2/ EA is all about increasing the impact of donations. In the US, $390B is donated per year. That sounds like a lot of money, but relative to other sectors, it isn’t.
-
-
Show this thread
-
3/ A third of all donations goes to religious institutions and another chunk goes to concert and museum tickets. Only 6% or $23B goes to international charities, and global health, which is one of EA’s priority areas, is a fraction of that.
Show this thread -
4/ Compare that with the $1.5 trillion spent by the US gov on healthcare per year. Medicare made $45.7 billion in “improper payments” last year alone. That one gov program wastes ~2x what everyone in the US donates to international charities.
Show this thread -
4/ Philanthropy is tiny compared to government, and it’s not increasing. Total giving has been stuck at 2% of GDP for 40 years. I’m all for allocating philanthropy as effectively as possible, but it’s a tiny pie.
Show this thread -
5/ EA is great because it helps real people. But I’m not convinced it’s how to do the most good. If you’re looking for impact at scale, focus on improving how government or business improves people’s lives.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Another shortcoming of EA is it ignores why most give: personal connection and interest in the problem being solved. No one likes waste, but people give because they care.
-
totally agree! nic kristoff said something along the lines of EA can take “the zest out of giving” in a column some time ago. reminds me of that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.