Hide table of contents

<re-posted from Shortform>

<medium-term lurker, first time poster; also, Epistemic Status = spitballing>

Has anyone encountered the idea of 'direct payment' philanthropy in the form of investment portfolios?

As readers of this forum may know, Direct Payment philanthropy involves an attempt to improve the lives of those living in poverty by giving them direct cash payments, as opposed to by contributing 'indirectly' to philanthropic organizations that seek to improve some subset of conditions facing them. While inspired in part by that model, this notion is on a fundamentally different tack and would clearly not address profound poverty directly, though it might hope to mitigate 'poverty in the future' for families whose margins do not admit retirement planning and the like.

With due acknowledgement that it is out of scope in terms of the central question of maximizing altruistic impact, in the traditional EA sense, the particular idea was conceived as an attempt to promote equity and increase representation among public investors by giving charitable gifts in the form of investment portfolios to under-represented households in the hope of reducing barriers of entry to participation in equity markets, particularly those resulting from the legacy of racial inequality, as well as to multiply whatever small power public investors have in addressing that legacy through engagement with companies by increasing the proportion of investors who prioritize racial justice (N.B. there are a variety of opinions on how 'impact investment' can work and, indeed, whether it can at all).

My initial searches and direct queries did not turn up any examples or discussions of the idea, and several of my correspondents suggested that I solicit feedback in this forum.

If you have heard of any discussion or example of a similar program, I'd be glad to know it.

Thanks, stay safe and keep up the great work!

1

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


1 Answers sorted by

If I understood you correctly it seems that the closest thing that you are looking for is microfinance, i.e., you borrow the poor money and they (in theory) prosper and even return the money to you, with an interest. However, microfinance don't seem to be very effective. Here is GiveWell analysis on it https://www.givewell.org/international/economic-empowerment/microfinance

Thanks for remarking that clarification: rather than expecting any ROI, the idea here would be to give away, free and clear, a charitable donation directly to the recipient - as in the 'direct payment' model - but in the form of a securities portfolio, rather than in cash.

Thanks again!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 32m read
 · 
Summary Immediate skin-to-skin contact (SSC) between mothers and newborns and early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF) may play a significant and underappreciated role in reducing neonatal mortality. These practices are distinct in important ways from more broadly recognized (and clearly impactful) interventions like kangaroo care and exclusive breastfeeding, and they are recommended for both preterm and full-term infants. A large evidence base indicates that immediate SSC and EIBF substantially reduce neonatal mortality. Many randomized trials show that immediate SSC promotes EIBF, reduces episodes of low blood sugar, improves temperature regulation, and promotes cardiac and respiratory stability. All of these effects are linked to lower mortality, and the biological pathways between immediate SSC, EIBF, and reduced mortality are compelling. A meta-analysis of large observational studies found a 25% lower risk of mortality in infants who began breastfeeding within one hour of birth compared to initiation after one hour. These practices are attractive targets for intervention, and promoting them is effective. Immediate SSC and EIBF require no commodities, are under the direct influence of birth attendants, are time-bound to the first hour after birth, are consistent with international guidelines, and are appropriate for universal promotion. Their adoption is often low, but ceilings are demonstrably high: many low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) have rates of EIBF less than 30%, yet several have rates over 70%. Multiple studies find that health worker training and quality improvement activities dramatically increase rates of immediate SSC and EIBF. There do not appear to be any major actors focused specifically on promotion of universal immediate SSC and EIBF. By contrast, general breastfeeding promotion and essential newborn care training programs are relatively common. More research on cost-effectiveness is needed, but it appears promising. Limited existing
Ben_West🔸
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
> Summary: We propose measuring AI performance in terms of the length of tasks AI agents can complete. We show that this metric has been consistently exponentially increasing over the past 6 years, with a doubling time of around 7 months. Extrapolating this trend predicts that, in under a decade, we will see AI agents that can independently complete a large fraction of software tasks that currently take humans days or weeks. > > The length of tasks (measured by how long they take human professionals) that generalist frontier model agents can complete autonomously with 50% reliability has been doubling approximately every 7 months for the last 6 years. The shaded region represents 95% CI calculated by hierarchical bootstrap over task families, tasks, and task attempts. > > Full paper | Github repo Blogpost; tweet thread. 
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
For immediate release: April 1, 2025 OXFORD, UK — The Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA) announced today that it will no longer identify as an "Effective Altruism" organization.  "After careful consideration, we've determined that the most effective way to have a positive impact is to deny any association with Effective Altruism," said a CEA spokesperson. "Our mission remains unchanged: to use reason and evidence to do the most good. Which coincidentally was the definition of EA." The announcement mirrors a pattern of other organizations that have grown with EA support and frameworks and eventually distanced themselves from EA. CEA's statement clarified that it will continue to use the same methodologies, maintain the same team, and pursue identical goals. "We've found that not being associated with the movement we have spent years building gives us more flexibility to do exactly what we were already doing, just with better PR," the spokesperson explained. "It's like keeping all the benefits of a community while refusing to contribute to its future development or taking responsibility for its challenges. Win-win!" In a related announcement, CEA revealed plans to rename its annual EA Global conference to "Coincidental Gathering of Like-Minded Individuals Who Mysteriously All Know Each Other But Definitely Aren't Part of Any Specific Movement Conference 2025." When asked about concerns that this trend might be pulling up the ladder for future projects that also might benefit from the infrastructure of the effective altruist community, the spokesperson adjusted their "I Heart Consequentialism" tie and replied, "Future projects? I'm sorry, but focusing on long-term movement building would be very EA of us, and as we've clearly established, we're not that anymore." Industry analysts predict that by 2026, the only entities still identifying as "EA" will be three post-rationalist bloggers, a Discord server full of undergraduate philosophy majors, and one person at