{"items": [{"author": "Sam", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/615643633102?comment_id=615655464392", "anchor": "fb-615655464392", "service": "fb", "text": "Great rebuttal Jeff.", "timestamp": "1370712851"}, {"author": "Joe", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/102133307046526805036", "anchor": "gp-1370717670375", "service": "gp", "text": "I think you're totally correct that anti-malaria donations do much more good than harm.\n
\n
\nBut it is also true that the lack of access to anti-malarial medicines is a political problem. The returns on political advocacy seem much less certain than direct direct charity, but also potentially much larger, particularly if the changed political structure were long-lasting.\n
\n
\nI don't think that it is clear which of \"make money, give money\" (to direct aid) or \"make money, give money\" (to political organizations) is better.", "timestamp": 1370717670}, {"author": "Joanna", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/615643633102?comment_id=615681292632", "anchor": "fb-615681292632", "service": "fb", "text": "I've always appreciated reading some of your posts, Jeff, but they seem particularly engaging to me now -- as I struggle with how to furnish a new apartment (pay more for organic cotton sheets, or pay Target prices? etc.) and work for an actual charity (a food bank). I mean, I comprehend the 'effective giving' argument, and I certainly have experienced that trying to find a solution that fits all of the following -- my budget, my level of enjoyment with the product, AND an actual as-close-to-lifecycle-analysis-as-possible ethical choice -- is exhausting. But I guess for me it comes down to what feeds me -- I can't feel OK about divorcing the choices I make (Hershey's chocolate, even if i like it fine) from the way I'm participating in unethical systems, even though we HAVE those systems and my tiny consumer choices are unlikely to change them. I like Julia's point, on one of your linked posts from this one, about having separate budgets; now that I have actual income, I suppose I'll try to do this.", "timestamp": "1370732023"}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115811589251174483775", "anchor": "gp-1371577463479", "service": "gp", "text": "\u017di\u017eek is channeling a belief that used to be common among the left that it was \"beneficial\" to actively work against improving the condition of working class, since worsening conditions would hasten the day of revolution. By the late 19th century, most socialists, even revolutionary ones, rejected such a line of reasoning. (Rightly so, since it's predicated on Marx's idea that the impoverishment the proletariat was the inevitable result of capitalism, which history showed to be wrong.)\n
\n
\nThat being said, it's not clear to me that direct charity is more effective than political work.\u00a0 I think Joe is right that it's a question of risk verses reward.\u00a0 The US government spends roughly $1 billion on anti-malarial work.\u00a0 If my lobbying can get them to increase that by even 1%, it's a far bigger return than a direct donation would be.\n
\n
\nFurther up the high risk / high reward scale is trying to change political systems.\u00a0 People often fall into the trap of limiting their actions to direct aid and thus losing sight of meaningful change.\u00a0 There are many global problem which cannot be solved without political action, (climate change being an obvious example).\u00a0\n
\n
\nMany people have a distaste for politics and feel that it's somehow unpure or dirty work. On the other side, some people get obsessed with trying to change political systems and end up losing sight of the problems they're trying to solve.\u00a0 Ideally you would employ an integrated strategy that does both.\u00a0 Direct aid, when it's most effective, political work when systemic change is needed and possible.", "timestamp": 1371577463}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1371577843098", "service": "gp", "text": "@Marcus\n\u00a0The background on\u00a0\u017di\u017eek's ideas is helpful, thanks!\n
\n
\nAs for direct action vs advocacy, you may be right, I'm not very confident. \u00a0Though with your \"If my lobbying can get them to increase that by even 1%\" it's important to remember that there are numbers much lower than 1% (\nhttp://sivers.org/1pct\n).", "timestamp": 1371577843}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115811589251174483775", "anchor": "gp-1371584695498", "service": "gp", "text": "Good point on 1%, though I was speaking of a funding increase rather than a mass engagement effort.\u00a0 I suspect that in reality a campaign to get congress to increase anti-malarial spending would likely have results of no change or a more substantial increase, since a 1% increase would satisfy neither the \"no new spending\" crowd nor the people pushing for the increase.", "timestamp": 1371584695}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1371588614784", "service": "gp", "text": "@Marcus\n\u00a0\"likely have results of no change or a more substantial increase\"\n
\n
\nDefinitely. \u00a0But 1% could still be the mean of the distribution. \u00a0I think 1% is probably much too high for the expected value of your direct efforts, though.", "timestamp": 1371588614}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115811589251174483775", "anchor": "gp-1371594969689", "service": "gp", "text": "I guess the trick is to model ROI on lobbying.\u00a0 The have been a number of studies on the effects of corporate lobbying and they all see extremely good returns. On the low end companies get $6 for every dollar invested, on the high end $225.\u00a0 As you can see by the range, it's a difficult to analyze, but either way, lobbying is a very profitable activity for companies.\n
\nhttp://faculty.bus.olemiss.edu/rvanness/Working%20Papers/Lobbying.pdf\n
\nhttp://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/lpr_15.htm\n
\nhttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/kill-bill/\n
\nhttp://coffeepartyaustin.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Measuring-Rates-of-Return-for-Lobbying-Expenditures.pdf\n
\n
\nI wasn't able to quickly find any studies on the effectiveness of non-profit lobbying, but I would be surprised if the ROI is dramatically lower than what corporations are able to get. I imagine it depends on your work and well in tune it is with the political objectives of those in power. I did find this book though, which might be interesting: \nhttp://www.independentsector.org/lobby_guide", "timestamp": 1371594969}, {"author": "Marcus", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/115811589251174483775", "anchor": "gp-1375202296771", "service": "gp", "text": "Here's another article that makes somewhat of the same point.\n
\n
\nhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/27/opinion/the-charitable-industrial-complex.html", "timestamp": 1375202296}]}