouldn’t stand for a riot in the halls of Congress. Now that he’s back and the rioters are pardoned, I’m listening more closely to the people who predicted that would happen, and they uniformly say there’s a small but significant chance of a collapse.
        • nebula8804 2y ago
          Any people in particular you listen to? There is so much noise and everyone has a 'prediction'. Post election both sides have gotten really good at using sophisticated talking to sound like they know what they are talking about(Especially the right). I go on Reddit(main subs) its one universe, go to small less known subs, its a second universe and then Twitter is a third universe, all three are different alternative realities.
          • SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
            I guess I would point to prominent politicians as the best examples, although there's also smaller voices I see on Twitter and such. Schumer, Pelosi, Bernie, AOC, et cetera. I don't necessarily agree with all of their policy proposals but it seems like they understand Trump and what his goals are pretty well.
            • nebula8804 2y ago
              Ironically, I was actually a volunteer for Bernie, AOC back in 2018 when she was running her campaign and I went and continued this tradition trying to help AOC supported politicians like Tiffany Caban (post AOC, the party woke up and destroyed most progressive challengers) Looking back, it really felt like a waste of time. I should have taken a hint when I saw mostly old people there, and early 20 something political science majors. Two groups that have a lot of free time on their hands or have a personal reason to be there. I have lost a lot of faith in these people over the last few years. It was hard work to get AOC into office and a lot of her original hard fighting crew have been pushed out post election. While AOC is making waves on Twitter, I haven't seen any tangible positive changes that have been a result of her being there. We could talk about pieces of the GND being in the IRA but still thats a stretch. What I dont understand is why you believe these people are talking about a 'collapse'? I haven't heard this too much from the progressive left. Thats more the right wing e/acc folks that want to push the country to collapse faster because then they can rebuild faster or something like that.
    • zol 2y ago
      What do you think constitutes a collapse? Can you give a modern times example of a country collapsing in a way you’re imagining the US might?
      • BrenBarn 2y ago
        Not exactly a country, but Hong Kong comes to mind. . .
        • csomar 2y ago
          Hong Kong did not collapse. eh, it is doing okay. Sure you have a reduction in liberties but that's not what collapse means.
          • Retric 2y ago
            The people who lived in Hong Kong are worse off today even outside of political freedoms.
            • HPsquared 2y ago
              It's more "regression" or something. "Collapse" implies a dramatic event and something completely broken.
              • Retric 2y ago
                The collapse of the Roman Empire took decades and British Empire had a similarly long decline, but I understand your sentiment.
                • HPsquared 2y ago
                  Yes, Gibbon makes for interesting reading. Decline can indeed be prolonged. I suppose it's like how some things get very slowly better over the decades, other things get very slowly worse over the decades.
    • breppp 2y ago
      Where would you move that won't be affected by a United States collapse, or alternatively you can't predict a bleak scenario over a 10-year timeline?
      • hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
        Well, presumably you'll have a much easier time living through the fall of a country in another country. As to "which countries don't seem like they'll collapse with over 1 in 10 odds within 10 years"... Most of them? I guess if you thought this risk was exceptionally high the EU's visa free travel would be the best hedge you could get right now.
        • almostnormal 2y ago
          Even if the EU doesn't collapse there's a non-zero risk of war though, after Russia is done with Ukraine.
          • timeattack 2y ago
            I highly doubt that Russia is capable or willing to get into a fullscale war with EU. It's more than 3 years into war with Ukraine without any meaningful result, but repercussions for Russia, while not fatal, still significant. There was very limited military aid for Ukraine, yet Ukranian UAVs explode in Moscow and regions almost every day. Also there's a gas pipe from Russia to EU amidst the conflict which both sides afraid to even touch. Also EU has nuclear.
            • almostnormal 2y ago
              Full scale is unlikely. Russia could not, but they might send 250k/year to die in Estonia. EU and Nato (with or without US) would defend. But I doubt they would go all the way through Russia to force them to stop. Nuclear option is not likely to be used for some "minor" conflict like that, because it would go both ways quickly.
