

Lost Charity - keyist
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/lost-charity.html

======
GavinB
This article is good background to understand Hanson's health care
perspective: <http://hanson.gmu.edu/feardie.pdf>

Unfortunately his argument really only addresses marginal health care and
shows that we may be over-cared-for and suboptimal, not that basic health-care
is worthless. The effectiveness of work against polio and eradication of
smallpox are perhaps the easiest examples of unqualified success.

There's a vast difference between saying that we have too much or suboptimal
health care, and that hospitals are worthless.

Robin's post criticizes Grass's spending as worthless "signaling," but it
seems to me to be guilty of the same thing. This post doesn't do anything to
prove the claims that hospitals and academics are worthless, or that profit
motive is the only way to do good.

I actually agree with many of Hanson's broader points about ways to be more
effective, but classifying all charitable spending on libraries, hospitals,
and universities as "pissing it away" is needlessly sensationalist.

[edited to reduce my own needless sensationalism]

~~~
req2
I don't think he's saying that hospitals and academics are worthless, but that
their current marginal worth is well below their cost. The charity didn't
create hospitals in needed areas, it simply expanded an existing hospital. An
extra building on a sufficiently large campus isn't going to improve academics
by any appreciable amount.

edit to respond to your own edit:

You're still being needlessly sensationalistic yourself. The phrase "pissing
money away" features once, in "But when folks like Alex spend their later
years trying to “do good” with the millions they were paid for actually doing
good, they usually end up pissing it away." Note that this is qualified with
'usually', and doesn't say hospitals and academics are "pissing money away".
He does note that extra wings and additional lecture halls are unnecessary,
but this is neither saying that hospitals are worthless, nor saying that
charitable spending on hospitals, universities, or (the nowhere mentioned)
libraries is worthless. Be careful with language.

~~~
GavinB
His main point is the odd social idea that for-profit innovation is inferior
to charitably spending is well taken. It should be noted that, for example,
inferior products with superior marketing can actually damage overall welfare.
Monopolistic business practices, again, can be profitable but damaging.
Financial success correlates with having done good, but does not guarantee it.

The problem is that saying that spending on hospitals and universities is
"pissing money away" is much more sexy than saying that "in this geographic
location and at this point in time, increasing the size of the campus will
have a fairly low marginal value, whereas a larger marginal value could be
achieved through other means."

For the record I, too, would have preferred that the money be put towards, for
instance, mitigating existential risk. On the other hand, I'm very grateful to
the people who funded the hospitals, universities, and public libraries from
which I've benefited.

~~~
req2
First, you shouldn't expect such an unnecessarily verbose explanation of
'pissing money away' when anyone willing to follow the argument productively
would happily understand that he didn't mean polio vaccinations aren't
helpful. (<http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html>)

Secondly, he does say the same exact things you want him to. He says that most
people "do good" in ways that actually "[piss] money away", explaining that we
have too much of things we don't need, and saying that more good could be
achieved by other means.

edit to address your first point: He directly addresses the 'correlation' of
financial success to 'doing good': "When we look back on people in the past
and what they did that we are thankful for, creating innovative products,
processes, and organizations should come out near the top; that is _mainly_
what made us rich." (emphasis mine)

------
noonespecial
Might I humbly submit that it would be better to make one's _own_ money (no
matter how small the amount) and use it for what charity one sees as most
appropriate, rather than criticize what someone else chooses to do with the
money _they've_ earned.

Allowing people to earn money means accepting the fact that they may use it in
a manner that seems sub-optimal to you.

~~~
ck113
All due respect, I don't think you're getting what Robin Hanson is about.
(Which is understandable if this is the only post of his you've ever read.)

The point of this post isn't to criticize Alex Grass's choices, it's to point
out that our social system has a rather bizarre bias. We applaud Grass's
spending money on these charities -- presumably because it's an ostensibly
selfless act -- despite the fact that he actually did more social good by
_making_ the money than he did by giving it away. (Not saying I agree, just
trying to clarify.)

A running theme, maybe the primary theme, in this blog is that people make
deeply suboptimal choices (whether measured by social interest or self
interest) because they're really more interested in sending signals than they
are in achieving optimal outcomes.

The blog is worth a longer look; for me, I don't know how much I agree with
Hanson's signaling-centric view of the world, but I'm impressed with how
deeply he thinks about these things, and how he manages to talk about these
topics without devolving into misanthropically simplified "people are dumb"
conclusions.

~~~
noonespecial
You are correct in assuming that I've read very little Robin Hanson. I'll
definitely give it a further look.

I've just become tired recently of every large (and usually socially
beneficial) charitable donation being followed by a wake of _"how could he/she
have used his/her oversized wealth for_ that _cause when there are so many
more worthy causes that_ I _care about?"_

~~~
gamache
The point is not that the money went to a valid cause that the author doesn't
care about; the point is that the money went to an invalid cause. Which is
fine and legal and all, but it's not really charity.

~~~
noonespecial
Actually, upon further reading, I think ck113 has got it dead on. Its not
about the money, the individual or even the charity where the money actually
ended up. Its about the bizarre social pressures that drive the decisions.

Wish the blog post had spent a few extra sentences setting up some context for
those of us who are less "Hanson literate".

