Effective altruism bugs me because I think money itself is mischievous. (See Marx's idea of "alienation".)
If you directly make the change you want to make in the world you make the change you want in the world.
If you make a big pile of money and then distribute it through philanthropic organizations the primary effect is that you continue all the tendencies that money promotes: both through your work and through philanthropic organizations that are themselves money-oriented.
There are numerous criticisms of the old philanthropy (e.g. why should some rich guy fund ballet performances that people don't really want, shouldn't ordinary people, either themselves or through their government, have more money to spend on what they want?) and the new philanthropy (the Gates foundation does some useful things in Africa but by taking over roles that governments should be doing they continue the trend of ineffective, corrupt government.)
If you directly make the change you want to make in the world you make the change you want in the world.
If you make a big pile of money and then distribute it through philanthropic organizations the primary effect is that you continue all the tendencies that money promotes: both through your work and through philanthropic organizations that are themselves money-oriented.
There are numerous criticisms of the old philanthropy (e.g. why should some rich guy fund ballet performances that people don't really want, shouldn't ordinary people, either themselves or through their government, have more money to spend on what they want?) and the new philanthropy (the Gates foundation does some useful things in Africa but by taking over roles that governments should be doing they continue the trend of ineffective, corrupt government.)