              • 2y ago
    • devilbunny 2y ago
      Plan how to become the new regime, if you think it's likely. This period looks wild, in no small part because 90% of even the fringe-y media don't like Trump, but I doubt much of his shenanigans will hold up once court cases happen. People will get bench-slapped (the only lawyering pun I know, but it's a good one).
      • amanaplanacanal 2y ago
        The risk that at least some people are worried about is that they will just start ignoring court cases. I don't have any idea how likely that is.
        • devilbunny 2y ago
          Possible but... very unlikely.
          • sumeno 2y ago
            They've already been ignoring court orders
          • amanaplanacanal 2y ago
            Just did it, unfortunately.
    • Atiscant 2y ago
      A dissenting voice that might of interest here is Peter Zeihan. He claims that the US is one of the few places that won’t collapse in the coming decade. I do claim here is right, but his analysis is, if nothing else, interesting. His book, The End of the World Is Just the Beginning, is an easy enough read.
      • HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
        This depends greatly on the working definition of collapse. If your mere existence becomes illegal it doesn't really matter if the economy is technically still functioning.
        • amanaplanacanal 2y ago
          I guess if you are are straight white make you will probably be ok. Most of my friends are women and/or LGBTQ, and almost all of them would be considered enemies by the current administration.
          • mercutio2 2y ago
            Geez. I loathe the administration, but I would really prefer it if people on my side quit it on the hyperbole. In no sense has the current administration expressed that “women” are enemies. Feminists, like myself, need to quit it on the arguing “anyone who is anti-feminism is anti woman”. It’s the exact same rhetorical flourish as “anyone who is anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic”. In this era of Trump’s statements bearing no relationship to truth, we can’t sink to the same lows. Or the bullshitters have already won.
            • amanaplanacanal 2y ago
              I wasn't clear. My friends are all vehemently anti trump. That's why he would consider them enemies. Not because they are women.
    • holyra 2y ago
      I am an EU citizen and I am concerned about the collapse of the US and more shortly about its expansionism claims. US has such a military dominance and violent culture that I am afraid it will produce a global war. I now think that the EU needs to rearm, not to defend against Russia, but to protect us against US collapse and expansionism. China is our better bet in this coming disaster.
      • skrebbel 2y ago
        I upvoted you before I read the last sentence, and then removed my upvote again. The US is a terrible ally, for all the reasons you cite, but unless they somehow become a democracy, China would be worse in every way.
        • deleted 2y ago
          [deleted]
        • geraldhh 2y ago
          not to dispute, but the fact that most of our stuff is 'made in china' might play into the public perception of this dynamic more than the political labels attached.
        • giraffe_lady 2y ago
          The parliamentary structure of the invader doesn't matter very much to the invaded. The assessment that the US is more likely to invade another country than china is not ridiculous anymore.
          • ethbr1 2y ago
            It very much matters, because it's a reason an invasion happens at all, especially between peer states. https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-3134,00.html https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-3134,0...
          • derektank 2y ago
            The parliamentary structure does matter actually. There is no way for the president of the US to launch a war of conquest without approval of the US Congress (there are a limited set of military actions the president could authorize under the war powers act or an existing AUMF but they would not merit being described as an invasion). That would require majority support in both houses of Congress, which can barely hold together long enough to pass a spending a bill.
    • gcanyon 2y ago
      My wife and I are not-so-many years from retirement. Ten years ago, we were already planning to retire someplace with more reasonable healthcare. We were already confident in that decision, but the current situation has made it absolute, and possibly pushed the timeline forward.
      • nradov 2y ago
        Which specific countries have more reasonable healthcare, and also allow retirees to immigrate? Most countries are reluctant to take in people who seem like non-productive burdens. If you're wealthy you can sometimes buy your way in, but wealthy people in the US already have access to excellent healthcare.