~~~
yters
My question is whether the signalling is actually approaches a deeper optimal.

For example, I seem to be more deeply motivated by things like relationships
with others and ideals, than naked self interest or societal interest. These
suboptimal choices Hanson points out signal to others the value of the less
physically based motivations for themselves. I start to lose hope if I think
I'm the only one who has such ideals and somewhat question my own sanity. But,
when others signal that these ideals are actually crucial to their own
decision making, I feel I'm not the only one and am more motivated to follow
them.

But, how do such ideals related to naked self and societal interest? Well, the
ideals tend to motivate the deeper insights we generate, and motivate people
to work together voluntarily without the overhead of contracts and
reward/punishment systems. I would argue that while perhaps inefficient in the
short term, these "biases" actually turn out to be much, much more efficient
in the long term. I.e. just look at what happens when people do lose hope.
They don't suddenly become productivity monsters, instead they tend to turn
both self and other destructive. Definitely not creating value in terms of
self and societal interest here...

------
tc
FTA: _But when folks like Alex spend their later years trying to "do good"
with the millions they were paid for actually doing good, they usually end up
pissing it away._

I think he's missing the critical point that they _enjoy_ pissing it away (as
he calls it). Being able to spend the money you acquire in ways that bring you
personal enjoyment is the whole reason for acquiring money.

The bottom line is that it isn't critically important to a working system how
wealthy people choose to spend their money toward the end of their lives.
What's important is that they be allowed to spend their money in ways they
enjoy so that their younger selves are motivated to make the money in the
first place by creating wealth for others.

How hard would you work on a startup if I told you that, if it succeeded, you
could only use the money to create another startup, _ad nauseum_?

What's much more saddening is when politicians get acclaim for spending _other
people's_ money in useless ways, since they never produced any value in the
first place.

------
p_h
Seriously, we already have too much cure for cancer

~~~
jerf
That's actually part of the point here; rather than donating to something that
might produce a cure for cancer, he donated to a building, presumably one that
has his name on it. Perhaps someone in the building will find the cure, but
said person quite likely would have found it in another building just as well.
Especially if the money had gone to research and not bricks and mortar.

If there was a massive shortage of medical research space this may have been a
rational contribution, but I do not think that is the most important problem
facing medical research right now.

Do consider the text of this reply carefully, please; there's a contingent
statement in it. I'm not flatly asserting that donations for buildings would
never be useful; rather, the point is that it is very unlikely that this
donation was the optimal (or even close to optimal) use of his money in the
_real world_ we actually live in (rather than a hypothetical world where well-
funded medical researchers have to give up research because they can't find
anywhere to do it), if his goal was to actually advance the cause of science
and help people, rather than have people tell him how wonderful his
contribution is. (Indeed, it is quite likely that he had no reason to perceive
a difference between those two things, and again, that difference is a
recurring theme in Hanson's writings.)

------
edw519
_But when I think of all the good that could be done by philanthropists who
actually wanted more to do good than to look good, it makes me sad._

Shame on you, OP. How dare you infer anyone else's intent, especially someone
giving so much. You're inference that they would prefer to look good rather
than do good is speculative and insulting. Better you should just say, "Thank
you," and STFU.

~~~
req2
Shame on you, edw519. Where does he infer that Mr. Grass had such intent? Your
inference that Hanson would prefer to denigrate rather than elucidate is
speculative and insulting. Better you should forsake your sacred horse of
generous people are beyond reproach and 'STFU'.

Hanson mentions "folks like Alex trying to 'do good'", and that his proposed
alternative of funding innovation "wouldn't have looked so good for Mr.
Grass". He notes that Mr. Grass "[showed] loyalty to his clan", but parents
also show unfortunate baby dribbling, whether they like to or not. Even the
quoted line fails to show whether Mr. Grass is of the former or latter group.
Hanson laments the social structures that promote and reward "looking good" in
lieu of "doing good", implying that someone with the goal of "doing good" may
accidentally "look good" instead.

~~~
edw519
_Where does he infer that Mr. Grass had such intent?_

Did you actually read the article, req2? If you had, you would have noticed
among other insults:

 _But when folks like Alex spend their later years trying to "do good" with
the millions they were paid for actually doing good, they usually end up
pissing it away._

Pretty explicit to me. It's stunning that OP, or anyone else for that matter,
would question the motives of those giving charity. His total lack of class
completely overshadows any other message he may have had.

What you said to me was either a personal insult or a bad joke. Doesn't
matter. Either way, this conversation is over.

~~~
req2
Look at that sentence. It says he tried to do good, not that he tried to look
good. This is in direct contradiction to your claim.

It's pretty stunning to me that you would think any motives are beyond
reproach. Your reverence for men who do nominally good things is the very
thing Hanson is trying to limit in preference of actually good things.

------
diN0bot
too true.

------
hristov
What an asshole. I hope the author never needs medical care he cannot afford.
I hope he never gets in a position where he has to rely on another person's
charity.

Or maybe I hope he does .... I am not sure about that yet.

