[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wei Dai) writes:
>On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 12:25:11PM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote:
>> Typical charity recipients also do not have access to borrowing
>> opportunities
>> that are as efficient as the ones available to you. So yes you could help
>> them by delaying charity to peopl
> No, the logic is not the same at all. In the charity case the logic
> is that your contribution is too small to change the relative marginal
> suffering level among charities
> Alex
But that is not why one contributes to charity. The reason is "sympathy"
in the Smithian sense (Theory of
--- Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
a donor
should give all of his contributions to one charity, and not spread
them among several. The logic is almost exactly the same.
Likewise, a parent with several children should confine his spending to one
child and let the rest die off. The logic is e
--- Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... surely one should either borrow
> money to do a life time worth of giving right away, or save and do all
> charity in one's will, or otherwise concentrate all charity giving to a
> single moment in time.
That should generalize to raising children; when
--- Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a donor
> should give all of his contributions to one charity, and not spread
> them among several. The logic is almost exactly the same.
Likewise, a parent with several children should confine his spending to one
child and let the rest die off. The logic
I'm surprised that everyone who has responded to my post has defended the
conventional wisdom on charity giving. But surely one should either borrow
money to do a life time worth of giving right away, or save and do all
charity in one's will, or otherwise concentrate all charity giving to a
single
--- Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By holding on to my money, I'm actually increasing
> the present value of the gift from the perspective of the recipient.
> Can anyone find a flaw in this argument?
If the discount rate used for present value equals the interest rate of the
investment, then
Here's a quandry -- Since the more abject human misery there is, the more
varied, specialized, and likely relatively cheaper (due to variety, breadth
of the distribution of misery, etc) types of charity available for
"consumption," under what conditions are you willing to put up a side
payment
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 11:49:15AM -0400, Susan Hogarth wrote:
> Speaking as the director of a very small but very active charity, I can tell
> you that we tend to have *quite high* time preferences. Possibly some of that
> is bleedover from the personality of the founder (that would be gotta-hav
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 12:05:01PM -0400, Eric Crampton wrote:
> Shouldn't we also worry about how poor people are now relative to how
> they'll be in the future? Today's poor are much better off than the poor
> from a century ago; presumably the poor a century from now will be less
> deserving th
Sure, the flaw is that this argument would imply that you hold the money
forever.
Alex
--
Alexander Tabarrok
Department of Economics, MSN 1D3
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA, 22030
Tel. 703-993-2314
Web Page: http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/
and
Director of Research
The Independent
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 12:25:11PM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote:
> Typical charity recipients also do not have access to borrowing
> opportunities
> that are as efficient as the ones available to you. So yes you could help
> them by delaying charity to people who would like to save, and borrowing
>
Re: greater utility tomorrow argument: then taken to the extreme, your
fund should not go to charity when you die but continue to grow until
mankind can realistically forecast the end of the world at which point the
fund (now an enormous asset) can be directed to improve the lives the least
wel
On 6/5/2003 Wei Dai wrote:
Suppose I have some money that I don't want to spend, and I'm sure I'll
never want to spend it. Should I give it to charity now, or put it in an
index fund and bequeath it to charity in my will?
Here's my argument in favor of charitable procrastination. The typical
recipi
If we assume that everyone thinks like this then
charitable fund would not receive as much funding as
it needs. I don't see why charity do not have access
to the same kind of investment as you do. Is there a
law that prevent them from having access? Also, you
are assuming that charity have some
On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 09:29:34AM -0400, Richard L. white wrote:
> Ignoring the utility of the money to the target charity today, e.g.,
> food or medicine to live,
But the money will have a greater utility tomorrow (since there will be
more of it). Unless you think there will be less needy
Shouldn't we also worry about how poor people are now relative to how
they'll be in the future? Today's poor are much better off than the poor
from a century ago; presumably the poor a century from now will be less
deserving than those of the present day?
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Richard L. white wrot
Quoting Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Suppose I have some money that I don't want to spend, and I'm sure I'll
> never want to spend it. Should I give it to charity now, or put it in an
> index fund and bequeath it to charity in my will?
>
> Here's my argument in favor of charitable procrastinati
On 6/5/03 11:22 PM, "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Suppose I have some money that I don't want to spend, and I'm sure I'll
> never want to spend it. Should I give it to charity now, or put it in an
> index fund and bequeath it to charity in my will?
>
> Here's my argument in favor of char
19 matches
Mail list logo