        • gcanyon 2y ago
          Generally you get insurance but it's way less than in the U.S. As an example, when we were in Portugal 8 years ago we needed to get my wife's prescriptions refilled and the person we were staying with said to go to the ER. We confirmed repeatedly and then did as they suggested. The doctor at the ER questioned us and said "we could have been busy and you would have had to wait." But long story short, we spent about half an hour all up to get the prescriptions, and it cost us $27. That was with zero insurance, paying full freight. Filling the prescriptions with no insurance cost less than the co-pay in the U.S. As far as I've researched: Portugal will let retirees in and after five years you can get citizenship -- you might still want insurance, but it's affordable. Spain is similar I think, and we're also looking at Italy, Greece, and Croatia. In Uruguay you need insurance, but if you start a business it's straightforward. In Thailand healthcare in general is excellent and mostly affordable. We're looking at 30-40 countries all up, but those are the main ones we're looking at. "Wealthy" is relative -- for example the minimum monthly income to get a visa for Portugal is something like $1,000 for one person, $1,700 for two. And we don't plan to live the high life, we just want someplace with nice weather, nice history/scenery, and that won't require us to do GoFundMe's to fund our future.
    • jltsiren 2y ago
      A 10% chance of collapse every decade is a reasonable baseline for a stable country. At least if a civil war or a major invasion counts as a collapse. That gives you a century of stability in the expected case, which is quite exceptional.
    • catlover76 2y ago
      [dead]
  • keming 2y ago
    > Once I have that arranged, I can think about giving again. The cost of gutting healthcare is going to go way up. It’s much more costly to fight 10 pandemics that are affecting 90% than it is to maintain vaccinations and control of 10%. That 10% affected becomes 90% affected quickly without assistance.
  • analog31 2y ago
    I wonder how important private charity is anyway. The US leads the world in private charity, yet we're worse off than countries with less charity and more robust public institutions, such as the safety net, health care, and so forth.
    • etrautmann 2y ago
      There’s not a direct causal link between the metrics you’re describing. The economy is too large for private philanthropy to meaningfully impact things like health care delivery costs but it can still be crucial for the arts, community programs, and science funding and all sorts of other unconnected things.
    • lazyasciiart 2y ago
      That doesn’t tell you how important it is, because certainly nobody is currently planning to replace private charity spending with public institutions.
  • etrautmann 2y ago
    Interesting - I’m planning to dial up contributions since they’re so much more needed and impactful now.
    • etrautmann 2y ago
      At a broader level, parochial thinking and circling the wagons plays into the catastrophe song political narrative that is a strategy of the Steve Bannons of the world. Id encourage generosity for those who have the means. It’ll at least make you happier.
  • csomar 2y ago
    That is fair. This about governments, though. As an individual, you can be quite vulnerable; and you should always prioritize yourself first (if you are struggling, how are you going to help anybody else). Also remember that you can significantly contribute in non-financial way (ie: teaching, connecting people to jobs, etc..)
  • almostgotcaught 2y ago
    there are two kinds of people, as defined by how they react to things becoming scary: those that withdraw to protect themselves and those that remain and risk themselves to protect others. i personally believe communities composed of the former cannot survive. coincidentally enough, american people are overwhelmingly of the former type.
