Philanthropy in the “climate laboratory”: “Elon Musk is not exactly an empath”

Most people donate because they want to do something good. For the super-rich, that seems only partially true. In the United States in particular, charitable foundations are primarily set up for tax reasons and to improve image Sandra Navidi in the “climate laboratory”. The ntv financial expert is sure that people like Microsoft founder Bill Gates or Amazon founder Jeff Bezos want to decide for themselves what happens to their billions and for what purposes and topics they are used, because the United States is still dominant the perception that “those who have made a lot of money are smarter, more successful and, when in doubt, know better”.

ntv.de: In your book “Future Proof Mindset” you explain what you can learn from successful and wealthy people. Many are philanthropists. Can the super-rich afford not to be a philanthropist?

Sandra Navidi: No. This has great tax advantages, especially in the United States. Many have a foundation through which they can deduct expenses and tax the charity. Of course, it is also very good for image maintenance. It’s good manners when you’re a Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, or Hollywood star to give back. They can then easily do this through their own foundations.

Are people like Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who also attended the climate conference in Glasgow in November, just about taxes? Or do you also care about the well-being of the earth?

Of course, you can’t lump everyone together. It’s a complex subject, it depends a lot on the person. But they have a natural self-interest, because business only thrives in a world that works. When everything goes to the dogs, it becomes difficult. If they really wanted to do good, it could also be argued that they could pay more taxes instead of siphoning off money and deciding for themselves where and how to invest in health policy.

Do billionaires think they know better than the state how to invest money and therefore say: “I’d rather not pay taxes and invest a lot in the areas that are important to me”?

Billionaires definitely have big egos. So I would assume they think they know better than politicians. In America, this celebrity cult has also been shaped in recent decades. Money brings prominence, power and prestige. There is a bit of a perception among the population that anyone who has made a lot of money is smarter, more successful and, when in doubt, knows better.

This discussion that the super-rich could pay more taxes doesn’t exist that much in America?

Rather less, there is a different perception of justice than in Europe. The Republicans also say: Okay, if the environment goes to the dogs, if species die out or if there are natural disasters, then that’s natural Darwinism, so the fittest survives, that’s fair. Or it’s religion, in which case God wanted it that way.

But in the end, it’s still good when Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates give away some of their wealth, right? Tesla boss Elon Musk does almost nothing in this direction, but argues publicly whether he pays enough taxes.

Elon Musk isn’t exactly an empath. He also challenged the UN to draw up a calculation as to where his money would now be invested. He is a libertarian with a political belief that the fittest wins and is always right. Someone who already huge government aid packages received, without which he would no longer be here today. And now he doesn’t want to give any of it away. That’s hardly surprising.

Otherwise, almost everyone does good out of self-interest, I discussed that in my first book “Super Hubs”. People who donate and don’t go public also feel better.

How deep are the super rich in these issues? Do they deal with it or do they only give money?

It depends. Warren Buffett, for example, lives relatively frugally for a multi-billionaire and had this foundation early on “Giving Pledge” brought to life. It has a very simple concept: billionaires must leave at least half of their wealth to posterity. Especially with large fortunes you have to outsource this, nobody can take care of the details. Alternative investments of this kind in particular require a lot of research and careful verification. Matthew Bishop, the former editor-in-chief of the “Economist” in the United States and later chief of the Rockefeller Foundation, coined the term “philanthro-capitalism”: charity as a business model where you have to make sure that the money doesn’t just sink into the sand but that certain performance criteria are met.

Philanthropic Capitalism?

Yes, philanthropy linked to capitalist parameters. A combination of both to ensure the money arrives efficiently. People like Bill Gates have actually set up systems for this at their foundations and, for example, have been very effective in fighting diseases in Africa. But to what extent do you want to leave this question to a person, which diseases are fought where and how?

Are there super rich who do it better than others? Or worse?

George Soros once said that Warren Buffett doesn’t impress him because he doesn’t care personally at all, but instead hands over the money and lets others manage it. Soros kneels – at least in his opinion – more in, cares, selects, talks to people and goes into this matter. Jeff Bezos wants to populate space with billions of people because he believes the earth has no future and is going to the dogs. That’s why he pumps a lot of money into his space company Blue Origin. You could also consider investing the money in our planet to protect the environment. That’s a wide range of beliefs.

Is there a discussion in the US about whether people with a lot of money should have the right to decide such things?

Sometimes, especially on the left wing of the Democrats, but generally less so. The social contract in the United States is also very fragile in many ways. Charity is therefore a kind of pull that pulls others along because so many people want something from it. Whether it’s teachers, teachers’ unions, hospitals or libraries, everyone wants a donation. But that will certainly become a bigger issue as time goes on.

Isn’t that already today? Especially people like Jeff Bezos or Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg have to justify what they are actually doing more and more often.

That’s true, but of course they have such great PR and marketing power. A lot is also subjective and a matter of representation. And once a narrative prevails, it is difficult to counteract it.

How does the US government look at this? Does she look at it at all? Is there a tension?

Lobbying takes place in very subtle forms. Not necessarily through lobbyists who go up Capitol Hill with briefcases full of money, but through people exchanges, for example. I mentioned Matthew Bishop, who was a journalist at The Economist and then went to the Rockefeller Foundation. Actually, politicians should raise taxes and distribute profits, but that is not happening at all.

Do they have to allow that because politics in the US is so broken that nothing is actually decided anymore? Perhaps the government is happy that others are taking care of these issues while it wrangles?

That is a point, but not the decisive one. The court decision Citizens United has ensured that companies are treated like people when it comes to party donations. As a result, in America, money chooses politics. I have a chapter in “Super Hubs,” which means the US has the best democracy money can buy. That actually says it all.

With Sandra Navidi said Clara Pfeffer and Christian Herrmann. The conversation has been shortened and smoothed for better understanding.