Glad people are thinking about things like this, but it has some of the same problems as previous discussion about Georgian land taxation - separating the house from the land is not actually possible.

The final recourse for a mortgage lender is repossession.  That's the only reason the rates are lower than unsecured credit in the first place.  If the house is separated in ownership from the land, it makes one or both portions unusable (depending on what liens/easements one has over the other).  If they're NOT separable, and are always transferred (purchased or taken for nonpayment) together, then requiring cash for the land is just a very large downpayment requirement on the house+land.

Aside: I agree that 50 year mortgages probably don't solve any problems, and should probably be privately arranged (not gov't backed) in the cases that they do.  Actually, almost zero mortgages should involve the feds, so it's irksome that this is even being discussed.

This applies to many celebrities and wealthy people worth much less than a billion.  Other common strategies:

• Only date independently wealthy or near-equally-famous people
• Get some of the value of marriage in less-committed ways than marriage.  Don't marry, just date and have some kids.
• Accept the risk of financial motivation for your partner.  It's quite possible that they love you deeply, AND want the lifestyle you can give them and your shared kids.
• Have trusted friends and family who are good judges of character (note: this is a similar problem to create, but many have it via luck).  Incorporate their feedback about a potential partner into your judgement.

Really, EVERYONE faces this problem if they choose a monogamous long-term partner.  What are they really after?  Will they remain loving and supportive aside from the support they expect from me?  Wealthy and celebrities face it more legibly and directly, but not uniquely.

Height is not zero-sum.  It's correlated with health in nonlinear ways, and also it's valuable or harmful in different quantities for different things.   The vast majority of value (positive and negative dimensions) is NOT relative to others, so "zero-sum" is not a relevant framing.

Beauty is not purely zero-sum either, but arguably more of its desirability is zero-sum than height.  Out-competing others in selection contests (mating, politics, some career choices) is influenced by beauty more than height (note: height and IQ are often listed as the two best predictors of income, but that's because Beauty is rarely included in demographic studies).

"Anything worth doing is worth doing for money"
   -- Gordon Gecko, Wall Street.  Also many non-profit directors and paid employees.

IMO, there is more similarity than difference between for-profit and non-profit corporate structures.  There are fairly significant tax differences, and much different takeover and board-selection mechanisms.  There is a pretty significant difference in how they describe their mission.  But there's a strong similarity in the constraint that they can't spend more than they receive, and that they need to pay people for most of their difficult or thought-requiring work.  At the whole-economy level, both styles have their place, and it's probably reasonable that non-profit is a tiny fraction of the whole thing.  Adam Smith wasn't wrong.

At a personal decision level, this doesn't generalize very well.  It'll depend on WHICH non-profits you're comparing to WHICH for-profit orgs, for WHICH goals/values you're considering in terms of "effective".  For many things you want to do, there just aren't many choices in multiple realms of how to spend your time and money.   

If there ARE effective for-profit and non-profit options for some of your goals, I tend to put more trust in the market discipline of for-profit structures - if they stop being effective, they get replaced.  Non-profits, especially those funded by long-term donations and endowments, have more leeway to be ineffective while still continuing on.  There I am generalizing again.  Don't worry about that for personal decisions - look into the actual specifics of what you want to do and how different organizations do it.


 

You're right that it's not the only useful model or lever.  I don't think you're right that it shouldn't be a large focus for long-term large-scale changes.  The shift from inconceivable to inevitable takes a lot of time and gradual changes in underlying beliefs, and the overton window is a pretty useful model for societal-expectation shifts.

There are no rationalists in an ideological disagreement.

I don’t think EA is a trademarked or protected term (I could be wrong).  I’m definitely the wrong person to decide what qualifies.

For myself, I do give a lot of support to local (city, state  mostly) short-term (less than a decade, say) causes.  It’s entirely up to each of us how to split our efforts among all the changes in our future lightcone we try to improve.

dollar in my DAF is approximately as good as a dollar in my normal bank account for making the world a better place.

Well, one of them has reduced your tax burden when you deposted it.  The comparison should be $DAF ~= $(cash - taxes).  

Also, there's some controversy about whether political spending is actually altruistic.  I tend to lean toward being restrictive in my giving - not even most registered charitable organizations make my cut for making the world better, and almost no political causes.  

All-or-nothing, black-or-white thinking does not serve well for most decisions.  Integrals of value-per-time-unit is a much better expected-value methodology.

What difference does it make whether I die in 60 years or in 10,000? In the end, I’ll still be dead.

What difference does it make whether you die this afternoon or in 60 years?  If life has value to you, then longer life (at an acceptible quality level) is more valuable.