    • keming 2y ago
      > american people are overwhelmingly of the former type HMOs, later PPOs, etc. in the U.S. seemed like a good idea, but health insurance wasn’t available or affordable for the minority. But there’s Medicaid, Medicare, the ACA, and much more, so the U.S. government has subsidized care and assistance. Another “workaround” for unaffordable health insurance is going to an emergency room at a hospital, assuming you can get there, but many can. It’s slow as hell, but being seen in hours can be better than being seen in months. The downside is that this results in crippling debt for some. Bankruptcy can be declared, but then your credit is shot, and if you’re poor you may need credit. Healthcare quality overall is quite good, though, even for the minority. It’s far from perfect, but compared to rest of the world, it’s not the worst place to get sick. Now- why did an activist president, house representatives, and senators get elected that are cutting funding for global and U.S. healthcare? I can’t imagine it’s not the fault of foreign actors and the ease of manipulating 50% of the country through Fox News and social media. You wouldn’t believe how different the belief sets are here between that group and the rest. It changed radically in the last ten years. The rest of us are far from indifferent to what’s happening. We just don’t know how to fix it. Protesting probably won’t change it, though we protest. Boycotts probably won’t change it, though we boycott. We don’t have enough in the government to even impeach, and what good would that do? They own all three branches of government. They used Gerrymandering and fired election officials, replaced leaders, subordinates, and did mass layoffs to ensure all future victories. They kicked certain news media out of the W.H. and are considering shutting other media companies down. It all happened so quickly. Much more quickly than in the past in Germany or Russia.
  • Delomomonl 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • andelink 2y ago
      What sort of comment is this? What purpose does it have? I also don’t see how you make the conclusions you do from the parent comment alone
  • throwaway69123 2y ago
    as a foreigner to the us i am investing heavily in the us, there is a pathway where the legal and social changes could result in considerable economic benefit over the next two years. you should consider how that could occur before waving it off ideologically. i am coming from an investment point of view and am largely agnostic of the politics.
    • cowhow 2y ago
      I'd unironically be interested in hearing what economic benefit you think is coming in the next two years? The nonsense tariffs being thrown at allies and uncoordinated destruction of government foreign aid/social services seem like net negatives to me. I could see the United States Bitcoin reserve thing bumping up the value of crypto, but that whole space is so volatile I would only put in money I'm willing to lose.
    • aprilthird2021 2y ago
      Please share your investment prospectus with us. What is the pathway and what economic benefit do you see down the line? I would love to reallocate my investments in my country, but the road we're on right now, I see it only ending worse off
  • Viliam1234 2y ago
    There is always something. Previously it was covid, etc.
    • llamaimperative 2y ago
      COVID and our current political predicament are basically the same event, and COVID was a once in a lifetime pandemic. Sure something is always the most pressing threat to stability, but that does not imply all eras are similarly unstable.
  • faceloss 2y ago
    [dead]
  • m3kw9 2y ago
    It is only the 3rd month of a 4 year term. Couple that with Elons move fast and break sht, you got some really risky stuff happening.
  • kennyloginz 2y ago
    Fear is the enemy.
• hasperdi 2y ago
  What about improving our own lives. I live in a first world country, work as a dev with decent earning. But finding things are expensive these days
  • jfengel 2y ago
    Things have indeed gotten more expensive. But is it crimping your style? Do you eat enough $7/doz eggs and drink enough $11/gal milk to make a difference? There are quite a few Americans for whom it is, and I'd also like to see more aid given to Americans who need it. Unfortunately, I don't see any effort towards that. Any savings from canceling foreign aid appears to be directed into tax cuts -- sadly, not something that benefits those who can't afford eggs.
    • tdeck 2y ago
      I know it's not a key part of your point, but I'm curious if there's actually a place in the US where milk is $11/gallon. Here in Seattle it's remained around $4/gal.
      • pests 2y ago
        Organic can be expensive. The Aldi near me in Michigan has its half-gallon at around $5-$6 usually. Regular milk is around $2.50-$3.50 a gallon.
  • yapyap 2y ago
    statistically people reading articles these days are often well off enough that improving their own lives won’t mean much in terms of “sleeping under a bridge vs under a roof” or “eating or not eating”, whereas for others that might be the case. Also nobody said you can’t improve your own life at the same time. Also you helping other people doesn’t have to be necessarily monetarily.
  • kulahan 2y ago
    If you work as a dev in a first world country, it’s hard to imagine you’re truly struggling in any real sense (monetarily speaking I mean) unless you’re in your first couple years I suppose. Still, if it somehow is the case, then this message isn’t directed at you. It’s just a little hard to imagine most developers can’t handle giving up a thousand bucks a year or whatever, which could literally save lives in some cases.
