5 ms·

This article is good background to understand Hanson's health care perspective: http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf Unfortunate

by GavinB 17y ago

This article is good background to understand Hanson's health care perspective: http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf Unfortunately his argument really only addresses marginal health care and shows that we may be over-cared-for and suboptimal, not that basic health-care is worthless. The effectiveness of work against polio and eradication of smallpox are perhaps the easiest examples of unqualified success. There's a vast difference between saying that we have too much or suboptimal health care, and that hospitals are worthless. Robin's post criticizes Grass's spending as worthless "signaling," but it seems to me to be guilty of the same thing. This post doesn't do anything to prove the claims that hospitals and academics are worthless, or that profit motive is the only way to do good. I actually agree with many of Hanson's broader points about ways to be more effective, but classifying all charitable spending on libraries, hospitals, and universities as "pissing it away" is needlessly sensationalist. [edited to reduce my own needless sensationalism]

req2 17y ago
I don't think he's saying that hospitals and academics are worthless, but that their current marginal worth is well below their cost. The charity didn't create hospitals in needed areas, it simply expanded an existing hospital. An extra building on a sufficiently large campus isn't going to improve academics by any appreciable amount. edit to respond to your own edit: You're still being needlessly sensationalistic yourself. The phrase "pissing money away" features once, in "But when folks like Alex spend their later years trying to “do good” with the millions they were paid for actually doing good, they usually end up pissing it away." Note that this is qualified with 'usually', and doesn't say hospitals and academics are "pissing money away". He does note that extra wings and additional lecture halls are unnecessary, but this is neither saying that hospitals are worthless, nor saying that charitable spending on hospitals, universities, or (the nowhere mentioned) libraries is worthless. Be careful with language.
- GavinB 17y ago
  His main point is the odd social idea that for-profit innovation is inferior to charitably spending is well taken. It should be noted that, for example, inferior products with superior marketing can actually damage overall welfare. Monopolistic business practices, again, can be profitable but damaging. Financial success correlates with having done good, but does not guarantee it. The problem is that saying that spending on hospitals and universities is "pissing money away" is much more sexy than saying that "in this geographic location and at this point in time, increasing the size of the campus will have a fairly low marginal value, whereas a larger marginal value could be achieved through other means." For the record I, too, would have preferred that the money be put towards, for instance, mitigating existential risk. On the other hand, I'm very grateful to the people who funded the hospitals, universities, and public libraries from which I've benefited.
  - req2 17y ago
    First, you shouldn't expect such an unnecessarily verbose explanation of 'pissing money away' when anyone willing to follow the argument productively would happily understand that he didn't mean polio vaccinations aren't helpful. (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html) Secondly, he does say the same exact things you want him to. He says that most people "do good" in ways that actually "[piss] money away", explaining that we have too much of things we don't need, and saying that more good could be achieved by other means. edit to address your first point: He directly addresses the 'correlation' of financial success to 'doing good': "When we look back on people in the past and what they did that we are thankful for, creating innovative products, processes, and organizations should come out near the top; that is mainly what made us rich." (emphasis mine)
hristov 17y ago
Wow, I read that paper you linked to and that guy seriously has problems interpreting scientific data. In fact he has no business writing any scientific papers. His statement that antibiotics have not cured the diseases they cured or that public health measures do not increase health and lifetimes are pretty much ridiculous and his reasoning falls apart pretty quickly. Anyways sorry to go off topic, but it is really annoying that people take this stuff seriously and treat it as science.

by GavinB 17y ago

req2 17y ago

I don't think he's saying that hospitals and academics are worthless, but that their current marginal worth is well below their cost. The charity didn't create hospitals in needed areas, it simply expanded an existing hospital. An extra building on a sufficiently large campus isn't going to improve academics by any appreciable amount. edit to respond to your own edit: You're still being needlessly sensationalistic yourself. The phrase "pissing money away" features once, in "But when folks like Alex spend their later years trying to “do good” with the millions they were paid for actually doing good, they usually end up pissing it away." Note that this is qualified with 'usually', and doesn't say hospitals and academics are "pissing money away". He does note that extra wings and additional lecture halls are unnecessary, but this is neither saying that hospitals are worthless, nor saying that charitable spending on hospitals, universities, or (the nowhere mentioned) libraries is worthless. Be careful with language.

GavinB 17y ago
His main point is the odd social idea that for-profit innovation is inferior to charitably spending is well taken. It should be noted that, for example, inferior products with superior marketing can actually damage overall welfare. Monopolistic business practices, again, can be profitable but damaging. Financial success correlates with having done good, but does not guarantee it. The problem is that saying that spending on hospitals and universities is "pissing money away" is much more sexy than saying that "in this geographic location and at this point in time, increasing the size of the campus will have a fairly low marginal value, whereas a larger marginal value could be achieved through other means." For the record I, too, would have preferred that the money be put towards, for instance, mitigating existential risk. On the other hand, I'm very grateful to the people who funded the hospitals, universities, and public libraries from which I've benefited.
- req2 17y ago
  First, you shouldn't expect such an unnecessarily verbose explanation of 'pissing money away' when anyone willing to follow the argument productively would happily understand that he didn't mean polio vaccinations aren't helpful. (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html) Secondly, he does say the same exact things you want him to. He says that most people "do good" in ways that actually "[piss] money away", explaining that we have too much of things we don't need, and saying that more good could be achieved by other means. edit to address your first point: He directly addresses the 'correlation' of financial success to 'doing good': "When we look back on people in the past and what they did that we are thankful for, creating innovative products, processes, and organizations should come out near the top; that is mainly what made us rich." (emphasis mine)

hristov 17y ago

Wow, I read that paper you linked to and that guy seriously has problems interpreting scientific data. In fact he has no business writing any scientific papers. His statement that antibiotics have not cured the diseases they cured or that public health measures do not increase health and lifetimes are pretty much ridiculous and his reasoning falls apart pretty quickly. Anyways sorry to go off topic, but it is really annoying that people take this stuff seriously and treat it as science.