4 ms·

> it is true leadership and collaboration This is a great outlook, but I think it's slightly short-sighted if you don't consider that there are several ways to

> it is true leadership and collaboration This is a great outlook, but I think it's slightly short-sighted if you don't consider that there are several ways to achieve the same outcome outside of USAID. I think the US can lead the world through public example rather than trying to set that same example through the government. For example, I treat my charitable donations with the same seriousness that I apply towards my 401k. I am researching organizations, determining their overall efficacy, and splitting my funds to where I think they would be the most beneficial, given the current global climate. I would love to see this principle applied more broadly to the public. There might be services out there that already provide such "charity portfolios," but I'll admit that I'm pretty content doing it myself, so I haven't looked much. But, given our government's history of mismanagement, I think this sort of approach would have far more impact than funneling everything through a large organization like USAID.

freen 2y ago
This (cost/benefit analysis of non-profits, mutual fund type investment vehicles for non-profits, etc. take a look at social impact bonds, Robin Hood Foundation, etc. ) has existed for ages, and they vastly underperform us govt agencies in terms of $/outcomes for reasons that should be obvious: economies of scale. There are very few ngo agencies that outperform the us government, and usually they operate in fields/domains that the government can’t because of political risk aversion: the voting public doesn’t like drug addicts treated like humans, and vote out politicians who do. The single most effective non-profit dollar for dollar in terms of saving lives is UNICEF. It is extremely easy to say the government is mismanaged/inefficient. It’s been basically the consistent drumbeat for centuries. Yet, once “reformers/efficiency/deficit hawks” take power, they discover quite quickly (if they are keen on retaining their positions) that the current state of affairs is deeply imperfect, but perfection is impossible. What folks fail to realize is that government operates under EXTREMELY DIFFERENT CONSTRAINTS and extremely different capabilities than businesses or individuals. They have totally different goals! Turns out, predictability > efficiency. Because people can make long term investments against predictability. Inefficiency, below a certain threshold of course, gets priced in as a fixed cost, and business routes around it/operates around it.
- sepositus 2y ago
  > they vastly underperform us govt agencies Interesting. I'll have to dig into the data more, then. I wouldn't be surprised if they beat out NGO's dollar-for-dollar (it's expected for the government to have far more funding via taxes), but I'm more curious about the average efficacy of those dollars.
  - freen 2y ago
    The key thing here, which again, is something that governments must consider but individuals and nonprofits do not is the breadth vs depth. Your gift of $10 provides 50 meals to 50 families. Well done! It did absolutely nothing for tens of millions of other families. The implications of the loss of tax revenue as a result of charitable giving is an exercise I will leave up to the reader.
brendoelfrendo 2y ago
People don't donate to charity. Mostly. And even if they did, charities are subject to fracturing money that could be doing good many different ways when what's really needed is a concerted push in a particular direction. Saying we need to shift the focus from government spending to charity is to say that we should defund the effort entirely. I am entirely against privatizing the public good.

freen 2y ago

This (cost/benefit analysis of non-profits, mutual fund type investment vehicles for non-profits, etc. take a look at social impact bonds, Robin Hood Foundation, etc. ) has existed for ages, and they vastly underperform us govt agencies in terms of $/outcomes for reasons that should be obvious: economies of scale. There are very few ngo agencies that outperform the us government, and usually they operate in fields/domains that the government can’t because of political risk aversion: the voting public doesn’t like drug addicts treated like humans, and vote out politicians who do. The single most effective non-profit dollar for dollar in terms of saving lives is UNICEF. It is extremely easy to say the government is mismanaged/inefficient. It’s been basically the consistent drumbeat for centuries. Yet, once “reformers/efficiency/deficit hawks” take power, they discover quite quickly (if they are keen on retaining their positions) that the current state of affairs is deeply imperfect, but perfection is impossible. What folks fail to realize is that government operates under EXTREMELY DIFFERENT CONSTRAINTS and extremely different capabilities than businesses or individuals. They have totally different goals! Turns out, predictability > efficiency. Because people can make long term investments against predictability. Inefficiency, below a certain threshold of course, gets priced in as a fixed cost, and business routes around it/operates around it.

sepositus 2y ago
> they vastly underperform us govt agencies Interesting. I'll have to dig into the data more, then. I wouldn't be surprised if they beat out NGO's dollar-for-dollar (it's expected for the government to have far more funding via taxes), but I'm more curious about the average efficacy of those dollars.
- freen 2y ago
  The key thing here, which again, is something that governments must consider but individuals and nonprofits do not is the breadth vs depth. Your gift of $10 provides 50 meals to 50 families. Well done! It did absolutely nothing for tens of millions of other families. The implications of the loss of tax revenue as a result of charitable giving is an exercise I will leave up to the reader.

brendoelfrendo 2y ago

People don't donate to charity. Mostly. And even if they did, charities are subject to fracturing money that could be doing good many different ways when what's really needed is a concerted push in a particular direction. Saying we need to shift the focus from government spending to charity is to say that we should defund the effort entirely. I am entirely against privatizing the public good.