Interesting thought. What metrics does this improve more than deworming or mosquito nets? If your goal is something like “increase area under the curve of “expressed IQ of humanity”, this does some good. I suspect it does less overall good, but it moves a different part of the curve than the very basic life-giving charities do.
I suspect it also has some negative effects (like encouraging less debt forgiveness/reduction than might otherwise occur: if there are charities that buy debt for more than it could be sold to vulture collectors for, that raises the overall value of creating and holding this kind of debt.)
This approach isn’t necessarily about improving the same metrics as global disease control, but the idea is that, when those whose debt has been relieved pledge to give, they’ll wind up giving more than was spent to help them, after accounting for the lost value of a potential investment and inflation and whatnot.
Vittana’s approach involves mico-lending for student loans—so that students who then graduate college have plenty of income to pay Vittana back. This approach is similar, but since forcing people to pay us back makes us essentially debt collectors (and student practices are much more established in the first world than in places Vittana services), I thought a giving pledge might be a nice alternative: “We’ll help you if you help others.”
It wouldn’t be the same metrics, which was my point—I wonder what metrics you’d be focusing on when determining the value of this expression of altruism. You couldn’t directly compare against action that helps a very different populace in different ways, but you will need to indirectly compare and you’ll want to directly compare against alternate more similar interventions (like buying used cars for the already-bankrupt or whatnot).
I guess I’m looking for a way to move from “nice alternative” to “effective alternative for X and Y goals”.
Interesting thought. What metrics does this improve more than deworming or mosquito nets? If your goal is something like “increase area under the curve of “expressed IQ of humanity”, this does some good. I suspect it does less overall good, but it moves a different part of the curve than the very basic life-giving charities do.
I suspect it also has some negative effects (like encouraging less debt forgiveness/reduction than might otherwise occur: if there are charities that buy debt for more than it could be sold to vulture collectors for, that raises the overall value of creating and holding this kind of debt.)
This approach isn’t necessarily about improving the same metrics as global disease control, but the idea is that, when those whose debt has been relieved pledge to give, they’ll wind up giving more than was spent to help them, after accounting for the lost value of a potential investment and inflation and whatnot.
Vittana’s approach involves mico-lending for student loans—so that students who then graduate college have plenty of income to pay Vittana back. This approach is similar, but since forcing people to pay us back makes us essentially debt collectors (and student practices are much more established in the first world than in places Vittana services), I thought a giving pledge might be a nice alternative: “We’ll help you if you help others.”
It wouldn’t be the same metrics, which was my point—I wonder what metrics you’d be focusing on when determining the value of this expression of altruism. You couldn’t directly compare against action that helps a very different populace in different ways, but you will need to indirectly compare and you’ll want to directly compare against alternate more similar interventions (like buying used cars for the already-bankrupt or whatnot).
I guess I’m looking for a way to move from “nice alternative” to “effective alternative for X and Y goals”.