I think it's bad that people prize volunteering time and direct effort over monetary donations. Rich people are free to spend their time on whatever they like, of course, but comparative advantage applies as much to charitable efforts as it does to any other enterprise. If you're best at managing charities, you should do that. If you're able to earn vast sums of money doing something else, it's more efficient to do that, and then pay someone else to manage the charity.
>Like, "Here's 50 billion dollars. Free mammograms to anyone on the planet until the money runs out." It would be nice to see a global respite from some sort of issue.
That would cover one mammogram for every woman in America. If donated to anti-malaria charities, it would save about 25M lives (more or less, according to GiveWell's estimates, which may not scale to that much funding). According to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, that's a little over half of what it will eventually cost to eradicate malaria.
>Like, "Here's 50 billion dollars. Free mammograms to anyone on the planet until the money runs out." It would be nice to see a global respite from some sort of issue.
That would cover one mammogram for every woman in America. If donated to anti-malaria charities, it would save about 25M lives (more or less, according to GiveWell's estimates, which may not scale to that much funding). According to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, that's a little over half of what it will eventually cost to eradicate malaria.
Solving the world's problems is expensive.