International Man: Let’s start by specifying our terms. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines philanthropist as “one who makes an active effort to promote human welfare.”
What do you make from this idea?
Doug Casey: Who can potentially be against philanthropy based upon that meaning?
The issue is that many benefactors do not really care a lot about their fellow male. They appreciate developing their own track record– their so-called legacy– and appearing like a good guy. They provide money to organizations that, in turn, are expected to “do great” with it. In reality, a lot of philanthropy is reckless; some is straight-out destructive.
Everyone in the public eye wishes to appear like a benefactor. Nevertheless, I think the entire principle has been perverted and switched on its head. A little later in this interview I wish to speak about what a genuine philanthropist should do.
The majority of people declaring to be benefactors are just guilt-ridden. They’re unhappy with what they’ve finished with their own lives, or done to other people, and are attempting to make up for it by dispensing money.
I have no problem with somebody who wants to develop a museum, a library, or an arena with their name on it. Those things might or may not be the most productive use of capital, however they certainly do no harm. I know a variety of rich benefactors; I consider them good humans– otherwise I wouldn’t associate with them. That stated, a lot of are misguided in this regard.
The problem is that many philanthropy goes to charities that are supposed to assist the bad. I do not like them for a number of factors. In quick, they’re typically disadvantageous toward those they’re supposed to assist, they typically assist the incorrect people, they send out the wrong ethical message, and they’re shockingly inefficient.
Initially, and least crucial, they typically have giant overheads. They usually allocate anywhere from 10 to 50% or more of donations to fees– commissions– for raising cash. Then they have huge administrative overheads on what’s left. Magnates are often paid millions of dollars per year. They put themselves up in lavish office complex.
Public charities are generally bureaucracies. When you take a look at their income declarations and balance sheets, which are generally rather obfuscating, you find very little of the cash really goes to the expected recipients.
And even after some lastly shows up “on the ground,” much of it is lost. It’s disgusting to see the hotshot yuppies self-righteously driving around the African bush in new Land Rovers, pretending they’re removing poverty. In fact most of the cash goes to displaying, virtue signaling, self-justification, composing worthless reports, high living, and more overhead.
Worse, some of these charities are really devastating to individuals they’re supposed to help.
When money is distributed by NGOs, it’s nearly as bad as government well-being. It makes it unneeded for the recipient to produce which tends to seal him to his existing station in life. The very act of making an urgent circumstance non-urgent removes the incentive, the urgency, to improve.
But it’s even worse than that. Even when people are starving through no fault of their own. Feeding the poor and clothing the naked might sound good in theory, however it’s normally a bad concept in practice.
Charities and NGOs tend to destroy the local economy when they give food to a starving area. I can comprehend the impulse if there’s a short-term disaster, like a flood or an earthquake. However most catastrophes are made by a local government. Then outsiders can be found in and turn a short-term issue into a permanent condition.
How do they do that?
When free food strikes the regional market, it normally drives the rate of food down so low that the local farmers can’t produce beneficially.
What takes place when you drive the local farmers out of organization? They stop planting and relocate to the cities to make the most of the handouts. Then there’s no crop the next year, and the scarcity of food becomes even worse. And long-term. The very act of these charities trying to assist individuals in famine-stricken areas lengthens the scarcity. And develops great deals of social and political distortions in the bargain.
The very same thing holds true of clothing.
Backwards nations all had clothes industries prior to the arrival of Western charities. Think it or not, the natives weren’t all running around naked. However when you import shiploads of low-cost used clothes, regional artisans and manufacturers are bankrupted, and their employees jobless. It’s tough to take on free things. The receivers likewise look like beggars and street individuals from the United States.
Charities corrupt the recipients. Giving money away usually puts it in the hands of individuals who do not deserve it. That sends the incorrect moral message. Individuals should have, or get, things since they deserve them. And you deserve things because you earn them, by exchange of value for value. Simply put, wealth should be a repercussion of doing things that enhance the state of the world. Endowing groups or individuals since they happen to have had some misfortune or are perpetual losers is actually immoral.