• slwvx 2y ago
  Though it wasn't directly mentioned in the article, the relevant context is that the Trump administration is in the process of cutting foreign aid by the US; see the link below for a few details. Looks to me like the OWID article is saying that the aid from the US is a good investment. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/how-trump-s-dismantling-of-usaid-will-affect-foreign-aid/ar-AA1AI3yr https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/how-trump-s-di...
  • jerlam 2y ago
    The foreign aid provided by the US does not live in a void; China has been doing well in providing financial aid and loans across the world recently.
    • kulahan 2y ago
      This is not inherently a good thing, unless you believe that Chinese values are worth spreading over American ones. This is not to say that is or isn’t the case, just that it’s an effective end-result of letting them have massive influence globally. Additionally, many of China’s deals are meant to bring nations into serious debt, rather than to truly lift them up. Again, this may also be the case with the US, so the question is who you would rather be your creditor.
      • krapp 2y ago
        China doesn't spread "Chinese values" any more than America spreads "American values." America is an imperialist capitalist hegemon that exploits and oppresses other nations through debt, subterfuge or violence, and as China (which is very capitalistic, despite it's "communist" veneer) expands into the power vacuum created by America vacating its superpower status, it will inevitably do the same, probably in competition with a newly revived and militarized EU. So in the end, it doesn't matter whether America fucks you or China fucks you, or Europe fucks you, either way you're fucked.
        • kulahan 2y ago
• kelseyfrog 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • yummypaint 2y ago
    So you are pro-salvery then?
    • calebio 2y ago
      I put salves all over me body.
  • egypturnash 2y ago
    You expect humans to be rational? Hah, that's a laugh.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• yimby2001 2y ago
  Most cases of polio now are caught from the lav deattenuating, so unless you vaccinated everyone in the entire world at the same time or invent a better vaccine it’s literally impossible to eradicate with current technology. you can see in the diminishing returns in their graph.. I’m not sure why this is their example of a good place to spend more money
  • nitwit005 2y ago
    It's a good example because once you eradicate the disease, the problem is gone for good. We spend zero money on smallpox. We did successfully eradicate all but one strain of Polio, and I believe they've stopped vaccinating except for the remaining one.
  • matthewmacleod 2y ago
    Inactivated polio vaccines are widely available and do not cause the cases of polio that the attenuated vaccine does.
    • yimby2001 2y ago
      You got me man, great troll
• hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
  It's laudable to donate part of your own money to help those in need. It's much more laudable to be a well-functioning part of the deep capital markets that allow places like AMF to buy anti-malarial bednets for $2 apiece in the first place. It wasn't that long ago that making a single decent shirt was weeks of hard labor.
• hatthew 2y ago
  > American citizens were asked to guess how much US federal spending goes to foreign aid. ... The average guess was a whopping 31%. What? I'm very curious how people arrived at such a number. I wouldn't be very surprised if people thought it was, say, 5%. But 31% is a wildly implausible number. 15% of people thought it was over half the budget, which is too far from the Lizardman's Constant to just be trolls, but at the same time it's such a wildly high guess that I can't imagine a normal person sincerely making such a guess.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • watersb 2y ago
    Maybe some people have only a handful of numbers: none, one, two, and "many". Maybe there are cognitive reciprocals of these numbers: "all", "some", "half", and "none". So when you ask for a fraction, they say 50%.
    • sethammons 2y ago
      I have a friend whose fractions stop at fourths. "I'm at half a quarter of a tank of fuel."
  • copypasterepeat 2y ago
    Ceaseless, decades-long propaganda that US is being taken advantage of and that America should come first certainly played a part in inflating that number in minds of a lot of people. When it comes to stuff like this I think that most people just go off the vibes and don't really have any reasonable idea how the budget is divided up.
