USAID's chief economist has resigned. Here's why
npr.org
npr.org
Seems so lazy and super cliche
Ironically, HN also wants you to click and read the article, rather than giving your hot take on the headline. Though I think they'd rather not achieve that through crappy headlines.
Serving others can mean either working in one occupation to produce money that one then gives away for charitable use or it can mean directly volunteering (and foregoing income) to help those in need.
Somehow, these very noble aims have transformed into being compensated well for spending other people's money.
Look, there's nothing wrong with a career at USAID or whatever gov't agency, but the idea that this career choice is somehow inherently more charitable/generous/service-oriented than any other career choice is frankly ridiculous. However, I've seen many public sector employees make this exact claim, that somehow their profession is more noble, and frankly this has contributed a lot to the current attitudes of those in power and the base who elected them.
But beyond even that, there is actually not a whole lot of merit in doing charity with money that others are forced to give to you under threat of violence. I actually broadly support nationwide charity and would love to see something like what George HW Bush did with his points of light campaign (public campaigns to direct the private contributions of Americans to national causes). But this is a far cry from US AID. There is nothing particularly noble about spending taxpayer money.
A charity and non-profit take money voluntarily donated to it. If USAID were a government administered charitable organization, I may have a different take, but it is not in any way a charitable organization. It uses a threat of violence to siphon whatever money Congress deems appropriate away from Americans, and redirects it to whatever the executive dictates. That is not a charity.
Like I said, I think a national charity is actually a great idea -- if the President and Congress delineated a national charitable project and then encouraged Americans to contribute part of their income towards that... that would be amazing. USAID IS NOT that.
And this was the point of my post. Many people call USAID a charity, when it is nothing close to the sort.
> If people working for non profits, charities, and aid groups quit to make money to donate, it would be harder to be nobel because there's no one who can distribute and act on the funding.
I honestly frankly disagree wholeheartedly. Most American charity used to be administered by non-paid individuals actually volunteering, whether mutual-benefit societies, fraternal organizations, churches, etc.
> It uses a threat of violence to siphon whatever money Congress deems appropriate away from Americans, and redirects it to whatever the executive dictates. That is not a charity.
There is no violence. Congress put aside money for USAID and organizations and other groups write grants for ways to distribute that money. Someone has to read and vet these proposals and unfortunately they are paid.
Hey, it would be great for charity to be administered for free, but personally I'm not convinced that there are enough people with free time to donate to make that work. We don't expect social workers, doctors in clinics, counselors, or numerous other aid recipients to work for free so why expect the same from the administrators?
But like Silicon Valley turned away from charity along time ago. In 2014, Larry page said he'd rather give his billions to Elon Musk to go to Mars. Most Silicon Valley folks have said that actually startups are the way to help humanity, not being charitable.
So I dunno, I disagree with you, but I feel like the whole social contract has broken down.
And presuming we elected folks to set tax rates and make decisions to spend that money helping people, I don't see anything ignoble about choosing to help manage that process.
But like given your whole "taking money on the threat of violence" quote, either you're a super-libertarian who 99% of the country disagrees with anyways. Or you do think the Government should spend money on things and maybe it's noble to be the person who does that (military etc.) You just disagree with this particular spending of the money in which case... Ok.
I never said it was ignoble. I just said it wasn't particularly noble. I think a SpaceX engineer making a shit ton of money to develop re-usable rockets and thus putting America ahead of every other country is doing a more noble occupation. I even think a financier enabling spacex to do that work is a more noble occupation.
> But like given your whole "taking money on the threat of violence" quote, either you're a super-libertarian who 99% of the country disagrees with anyways.
I'm actually not a libertarian in the slightest, and think the tax rate should be significantly higher. For example, many states in this country continue to release violent criminals due to supposed lack of jail space. This is honestly insane in a country as rich as the United States, and we should raise taxes as high as necessary so that lack of space is no longer a reason to not make violent criminals complete their sentence (or stay locked away for life, if that is the sentence). I would support a 100% tax rate on nonessential income until we have the basic infrastructure necessary to run a civilized country.
> Or you do think the Government should spend money on things and maybe it's noble to be the person who does that (military etc.)
No, in general, government work is no more noble than private sector work. The a priori is that it's less noble since your entire livelihood depends on forced threats.
> You just disagree with this particular spending of the money in which case... Ok.
Well yes, you see, us non-libertarians don't magically all agree on what to spend money on.
"Purpose" is also a less loaded word than "Charity", and whether you view USAIDs purpose as promoting American Exceptionalism or reducing global issues like hunger or disease, USAID was more influential than the World Monetary Fund, and often times the UN. Denigrating of this purpose in this organization is similar to suggesting a Joint Chief of the US Military doesn't really impact the world (which may be more truthful than I know if the US leaves NATO, the UN, and creates a power Vacuum in influence that other states like China fill)
> "Purpose" is also a less loaded word than "Charity", and whether you view USAIDs purpose as promoting American Exceptionalism
American exceptionalism is mainly driven by America's private sector (including private community organizations, non-profits, AND business). The government obviously plays a role, but USAID is not the main driver of American exceptionalism.
It provides the stability/consistent and predictable rule of law under which businesses can be invested in, and that allows for a robust business investment environment. These laws include things like not holding founders accountable for a return on investment (China is currently imprisoning founders and requires a return on investment).
It provides the research that resulted in things like the internet, or for companies such as Google: https://www.nsf.gov/news/origins-google The research that led to microprocessors and semiconductors. The research now used by ASML. SpaceX & Blue Origin are build on prior NASA funded research.
It provides the social systems that allows the companies to exist (law enforcement, contract law, educated employees). It provides the defence of the world's shipping lanes. It provides the legal protections overseas.
So a VC, right?