It’s worth pointing out that the $100 you “donate” probably goes much, much less far than a $100 donation to an effective charity.
Yes, this is a very good point, and should be part of the $100 billion dollar estimate at the election outcome value… How much do you think the difference of candidates is worth, in MED$? (marginal effective donation dollars)
Some interesting comparisons (I don’t claim these are the most interesting, they’re just off the top of my head):
$100 billion = 1⁄3 (100 million) ($1000) = 1⁄3 (population of the USA) (marginal cost of saving lives with mosquito nets) and also
$100 billion = 1⁄70 (population of the world) (marginal cost of saving lives with mosquito nets)
It’s actually not obvious to me that the difference in candidates would be much less valuable than these things, but these comparisons do make me personally not want to call MED$100 billion a conservative lower bound.
Does anyone have any interesting estimates for the difference of election outcomes in MED$?
Yes, this is a very good point, and should be part of the $100 billion dollar estimate at the election outcome value… How much do you think the difference of candidates is worth, in MED$? (marginal effective donation dollars)
Some interesting comparisons (I don’t claim these are the most interesting, they’re just off the top of my head):
$100 billion = 1⁄3 (100 million) ($1000) = 1⁄3 (population of the USA) (marginal cost of saving lives with mosquito nets) and also
$100 billion = 1⁄70 (population of the world) (marginal cost of saving lives with mosquito nets)
It’s actually not obvious to me that the difference in candidates would be much less valuable than these things, but these comparisons do make me personally not want to call MED$100 billion a conservative lower bound.
Does anyone have any interesting estimates for the difference of election outcomes in MED$?