    • asah 2y ago
      well... in fact... - military is 2.7% GDP for US: https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002099941/ https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002099941... vs 1.9% for Europe: https://www.google.com/search?q=europe+spending+on+defense+as+percentage+of+gdp https://www.google.com/search?q=europe+spending+on+defense+a... - US spent $62B on foreign aid, vs 0% from China and Russia, whose GDPs are far larger...
• aaron695 2y ago
  [dead]
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• mcny 2y ago
  I used to be naive and covid changed that. I sincerely believe the US should have shared and China mainland should have accepted any and all knowledge we had about vaccines. Instead, we all went our own separate ways. It wouldn't have cost us much because it isn't like people in China mainland would have bought US vaccines and it isn't like we would import vaccines made in China mainland. It was just common sense to share this knowledge the best we could and yet...
• asah 2y ago
  Conspicuously absent: China (34.4T), Russia (6T) vs US (26T)
• readthenotes1 2y ago
  "Small increases in foreign aid could go a long way" Unfortunately, his graph of polio results would indicate the opposite. It's similar, in my mind, to school spending in Chicago and Baltimore correlates to educational outcomes: When the problem needs both a systemic change and broad-based endemic change, more money is not necessarily the answer. (For Afghanistan/Pakistan, it's to counter the anti-vaxx narratives that caused the program to stall out. For those school systems, it may start with food and shelter security for students)
  • gcanyon 2y ago
    That polio graph is depressingly flat for the past quarter century :-(
  • rahimnathwani 2y ago
    Adding more money to government-run K–12 education can sometimes work against meaningful reform. Increased funding typically grows the existing system: hiring more staff, expanding departments, and creating additional layers of bureaucracy. More people come to rely on the status quo for their livelihood, which can reduce their willingness to support or even consider transformative changes.
    • WalterBright 2y ago
      Funding for education in America has increased by leaps and bounds, but K-12 educational attainment hasn't budged.
      • giraffe_lady 2y ago
        It about doubled over half a century. For comparison inflation over that period was 410% or something like that. So idk, it's bigger than it was, it's hard to say whether it's bigger than it should be. I probably wouldn't describe it as dramatically as you have but that's often the case between us with public services I think.
        • 2y ago
• vunderba 2y ago
  If you are looking for reasonably responsible ways to donate money - I highly recommend using Charity Navigator which can help you avoid accidentally giving money away to fiscally irresponsible or downright scam charities (cough World Vision cough). https://www.charitynavigator.org https://www.charitynavigator.org
  • timpark 2y ago
    For those who might be interested, a similar site for Canadian charities is Charity Intelligence. https://www.charityintelligence.ca/ https://www.charityintelligence.ca/
  • jedbrooke 2y ago
    I’m confused, by your link “World Vision” has a 93%/4 star rating, suggesting they would be a good charity. (I have no opinion one way or the other regarding the specific charity in question, however)
    • Retric 2y ago
      World Vision was secretly diverting aid for civilians back in 2016. They could be clean today, but I wouldn’t depend on Charity Navigator to spot that kind of financial crime. https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/dfat-suspends-world-vision-palestine-aid-after-allegations-charity-money-went-to-militant-group-hamas/news-story/75b1e61d54c908cc3e43bec63e1b8662 https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/dfat-suspends-worl... The inherent fraud of not using funds for what donors intend and diverting money from a charitable organization to line private individual pockets can be surprisingly difficult to spot.
• robertritz 2y ago
  This recent article[1] from the economist shows how much of the aid spending around the world just replaces government spending and never creates a system where those countries can stand on their own. Not always the case but definitely for a lot of aid spending. Where I'm located (Mongolia) aid spending just gives the government an excuse to free up the budget for handouts to get them elected. It's pretty useless. [1] https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/03/06/the-demise-of-foreign-aid-offers-an-opportunity https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/03/06/the-demise-of-f...
• boredhedgehog 2y ago
  That's a good argument for voluntary individual contributions, but not for foreign aid. The purpose of government is advancement of the common good of the citizens that form the polity. The good of people outside of the polity is beyond its scope and responsibility. Any aid to or alliance with a foreign nation can only be justified with tangible benefits at home.
