3 ms·

I think you've been downmodded because the thoughtful point you raised is shrouded in rhetoric. Is investing more valuable than charity? It's an interesting c

I think you've been downmodded because the thoughtful point you raised is shrouded in rhetoric. Is investing more valuable than charity? It's an interesting concept worth exploring, but clearly if you compare instance to instance you're going to look stupid. Take a look a nostradamous's excellent rebuttal to your comparison. I think though, that the point Lewis is making is based on a simple fact: Charity is done for the direct benefit of others and investing is done for the direct benefit of self. If you take this theory, and allow for a better self benefit by increasing charity contributions, you should be able to have a net gain for both the givers and the givees.

nostrademons 19y ago
"Charity is done for the direct benefit of others and investing is done for the direct benefit of self." I think it's a bit more muddled than that. For example, YC "investments" have a predominantly benevolent motive: help more people found startups, which increases consumer welfare and lets the founders get rich. PG et al really don't need and probably won't use the money. The Grameen Bank invests in projects, but its primary goal is to help economic development, and it only turns a modest profit. Meanwhile, when I give money to beggars on the street, I have a reasonable belief that they're going to use it to get drunk. I don't do it for them, I do it because I don't want to feel like an asshole. Yet most people would still consider this charity. I think a better distinction might be: Investments measure their success against the market. Charity measures its success against the world. Because evaluating charity is so much less precise, you need to be extra careful when making charitable contributions (assuming you're doing it to do good, and not just to make yourself feel good). However, since not everything that counts can be counted, some benevolent activities can only be pursued as charity. Invest when you can and give charitably when you can't, and be extra careful with charitable contributions, because it's much harder to know that you're successful.
- run4yourlives 19y ago
  > For example, YC "investments" have a predominantly benevolent motive Ah, I'm not going to give you that one. YC is in the game to make money. Whether PG needs it or not, likes helping college kids or just needs something to do, the fact remains YC's primary purpose is to make money for itself. >Investments measure their success against the market. Charity measures its success against the world. That's an interesting take. I tend to agree. I think that the OP though was trying to compare investing's indirect "trickle down" benefits to charity's and concluding that investing had a greater net impact. I'm not sure I agree with that, but it's a compelling standpoint.
- byrneseyeview 19y ago
  "The Grameen Bank invests in projects, but its primary goal is to help economic development, and it only turns a modest profit." http://www.mises.org/story/2375 http://www.mises.org/story/2375 That's a very, uh, charitable way of looking at it. Perhaps Grameen really is what he says he is -- someone who happens to want to make the world a better place by lending money at payday loan rates to extremely poor people. Or perhaps he's running a very large loan-sharking operation with a great PR presence -- the latter would explain why the company lies about its profits and offers loans to people who spend them on consumer goods. "I don't do it for them, I do it because I don't want to feel like an asshole. Yet most people would still consider this charity." How very democratic! You make yourself worse off, and substance addicts worse off, but that's okay because it lets you lie to people so they'll like you more! "Investments measure their success against the market. Charity measures its success against the world." Damn. It's like Brian Eno meets the State of the Union address: melodious, uplifting, and meaningless. A better version: Charity measures itself according to the labor theory of value. Markets measure themselves according to relative value. In other words, charity is a petty outlet for do-gooding impulses that can't be satisfied by doing a measurable amount of good.

nostrademons 19y ago

"Charity is done for the direct benefit of others and investing is done for the direct benefit of self." I think it's a bit more muddled than that. For example, YC "investments" have a predominantly benevolent motive: help more people found startups, which increases consumer welfare and lets the founders get rich. PG et al really don't need and probably won't use the money. The Grameen Bank invests in projects, but its primary goal is to help economic development, and it only turns a modest profit. Meanwhile, when I give money to beggars on the street, I have a reasonable belief that they're going to use it to get drunk. I don't do it for them, I do it because I don't want to feel like an asshole. Yet most people would still consider this charity. I think a better distinction might be: Investments measure their success against the market. Charity measures its success against the world. Because evaluating charity is so much less precise, you need to be extra careful when making charitable contributions (assuming you're doing it to do good, and not just to make yourself feel good). However, since not everything that counts can be counted, some benevolent activities can only be pursued as charity. Invest when you can and give charitably when you can't, and be extra careful with charitable contributions, because it's much harder to know that you're successful.

run4yourlives 19y ago
> For example, YC "investments" have a predominantly benevolent motive Ah, I'm not going to give you that one. YC is in the game to make money. Whether PG needs it or not, likes helping college kids or just needs something to do, the fact remains YC's primary purpose is to make money for itself. >Investments measure their success against the market. Charity measures its success against the world. That's an interesting take. I tend to agree. I think that the OP though was trying to compare investing's indirect "trickle down" benefits to charity's and concluding that investing had a greater net impact. I'm not sure I agree with that, but it's a compelling standpoint.
byrneseyeview 19y ago
"The Grameen Bank invests in projects, but its primary goal is to help economic development, and it only turns a modest profit." http://www.mises.org/story/2375 http://www.mises.org/story/2375 That's a very, uh, charitable way of looking at it. Perhaps Grameen really is what he says he is -- someone who happens to want to make the world a better place by lending money at payday loan rates to extremely poor people. Or perhaps he's running a very large loan-sharking operation with a great PR presence -- the latter would explain why the company lies about its profits and offers loans to people who spend them on consumer goods. "I don't do it for them, I do it because I don't want to feel like an asshole. Yet most people would still consider this charity." How very democratic! You make yourself worse off, and substance addicts worse off, but that's okay because it lets you lie to people so they'll like you more! "Investments measure their success against the market. Charity measures its success against the world." Damn. It's like Brian Eno meets the State of the Union address: melodious, uplifting, and meaningless. A better version: Charity measures itself according to the labor theory of value. Markets measure themselves according to relative value. In other words, charity is a petty outlet for do-gooding impulses that can't be satisfied by doing a measurable amount of good.