The Value of a Donated Dollar
Silver lining of Russian sanctions: Snowden is in Russia right now
Giving well
I don’t want to criticize good intentions, but I’m going to anyway.
I’m not actually sure who started this ill-advised movement, but it was heavily amplified by the meme account, Quentin Quarantino (Twitter). Basically, the idea is to find a Ukrainian Airbnb and reserve a few nights, knowing you won't be able to go, as a way to give money directly to a Ukrainian. He also suggested going to Etsy and buying something, but messaging to say you don't need delivery.
Please don't do this. Donate directly to vetted/verifiable aid organizations who can get immediate survival aid (like food/medical supplies/rescue) to people who need it the most. Doctors Without Borders, Red Cross, UNICEF Ukraine, or the Ukrainian military. You can also donate to airbnb.ORG which is Airbnb’s nonprofit arm, arranging housing for refugees. More donation options here.
To me, QQ's suggestions are peak privilege -- throwing money aimlessly at a problem to ease some personal anxiety about wanting to do more. There is no way to verify that the host is in need, Ukrainian, or able to use online dollars. The recipients who are not in need, to their credit, have been graciously replying that they will pay it forward and donate locally. But why put this added stress/work on them? Just donate directly to aid organizations. I am 99% convinced that these folks are sending random people cash because they are looking forward to the host’s message of heartfelt thanks, which they’ve been screenshotting and sharing on social media.
I know people mean well, and it sure would feel nice to feel the impact of helping someone directly, but this is literal war right now, and donor dollars (and the global attention span) are limited. Every dollar should go to its highest and best use.
And I really don’t want to hear about how “inefficient” large charity orgs are. There are some fools who can’t think beyond their intentions, and don’t understand what it takes to actually provide aid on a global scale. The reason large orgs have serious, stable overhead costs is because of infrastructure in place that allows the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders to get to Ukraine and start work immediately and effectively. They have the people, petty cash, trusted connections, supply, and logistics plans to get going and get to work. Smaller orgs and individuals will do great things, too. Donate to both if you can. But if you have only one place you can send money, make it a verifiable organization with a track record and a commitment to transparency.
Transparency is key here because notably, QQ raised $7M to help Afghanistan refugees in August, and never figured out how to spend effectively. To this day, QQ has provided no detail around how it was spent, and apparently blocks people who ask. So this rather thoughtless promotion shouldn’t be surprising, as he has not learned a thing about the valued of the donor dollar. It’s all about intention, not results for him (and lots of other hyperprivileged people).
Recommendation: this 15-minute TED talk on nonprofit overhead Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong. It costs money to do good work, and nonprofits shouldn’t be penalized for investing in their people and infrastructure, because it enables bigger and better things. There’s a ridiculous belief that nonprofits workers should be earning starvation wages, despite that they are doing literally God’s work.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk, hundred billionaire, donated sleep apnea machines when he promised ventilators early in the pandemic, and the world worships his generosity.
More Double Standards
Example 1
It’s been interesting to see both:
Privileged white people learn how harmful and detracting "what about"-ism and "well, actually" comments can be to a discussion
Social activists pulling the "what about"/"well, actually" that they decry when it comes from the category of people above
Like I get it — we're all just humans reacting emotionally to highly triggering moments, but I am annoyed, anyway.
We can all strive to be more aware and consistently sympathetic, but realistically, that will never happen. We’re biased. And in this case, this war really is different. Ben Rhodes on Pod Save the World (which has been pretty helpful to me, providing context for the stories we see happening now) put it this way:
"There is no question that implicit racial attitudes are informing to some extent this [outsized, global] reaction. I think the other point is that wars in Europe have become world wars. Some of the unease that is not about race--and this goes beyond the refugee question--is the entire international system was built to prevent wars in Europe. That's what the UN is about, that's what the EU is about, that's what NATO is about. The fact that there's now a major war in Europe, the likes of which we haven't seen since WWII -- the Balkans were a different kind of situation. The part that's not about race/ethnicity is the part that is about [the fact] that European wars can drag in the entire world."
"Putin is the vanguard of so much that is wrong in the world. This guy is trying to drag us all into a hell, a cesspool of corruption, autocracy, and violence."
Another recommended podcast episode: Ezra Klein in conversation with Fiona Hill, talking Putin. It’s a bit hard to listen to because Klein pronounces Putin as something like “poodin.” Like really lazy on the “T” sound, and it’s maddening to hear.
Example 2
If its decriers were consistent, all these corporations checking out of Russia would’ve been branded Cancel Culture. Maybe they finally get that cancel culture is really just about accountability. This is a rare, perfect example of an entity with extreme power being held to account. Some of the exits are not voluntary — some are the result of mandated sanctions, and others are indirectly involuntary (like Uniqlo, who wanted to stay in Russia, but couldn’t because everyone else like their supply/logistics was leaving).