  • e12e 2y ago
    A stable productive trade partner is a benefit at home.
  • zmgsabst 2y ago
    This has been a long argument, eg “ordo amoris” — 700 years (Aquinas) to 1600 years (Augustine) in Christian philosophy. The split is aligned with politics [1]; and the two sides can’t even agree on which direction demonstrates a lack of empathy. To some people, it’s moral to take from your neighbor and give to a stranger; to others, that’s antisocial behavior. [1] - https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Heatmaps-indicating-highest-moral-allocation-by-ideology-Study-3a-Source-data-are_fig6_336076674 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Heatmaps-indicating-high...
  • amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    The purpose of government is whatever people want it to be.
    • immibis 2y ago
      The purpose of any system is what it does.
  • tmpz22 2y ago
    Solving problems abroad can improve economic outcomes locally - a good example with US Foreign Aid is how it was used to purchase American products, employ American Workers, and then improve the lives of folks internationally who could then (you guessed it!) go on to purchase American products, leading to American business growth and more hiring. Much of our aid contracts have stipulations making sure the money ends up back in America for example military aid contracts to Ukraine stipulating they would buy American weapon systems. Solving problems abroad can prevent them from landing on your doorstep. I'd rather fight wars overseas, protecting economies that buy American products, then let the problems fester, cripple international trade, and risk reaching the American continent (9/11). All I ask is you look one layer deeper into these problems rather then buying the news headline. You are having your pocket picked if you believe Elon Musk or other parts of the current administration are acting in the nation's interest.
• jsingleton 2y ago
  The last section is worth a read. > Your personal donations can also make a difference, especially if you focus on where they can go the furthest https://ourworldindata.org/foreign-aid-donations-increase#your-personal-donations-can-also-make-a-difference-especially-if-you-focus-on-where-they-can-go-the-furthest https://ourworldindata.org/foreign-aid-donations-increase#yo... Good time of year to donate (in the UK at least, as the tax year starts in April). Various ways to donate depending on your jurisdiction. https://www.givewell.org/about/donate/tax-deductibility https://www.givewell.org/about/donate/tax-deductibility
• nivertech 2y ago
  > UN’s target for developed countries to give 0.7% of their GNI to foreign aid O/c, the UN (a body with a majority of non-democratic members) will want the taxpayers of democratic countries to finance it, all without any real accountability Any country that has not yet solved its own domestic problems should not donate money to other countries
  • nivertech 2y ago
    > Any country that has not yet solved its own domestic problems should not donate money to other countries Instead it should loan money, but only if it's proven that it will be beneficial, and there is an accountability on the receiving side
• kqr 2y ago
  I warmly recommend setting up a recurring donation of, say, 0.5 % of your income. If most of us did this, in particular if we donate to effective charities -- it would make a difference, but not to our economies. (Many of you may even find it is so non-scary to donate 0. 5 % that you choose to scale up to a larger percentage. But I have yet to find anyone who is willing to donate but claims 0.5 % is too much for them.)
  • banannaise 2y ago
    One of the neat things about donating small amounts is that the tax benefit is negligible, so you can expand your targets to entities not registered as formal nonprofits. There are a lot of small but highly effective organizations that would find it burdensome to have such a formal, professional structure.
• LightBug1 2y ago
  No, no, no, wait ... we need to scale back foreign aid and spend it on missions to Mars.
• underseacables 2y ago
  I helped a friend in Brazil for a year by sending him a little money each month; less than $100. It would've made next to no difference in the life of an American, but where the exchange rate is 1 to 5, it made a significant difference in his life. Unfortunately, it only made that difference for him because of the low exchange rate. If he were to receive free money from the government, for example, businesses with just raise their prices to account for the extra money in the system. Prices would go up and he would be left in the same situation that he was in.
• lordfrito 2y ago
  Wow this thread deteriorated quickly. I had to double check I wasn't on Reddit.