Charities and NGOs in Third World countries resemble the US federal government putting people on well-being. And just as destructive. The providers seem like big shots and feel good about themselves. The receivers are broken down. They’re transformed from merely being bad into mooches and beggars. That makes charities largely disadvantageous. The main beneficiaries of charitable offering aren’t the desired receivers, but the providers. They get some tax advantages, naturally, however they primarily get the holy high of do-goodism. Honestly, the idea of charity itself is corrupting to both parties in the transaction.
International Man: We often hear the mainstream media utilize the term “philanthropist” to improve the images of particular people. It assists to brand name them as “do-gooders” in the eyes of the public.
George Soros, Costs Gates, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Bloomberg, and numerous other rich and well-known people are referred to as philanthropists.
What do you believe is truly going on here?
Doug Casey: As I stated before, in many cases, philanthropy does not emerge from a love for one’s fellow man however from a requirement to assuage guilt, a requirement to display, and an absence of creativity.
It appears these individuals feel they need to validate the fortunes they’ve made. They state that they like to “give back.” Which is a completely ridiculous and wrongheaded principle.
I’m not a fan of any of those people. Let’s take a look at Expense Gates. Although he apparently doesn’t comprehend it, he has no ethical obligation to give back anything to society. Why? Because Microsoft, for all its numerous faults, developed an enormous amount of wealth that probably would not have actually existed without it. He should use that capital to make the world even wealthier, not piss it away social engineering primitive countries.
Take A Look At Costs Gates’ well-known business to wipe out malaria. He distributed millions of mosquito nets in Africa. Many Africans didn’t like them, didn’t use them, and sold them in the aftermarket to create money. It was a waste of capital on Gates’ part.
However let’s expect he is successful. And because of him, 100 million Africans who would have died from malaria make it through.
How is keeping more people alive, who can’t support themselves, a benefit to anybody? They’re most likely to end up being an extra drag upon the world at large– and their neighbors in specific. Africa does not require more bad individuals. It requires more wealth and more rich people.
If he really wanted to assist individuals, he would’ve tried to bring his businesses to Africa so that these people might support themselves and develop new wealth, not simply stay alive to be an extra concern.
Obviously in today’s world there are a great deal of “benefactors,” primarily politicians and their cronies, who have actually prospered slopping at the public trough. They have a great deal of money that has, in impact, been taken. Merely since they’re rich, they’re often confused in the public’s mind with actual creators: genuine industrialists, creators, investors, and so on.
When the expression “give back to society” is used– it’s become rather popular and sounds righteous– it suggests that something is eliminated from society when wealth is developed. It’s perverse. It turns both economics and morality on their heads. When these morons say they’re “giving back,” they make it seem developing wealth is a kind of theft.
Dissipating capital by giving it to undeserving paupers isn’t laudable. To the contrary, it’s dishonest. Individuals who “require” cash– who haven’t done anything to deserve it other than have bad routines or misfortune– should not get it. Deserving people are a better option. Naturally that pleads for a definition of “deserving,” however that’s a different topic.
In any event, the entire concept of charity is in reverse.
International Guy: Do you think that Gates and others write these big checks in part so they can be branded as benefactors? That certainly gives them a PR boost.
Doug Casey: Without concern. Guilt and PR, not a genuine desire to enhance things, are the primary incentives.
Let me clarify something. I don’t care if the important things I have actually stated outrage a great deal of readers. However I do care if I’m misinterpreted. I’m not opposed to the fundamental principle of philanthropy or charity. I merely think it ought to be strictly private and therefore responsible. And recipients ought to be picked thoroughly based on their character and benefits. Delegating someone else to be charitable for you is reckless. Providing blindly to the benighted no matter their absence of character and benefit is idiotic and reprehensible.
What I do is discover a person who seems deserving. The majority of charity recipients are not deserving. The majority of them have character problems that just they can resolve. Most of those who are down and out are that method due to the fact that of either bad character or bad practices.
I choose giving to people when I think it will help them raise themselves. That’s only possible on a private basis. Typically, I do this by making a loan, informing them I ‘d like the money back with interest. But I don’t always expect it back, and I will not try to get it back.
This has two effects.
Number one, it gives the person an opportunity to raise themselves. It makes him feel he’s not being provided a handout. He’s got to make and improve his status to provide it back. If it returns to me, that cash is then available so I can duplicate the process for the next individual.
So, what’s in it for me?
