Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Join Wall Street. Save the world

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 105 posts

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#61

Post by FD3SA »

clarkm wrote: post #19
michaelkeenan wrote: post #8

If you're interested in effective altruism, you might be interested in the Effective Altruism Summit, which will be held from June 30 to July 6 in San Francisco. All four of the effective altruism organizations mentioned in the article (GiveWell, Giving What We Can, The Life You Can Save, and 80,000 Hours) are participating, along with some not mentioned. Peter Singer, Peter Thiel, and Jaan Tallinn (co-creator of Kaz…

At a similar event on Efficient Charity at the Berkeley Faculty Club, Robin Hanson made some interesting (and unsettling) points about how most charities operate. [1] For example, he claims that most charitable contributions are actually about status signalling and not about maximizing impact. Because if someone truly wanted to do the Most Helpful Thing, they would save all their money and donate a single lump sum to…

In addition to a status signal, charities are also massive tax shelters. All around it is just a way to funnel money out of the government's hands, as most charitable donations would otherwise have been taxed by the government as excess capital or income.

The USA has so many structural problems that sometimes I find it ironic that people are so obsessed with solving third world problems. In a way, due to the massive global influence of the US, solving a big problem here (e.g. militant foreign policy) can lead to incredible improvements in the lives of hundreds of millions across the world. Conversely, if US foreign policy is dictated by warmongers, hundreds of millions suffer war and famine for decades.

As Aaron did [1], please read Noam Chomsky then decide in which order to address first and third world problems.

1. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/epiphany

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#62

Post by nickpinkston »

moakakala wrote: post #60
nickpinkston wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, he's waiting essentially. Not waiting looks like doing something that actually is saving the world - starting at a small scale if you have to at first. Getting to small version of the change you want to see is vastly preferable than trying to be Buffet and then starting a foundation. By then, you've lost all connection to the problems you wished to solve and the mentality of even trying to make this change. Agai…

I don't think he's planning to start a foundation, he's donating to existing ones, like the against malaria foundation.

Sure - I'm not saying it's bad. Far better than most people!

It's just that it's sub-optimal if he can actually run an org to solve the problems. Especially the risk of not increasing donation size with increased conspicuous consumption.

You can get soft quickly if you're not thinking lean...

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#63

Post by swampthing »

nickpinkston wrote: post #52
swampthing wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think a lot of people end up like that - but then I'd argue they're not really taking any approach (much less a conservative one) to "world-saving". They've switched their goals at that point!

Sure, but that's my argument. They go into it thinking this, but the system changes their goals. I'm sure politicians think this too going in, and then the ones left are the ones who can play the donations game. Startup orgs (for- or non-profit) allow you to actually start serving people now, not later, and that gives you better insight into solving problems and picking them.

Yea, I see your point. But I'd just point out that even with the attrition from people changing their goals, society may still be better off with having outliers like Buffet and Gates. People like Buffett and Gates enable others to start off in public service, and fund people that have insight into solving problems and picking them.

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#64

Post by chollida1 »

edw519 wrote: post #23

His logic is simple: The more he makes, the more good he can do. It may be his logic, but it's not mine. And it doesn't have to be yours, either. I believe "doing good" is something to be done all the time. If you wait until the time is right or the conditions are right or you have enough money or time or something else, you will probably never get around to doing good. And even if you do, how much good will not get…

> His logic is simple: The more he makes, the more good he can do. >It may be his logic, but it's not mine. And it doesn't have to be yours, either. >I believe "doing good" is something to be done all the time.

I think you've really missed the mark on this...

The two view points can easily reconcile. You can make more and donate more while still always doing good.

There is nothing wrong with doing both and I'm sure the people mentioned in the article are.

I'm not sure what you have against his idea that the more he makes the more good he can do.

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#66

Post by dev1n »

rayiner wrote: post #37

Interesting note: Goldman Sachs donated $377m in cash last year. At $2,500 per life saved, that's 150,000 live saved per year.

It should also be noted that by donating a smallish amount of money (377M is a relatively small amount of money for a bank like Goldman) banks can get tax breaks, which could amount to more than they donated.

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#67

Post by mathattack »

dragontamer wrote: post #57
mathattack wrote: post #7

I am very suspicious of people who say they enter Wall Street to save the world. That said, I also believe most charity events are very economically inefficient. Rather than get a dozen musicians together for a discounted concert at a small concert hall, wouldn't it be more efficient to ask them all to donate one days worth of sales from performing at arenas? Rather than get a hundred bankers together for a $250/head…

On the other hand, only Bill Gates has had the vision to lead his charity into wiping out polio from the planet. (only 3 countries left, and only because terrorists keep shooting at volunteers before they can administer cures IIRC). Sure, money helps charities. But a brilliant leader, like what Gates has been to the Gates Foundation, is a force multiplier to that money.

I'm on the fence with him.

Here's why...

Answer 2 questions: 1) Could somebody else have figured out how to apply that level of thinking on these topics, and been able to convince other to donate? 2) Could he have made another ten or twenty billion by staying at Microsoft?

If the answers are "Yes" and "Yes" then he should have stayed at Microsoft.

The answers might be "No" and "No" in which case you are spot on.

My dogma says the former, but I think you're right. I'll accept him as the exception that proves the rule. :-)

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#68

Post by lasonrisa »

dragontamer wrote: post #57
mathattack wrote: post #7

I am very suspicious of people who say they enter Wall Street to save the world. That said, I also believe most charity events are very economically inefficient. Rather than get a dozen musicians together for a discounted concert at a small concert hall, wouldn't it be more efficient to ask them all to donate one days worth of sales from performing at arenas? Rather than get a hundred bankers together for a $250/head…

On the other hand, only Bill Gates has had the vision to lead his charity into wiping out polio from the planet. (only 3 countries left, and only because terrorists keep shooting at volunteers before they can administer cures IIRC). Sure, money helps charities. But a brilliant leader, like what Gates has been to the Gates Foundation, is a force multiplier to that money.

The Rotary have been a driving force behind the eradication of polio a lot longer than the B&G Foundation.

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#69

Post by lix2333 »

dev1n wrote: post #66
rayiner wrote: post #37

Interesting note: Goldman Sachs donated $377m in cash last year. At $2,500 per life saved, that's 150,000 live saved per year.

It should also be noted that by donating a smallish amount of money (377M is a relatively small amount of money for a bank like Goldman) banks can get tax breaks, which could amount to more than they donated.

This is actually a common misconception. No matter how much you donate (or a corporation donates), you'll still end up net negative.

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#70

Post by ivansavz »

I am completely appalled by this article. How could working for the system (in this case, the finance sector) ever be considered as a positive gain? The state of the world affairs is f'd precisely because currently all aspects of life are viewed through a mechanistic view focused on short term financial gain. Wall street, by supporting and feeding the mega-corps, is indirectly part of the economic exploitation of the world.

Furthermore, as pointed out by @mathattack, some charities are very inefficient operations--sometimes bordering on unethically so. My friend worked as a webmaster for a charity whose operations overhead was ~70% (mostly due to the annual general meeting held at a 5* resort in Banff, attended by all the volunteers working in the charity (most of them spouses of the donors)).

OK, I am going to calm down now. It is just words. Just propaganda. Perhaps this article was commissioned by Wall Street as an attempt to influence perceptions and to assuage the existential threat to their existence. If the analytically-minded youth of the next generation makes the really moral choice and STOPS going to work for wall street (and big corp in general), then the system stands no chance.

Post reply on HN