Got the same reaction. The Economist considers EA the "biggest idea of the century" but for some people that is still not flattering enough. How greedy can you be...
Yeah, we do. Unfortunately legal situation is quite confusing in Germany. Different financial authorities (Finanzämter) treat it differently (should the donation receipt should show the Anschaffungswert or the Veräußerungswert). IN any case, if you or someone else wants to donate stock, please get in contact with us.
While your GiveDirectly video already has 19 million views the fundraiser (https://www.givedirectly.org/beast/) so far has only received 426 donations and has barely reached 1/3 of it's goal. To be honest that is less than I expected. Do you feel the same and more generally what do you think are the challenges when it comes to turning your massive audience into a lot of donations?
Just to make sure I understand you correctly: Where or how exactly do you think we "arbitrarily limit" ourselves or our fund (besides planning to continue to comply with the applicable non-profit laws in the countries we are working in)?
I agree that there are some interventions like calling for the banning of a certain party might be net negative, even if they seem appealing at first sight. I also think that it can be possible and laudable to defend the rights of people you strongly disagree with like the ACLU does (or used to do -> haven't really followed them lately)
I'm not in the lead with regard to the research but one advantage of the fund is that we can take room for more funding into account. E.g. we think very highly of CORRECTIV but since they recently got a lot of (well deserved) attention their room to use additional funds might be limited very soon (might already be the case).
Might not convince you but afaik the effective giving space (GWWC, TLYCS, Effektiv Spenden and others ) has experienced basically zero or even negative growth in the last 2 years.
AMF is even down more than 50% year over year and in general there are probably few if any markets where effective giving has reached even 0.1% of all donations.
I consider this extremely disappointing and that's why I'm open to experiments on how to reach (much) more people.
Besides there are many people in EA who believe that money directed at avoiding x-risks will go > 10x further than trying to fight extreme poverty. Might be true but I still don't think we should get rid of all the GiveWell recommended charities on Effektiv Spenden (probably even for their instrumental value alone).
I didn't do the research and I don't want to speculate to much, but I think most if not all charity evaluators initially had some kind of bias towards organizations based in the same country as their research staff. One obvious reason is that it's just easier because you don't have to start completely from scratch (especially relevant if resources are very limited).
Future research of Power for Democracies will be less funding restrained and can therefore be more ambitious.
Got the same reaction. The Economist considers EA the "biggest idea of the century" but for some people that is still not flattering enough. How greedy can you be...
Found the LinkedIn Post with some more details: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/felixoldenburg_aufruf-zur-aktienspende-und-zur-klärung-beim-activity-7404418355169943554-29AU/.
Yeah, we do. Unfortunately legal situation is quite confusing in Germany. Different financial authorities (Finanzämter) treat it differently (should the donation receipt should show the Anschaffungswert or the Veräußerungswert). IN any case, if you or someone else wants to donate stock, please get in contact with us.
While your GiveDirectly video already has 19 million views the fundraiser (https://www.givedirectly.org/beast/) so far has only received 426 donations and has barely reached 1/3 of it's goal. To be honest that is less than I expected. Do you feel the same and more generally what do you think are the challenges when it comes to turning your massive audience into a lot of donations?
Might not be our most important piece of furniture but we also have a treadmill which I love dearly.
Just to make sure I understand you correctly: Where or how exactly do you think we "arbitrarily limit" ourselves or our fund (besides planning to continue to comply with the applicable non-profit laws in the countries we are working in)?
I agree that there are some interventions like calling for the banning of a certain party might be net negative, even if they seem appealing at first sight. I also think that it can be possible and laudable to defend the rights of people you strongly disagree with like the ACLU does (or used to do -> haven't really followed them lately)
I'm not in the lead with regard to the research but one advantage of the fund is that we can take room for more funding into account. E.g. we think very highly of CORRECTIV but since they recently got a lot of (well deserved) attention their room to use additional funds might be limited very soon (might already be the case).
Might not convince you but afaik the effective giving space (GWWC, TLYCS, Effektiv Spenden and others ) has experienced basically zero or even negative growth in the last 2 years.
AMF is even down more than 50% year over year and in general there are probably few if any markets where effective giving has reached even 0.1% of all donations.
I consider this extremely disappointing and that's why I'm open to experiments on how to reach (much) more people.
Besides there are many people in EA who believe that money directed at avoiding x-risks will go > 10x further than trying to fight extreme poverty. Might be true but I still don't think we should get rid of all the GiveWell recommended charities on Effektiv Spenden (probably even for their instrumental value alone).
I didn't do the research and I don't want to speculate to much, but I think most if not all charity evaluators initially had some kind of bias towards organizations based in the same country as their research staff. One obvious reason is that it's just easier because you don't have to start completely from scratch (especially relevant if resources are very limited).
Future research of Power for Democracies will be less funding restrained and can therefore be more ambitious.