It’s a possibility to make a rewarding friend who’s of great character, which he shows by paying the cash back. It offers me an opportunity to learn what type of person I’m handling. If the person never returns the cash to me, I know that this is not a person that I ever want to deal with in the future.
It’s a great deal– instead of a scenario where you get to play a huge shot and actually make the recipient worse off, not much better off.
International Man: Connected to this principle are structures that participate in supposed charitable and humanitarian activity. There is the notorious example of the Clinton Foundation.
How are philanthropy and foundations utilized to conceal dishonest activity?
Doug Casey: Charities are thought about sacrosanct and almost above the law. You provide cash to a structure, and you can maneuver where it goes in such a manner in which you can both disguise and tax deduct your activities.
The primary advantage about charitable foundations is that they deny earnings to the state, because contributions are tax deductible to the donor.
There’s an immense quantity of corruption that goes on under the aegis of “charity.” Charities tend not to be investigated, merely because they’re charities.
It’s one more argument for the abolition of the income tax– but that’s not going to take place in today’s world. We’re stuck with these structures and charities and the kind of individuals who inevitably wind up gravitating to them.
I advise readers who are interested in philanthropy not to offer any money to expert charities or structures, but to find something to do one on one. If you aren’t ready to do it on that basis, then analyze why you’re interested in it at all.
Practically all charities promote the wrong values, no matter what their avowed purpose. It’s idiotic, at best, to disperse money to people even if they’re poor or “in need.” Possibly they deserve to be poor since they’re simply lazy. Or prefer to watch television or porn or play computer game throughout the day. Maybe they’re alcoholics or addicts. Perhaps they’re beggars or bad guys. The best way to assist humanity is to make the able more able. It’s not by supporting losers.
Universities are amongst the worst culprits. They’re constantly raising cash and searching for individuals to bequest their estates. Providing to higher education today resembles buying the enemy a rope he’ll use to hang you– and not just you however Western civilization also. Your money goes to work with more cultural Marxists at fat wages so they can corrupt the youth.
Leaving money to an university is definitely among the worst things that you can do, a minimum of if you want to enhance the state of mankind.
A lot of individuals question what they need to do with their estates. They’re afraid that if they leave it their kids, the unearned cash will corrupt them. To me that’s just proof that they’ve done a really bad job of bringing up their kids. Instead they irresponsibly offer it to some NGO so the corruption can be spread out everywhere.
If you bring your kids up effectively, they must understand the value of cash, what it’s utilized for, how to invest it– so they won’t be corrupted by it. The key is to provide your kids a sound ethical foundation.
You need to leave your cash to your children. That capital will ideally go on to enhance the lives of your grandchildren too.
I think most of individuals who leave money to foundations, instead of their children, presume that their kids are essentially useless. They expect the cash will for that reason make their lives even worse. So, they provide it to some idiotic structure that will go off and destroy society as a whole.
I have little regard for people who leave their estate to a college, structure, or charity.
International Male: Recently, leading figures in the world of philanthropy have actually been linked to Jeffery Epstein.
In the past, Epstein himself had even been called a benefactor for the money he provided to Harvard University and others.
What does Jeffrey Epstein tell us about how expected philanthropy is utilized to scrub the reputations of some unpleasant people? It seems like abundant and powerful criminals use it as a PR gimmick.
Doug Casey: That’s precisely the case. Epstein is a best example of all this. Charities and NGOs are often camouflage for individuals like Epstein. Charities not only improve their standard of lives and function as disguises for their criminal offenses, however improve their reputations as well. And do it all with tax-deductible dollars.
Again, these things are for the advantage of the donors and managers, not the expected beneficiaries. Charities can reduce their sentences if they’re under criminal indictment, and increase their standard of living. The cash opens doors for rich and powerful people and produces important political connections.
In my view, Epstein is an ideal example of a charitable provider.
Editor’s Note: As Doug Casey mentioned, there’s an immense quantity of corruption that goes on under the aegis of “charity.” It’s all apart of the growing decadence in the United States, which is contributing to the rise of misdirected socialist ideas and politicians.
That’s exactly why Doug and his associates simply launched an immediate new PDF report that describes how and why this is taking place … and what follows. Click on this link to download it now.