Saving lives, changing lives, moving science forward - all better than 6-10% returns.

Kind of the whole point of charities is that the work they do is a better return than the market. Otherwise, every charity would be an endowment and they would just consume the 6-10% annual returns for their work.

A lot of charities do like 5% nonprofit stuff and 95% for profit

Despite ideals it makes your rebuttal moot

If all charities do that, his point is moot. Or if the most effective charities do that, his point is moot.

Which charities do this, and why should we believe they're the most effective?

> > and why should we believe they're the most effective? > Whoever gave you that idea?

1. This quesiton makes no sense. 2. The question is how high the returns are--do they exceed the returns of investment. That would depend on the effectiveness of the charity.

> I believe most charities practice this, I saw a presentation on it with a bunch of accredited investors, don't have the source.

Charities report their opex. I've never seen one listed as 95%. Most are <10%. Some, like Mozilla and ACLU are split between Foundation and Corporation, but most are not.

> You can't will your alternate reality into existence.

So...you made some claims. I asked for evidence. You refused. I provided counter-evidence.

I'm pretty sure you're just trolling now. Or arguing in bad faith, at minimum.