Excellent article. One slight qualm I have is that I have encountered people who object to saving the lives of foriegners (because they think it unpatriotic and they think it causes moral hazard and rent-seeking). For such people, VillageReach might not be acceptable. Is there some charity in the USA that is more efficient than make-a-wish? Presumably yes.
One slight qualm I have encountered people who object to saving the lives of foriegners (because they think it unpatriotic and they think it causes moral hazard and rent-seeking).
Yes, I have come across this before too. I think that such objections are ultimately dissolvable but there may be too much inferential distance for such readers to see this on first reading.
The article by throwawayaccount1 does a better job of maintaining genericity though at the cost of maintaining some distance from the real world.
Is there some charity in the USA that is more efficient than make-a-wish? Presumably yes.
Sure, here though the difference in cost-effectiveness is less staggering/readily visible. I suppose that I could alter the article so as to talk about one or more of the more efficient USA charities for a while and then talk VillageReach; this would come at the cost of making the article longer; would welcome thoughts as to whether such a change would be worth it.
Excellent article. One slight qualm I have is that I have encountered people who object to saving the lives of foriegners (because they think it unpatriotic and they think it causes moral hazard and rent-seeking). For such people, VillageReach might not be acceptable. Is there some charity in the USA that is more efficient than make-a-wish? Presumably yes.
Yes, I have come across this before too. I think that such objections are ultimately dissolvable but there may be too much inferential distance for such readers to see this on first reading.
The article by throwawayaccount1 does a better job of maintaining genericity though at the cost of maintaining some distance from the real world.
Sure, here though the difference in cost-effectiveness is less staggering/readily visible. I suppose that I could alter the article so as to talk about one or more of the more efficient USA charities for a while and then talk VillageReach; this would come at the cost of making the article longer; would welcome thoughts as to whether such a change would be worth it.
I would just add a US efficient charity as a footnote.