I don't think it is so clear cut. Charity money going to third world countries often ends up finding corrupt governments and destroying local markets.

If you're saying such a large proportion of charity money goes towards graft that it is better to donate locally, I would love a source. If I donate to an organization providing malaria nets, most of that money goes to the malaria nets and some goes to funding rigorous verification that the money is going to malaria nets.

Most states in the US publish stats on charities operating in their borders. My state has a yearly shame list they publish. One thing I learned from looking at it is that most charities that take in less than $1 mil a year basically are not real charities and keep 99% of the money for 'overhead'

Yeah AMF is great. But putting all the money in the world exclusively into malaria nets* won't solve all the world's problems though.

* (where by the way they also end up poisoning fish and people when the malaria nets become fishing nets)

I am not sure when we changed goalposts from "is it a better marginal impact for your dollar" to "does it solve all the world's problems."

You're ignoring the impact of your money going into the pockets of the very people who are making the problem worse.

Yes, some of charity money actually goes to those in need. But what part of it does go to the people who use that money to further exploit those very people they're helping? What if the total result is actually net-negative?

I believe that greed is a much more common motivator than altruism.

If you don't believe in altruism, then why are you here discussing how best to do it?

The kind of charity that is most likely to be fraudulent or completely ineffectual, is a small, local one. The bigger the organisation, the more cost-effective it is to do checks.

I never said I don't believe in altruism. I just see greed as a more powerful motivator. Do you not agree?

> The kind of charity that is most likely to be fraudulent or completely ineffectual, is a small, local one. The bigger the organisation, the more cost-effective it is to do checks.

It's actually the other way around. The bigger the organization, the more room it has to cook its books and bribe the verifiers. Also, the bigger the organization, the bigger the tax cuts, which means bigger motivation for grifters.