People thought Trump was running a vanity campaign. Given Betfair or even 538 odds on Bloomberg, and the importance of the Presidency, it's an unlikely case that Bloomberg should spend the money on malaria instead if he thinks he'd have positive impact.
-
-
-
(Trump was)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The theory of cost-per-life-saved accounting gets very complicated (http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/givewell-and-partial-funding/ …), but if we take the $3,400 figure for granted as a marginal cost, you need to assume no diminishing marginal returns in order to divide $100m by that!
-
Fair enough, but he could spread it across several charities if the diminishing returns are big enough. And I wouldn’t be surprised if there were better initiatives than AMF if he gave such a big lump sum all at once.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Given that the size of the US govt is 32, 000 times larger than that, and he has a decent shot at winning, this is likely a fine EA decision.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Considering how many people die because of Trump this is not so clear cut
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Bloomberg is doing a tremendous public service.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And his other $60B+ is just sitting in a vanity bank account!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Wait, so when I gave $300 to againstmalaria last year I didn't even save one person's life???
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Trump spent 80million and his actions are probably upstream of far more than 29000 saved lives... These things are hard to determine ex ante.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.