Separately, let’s talk about retailers who are staying in Russia: luxury goods. From NYT:
Brands like Bulgari have seen wealthy Russians race to buy high-end goods as a hedge against the depreciation of the ruble. “In the short term it has probably boosted the business,” Bulgari’s C.E.O., Jean-Christophe Babin, told Bloomberg. “We operate in many different countries that have periods of uncertainty and tensions.”
Cash is failing, so people are buying LVMH bags to trade. It all feels wrong, but this it’s better than shifting to crypto as a hedge.
Example 3
US mask manufacturers are going out of business (again), because now that the pandemic is over, the panic is over, and the perceived need for US-based supply is over. Hospitals recognize it's too expensive to "Buy American."
A global pandemic and war have revived our awareness of national security, but will it be enough to revive American manufacturing, as politicians keep promising? Or is a fantasy, given security only seems to matter when we're feeling insecure? In complacent times, cost and convenience still trump all.
As the NYT article puts it:
“the modern imperative of maximizing shareholder value will always put efficiency and cost over resilience."
"Things as diverse as semiconductors and garage doors are in short supply — all products whose manufacturing was offshored during the past decades as American companies embraced just-in-time supply chains and inexpensive foreign labor. Economists and corporate executives ignored resilience, and now the country doesn’t have a clear idea how to create it, even as its necessity has become obvious."
In short, in our shareholder democracy, a company with any lingering excess capacity or idle inventory will be punished in stock price.
Mr. Bowen told me that the problem for small U.S. mask manufacturers could be solved by either banning imported masks or putting hospitals on notice that they would be legally liable if their purchases of imported masks meant they could not protect their staff or patients in a future emergency. He also acknowledged that neither situation was realistic.
On the other end of the spectrum, I'm reminded of the various activist shareholders who have gone after (particularly Japanese) companies with "excess cash" on their balance sheets. It's the same idea. Firms are encouraged to monetize every asset, every angle of the business. Anything not contributing to the bottom line is deemed a drag on shareholder returns. I recall at least one Japanese management team explaining that the cash wasn't excess; it was for "rainy days." So here we've hit several rainy days in a row, and I don't see America's shareholder values shifting at all.
To be clear, I don't think it's smart to hoard rainy day cash/supply/capacity in most industries. That is a real waste. But everything in the federal stockpile for various emergencies (mostly for medical PPE, but I'd also throw in the SPR) should not be subject to whimsical Congressional funding and/or consumption. If anything, the level of spending and stock should be tied directly to whatever we're currently spending on defense.
Finally, it was interesting to see "reserves/excess capacity" rebranded as "resilience” in this article. It feels a little like that whole “corporations are people” thing.
Follow-up on American war engagement
I ran this poll on Instagram a couple of days ago to see how folks are feeling about US engagement so far. Results below.
I voted no for all of these.
No fly zone is much more involved than its name suggests, shooting down Russian planes and such. It’s a very fine line between passive defense aid and aggressive defense aid, which will be perceived as escalation (I am guessing). Particularly in this age of propaganda, let’s say we did shoot down a Russian plane. It would be immediately spun as an attack on Mother Russia, justifying further aggression.
US offensive engagement in Ukraine. Nope. You don’t need to be a war expert to see that’s WWIII. Plus NATO promises, plus we just got out of Afghanistan, plus just no. It’s hard to watch suffering that you feel like you could help, but this is a trolley problem kinda situation.
Polish jets. I’m leaning no, because of the fear of escalation like with the no fly zone. Though this is obviously less risky. The fact that Poland will not deliver their own jets tells you how hot this potato is. They rightly fear retaliation, which means we should fear retaliation. Putin is a madman who will use any act of perceived aggression to further his agenda. I wouldn’t gamble on Putin forgiving whoever brings the jets in under what national charter. He is watching this spat, this hesitancy which he would brand as “weakness,” and will pounce.
Overall, I think the “Yes” responders may be a bit blind to what’s effectively geographic privilege. If we were located where Poland is, my guess is these voices would be silent and appropriately terrified of escalation/engagement.
I have a solution to this Polish jet problem. Dismantle the MiG-29 jets into small enough pieces that can be carried by people, distribute to all of Ukraine’s neighboring countries, NATO or not, walk it over the border, but make the hundreds of delivery folks run to the border in a zig zag pattern just because. Reassemble the jet using IKEA instructions and YouTube videos. I call this decentralized jet transport. Please join my DAO.
Odds & Ends
One weird thing to remember about this moment that the history books might not: Xi asked Putin to delay his invasion until the Olympics were over
Silver lining of Russian sanctions: Snowden is in Russia right now
Putin, after dedicating years to fuck the 2016 election, must have been laughing so hard when Comey came in as the closer he never asked for.