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

81–90 of 105 posts

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#81

Post by astrofinch »

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…

There's a lot to say about Robin Hanson's argument, and I don't think it's as clear-cut as he makes it out to be, e.g. there are critical comments in this thread:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/h3q/a_rational_altruist_punch_in_the...

I wish he wouldn't try to figure out what hidden motive prevents people from following his strategy before it's even been established as the best strategy.

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#82

Post by BrentRitterbeck »

ivansavz wrote: post #70

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…

What about those that go into risk management at a big Wall Street firm because they view this as the best use of their background? Would you rather have someone who didn't understand the mathematical intricacies of fixed income managing the risk of an entity capable of bringing an economy to a halt, or would you prefer that job to be taken by someone who knew what they were doing?

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#83

Post by barry-cotter »

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…

Doing good is indeed something that can be done all the time but he's not optimising for doing a little good all the time but for doing as much good as he can.

Every litle bit may matter but ten lives saved is ten times better than one.

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#84

Post by ca98am79 »

codegeek wrote: post #33
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…

Agreed in general that you don't need to be a millionaire to do good. But his words "The more he makes, the more good he can do" still makes sense. He is using the word "more" and talking purely in terms of financial ability. In order to do good, money comes second because you have to be *willing" first. But once money comes in the picture, it makes it a hell of a lot easier for someone who makes $100K compared to so…

I disagree. For example, Gandhi and Mother Teresa had no money and did orders of magnitude of more good than many others with money. They did more than many others who had money and good intentions.

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#85

Post by barry-cotter »

scotty79 wrote: post #27

Meanwhile his employers will drain the third world by speculating on food based derivatives.

Corn based ethanol subsidies do a hell of a lot more damage to the third world in any one year than futures contracts do. Futures contracts reduce price volatility in agricultural markets. Compare onions (futures are illegal) with other agricultural commodities.

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#86

Post by wbl »

ca98am79 wrote: post #84
codegeek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed in general that you don't need to be a millionaire to do good. But his words "The more he makes, the more good he can do" still makes sense. He is using the word "more" and talking purely in terms of financial ability. In order to do good, money comes second because you have to be *willing" first. But once money comes in the picture, it makes it a hell of a lot easier for someone who makes $100K compared to so…

I disagree. For example, Gandhi and Mother Teresa had no money and did orders of magnitude of more good than many others with money. They did more than many others who had money and good intentions.

To the extent Gandhi was responsible for the poor economic performance of post-independence India, as well as the Partition, he is responsible for millions of deaths.

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#87

Post by barry-cotter »

ivansavz wrote: post #70

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…

The proper gauge of a charity is not overhead but lives saved per unit money, whether you go for acturial lives saved or quality adjusted life years.

If the charity your webmaster friend worked at saved a life for $1,800 donated it would be a good place to donate money.

Jason Trigg probably saved 20 lives last year. Are you saying that what he did is bad?

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#88

Post by jacquesm »

rayiner wrote: post #78
jacquesm wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of the activities that take place on Wall Street are fairly harmless. Most of those harmless activities do not include trading stocks, bonds, derivatives and commodities. Wall-Street is like a very powerful diesel engine, it generates enormous amounts of power and it generates enormous amounts of pollution. Hard to get the one without the other.

What's wrong with trading commodities? Remember, derivatives were invented by farmers to address very practical problems in that domain.

You'll know what's wrong with trading commodities when you see untold volumes grown and then destroyed because certain price points can't be met on wallstreet. Combine subsidies and capitalism and you get the weirdest excesses.

Re: Join Wall Street. Save the world

#89

Post by glomph »

ca98am79 wrote: post #84
codegeek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed in general that you don't need to be a millionaire to do good. But his words "The more he makes, the more good he can do" still makes sense. He is using the word "more" and talking purely in terms of financial ability. In order to do good, money comes second because you have to be *willing" first. But once money comes in the picture, it makes it a hell of a lot easier for someone who makes $100K compared to so…

I disagree. For example, Gandhi and Mother Teresa had no money and did orders of magnitude of more good than many others with money. They did more than many others who had money and good intentions.

Mother Teresa is an extremely controversial figure to choose for 'magnitude more good'.
Post reply on HN