Bill Gates recently announced Donate almost all his wealthBy 2045, Gates has long been known for his massive good deeds, which has made him a unique position among modern billionaires. Journalists often use super-rich charitable efforts as self-service tax plans, but the occasional and sometimes true praise of the gate (he is almost his near-pruning of polio and his efforts to halve global infant mortality).
His re-targeting over the next 20 years read like a list of human lunar photos: Eliminating deadly diseases, ending preventable child mortality, and eliminating poverty itself. It should pop directly into secular Christmas. But this did not happen. The whole world satisfies his new commitment with familiar awe – especially the U.S. government Cut foreign aid funds and The door intervenes to fill the gap– But there are constraints. Perhaps the most suitable optimism reflects the strange moments in our lives and the deep skepticism of our social development as billionaires philanthropy. After all, the same month, Gates announced his all-around plan, headlines showed The richest growing richest Although most people in the world continue to struggle.
According to economist Jeffrey Sachs, the end of extreme poverty around the world will cost about $175 billion, just half of the ten richest people who have acquired their personal wealth in 2023. This comparison brings back a familiar, unsolved question: If today’s billionaires pay a lot, why isn’t the world more equal? Why, at all foundations, donate and nod to Andrew Carnegie's statement that “the rich die of shame” will the rich get richer and richer? What is the real thing about this modern pursuit of super wealth? The answer may lie in the language of modern billionaires’ virtues. This rare club doesn’t talk about philanthropy, but about impact: Successful measurement of millions of people’s success on a promising scale of transformation.
“Philanthropy has always been an expression of power,” author Paul Vallely Observed. Today’s billionaires compete not only for profit but also for moral authority. When they wrote those big checks, they didn’t speak to the public. They speak to each other and history. This is a high-risk virtue signaling, the scoreboard is legacy, and the indicators are often unmeasurable.
Through wealth, there is nothing new in this method of virtue, but the scale and ambition have changed. The Titans of the Gilded Age built libraries and concert halls, and today's billionaires talk about “solving” malaria, “destroying” poverty, and “revolutionary” education. Their language borrowed from the Silicon Valley pitch deck because that's it: risk philanthropy, social issues become market opportunities, and donors remain the CEOs of their conscience.
This ambition goes beyond charity. When today’s philanthropists talk about ending poverty or eliminating the diseases that have plagued humanity in recent years, they position themselves outside the limits of mortality. This is the gesture of charity becoming transcendent. Maybe that's why the focus has been on “the undead rich”, but who says that he hasn't become richer while alive?
Chuck Feeney, shopping giant without duty Actually After his death, almost all his $8 billion fortune was abandonedis an exception to proof rules. His motto is “dedication”, which inspired the door. But in more than 240 Give a promise signer Feeney's radical divestment has hardly been replicated by those who have controlled $600 billion. Most people prefer what critics call “charity storage” – while claiming virtue, control can be achieved. exist The winners go all outAnand Giridharadas went further, calling them “rich people of charity who think they are helping but actually making things worse.” These numbers support his criticism: in the UK, during the 10-year period in 2017, More than two-thirds of millionaires donate to higher educationhalf of which were sent to Oxford and Cambridge, which was the institution that created the next generation of philanthropists.
This self-enhancing cycle works globally: charitable donations have never been higher, but wealth inequality is still breaking records. The mechanisms of modern charity show the reason. Jeff Bezos Commitment for Climate Change $10 billion,,,,, But over $2 billion in donations have been disclosed so far in his lifetime, raising concerns about the timeliness and transparency of his efforts. Elon Musk, worth $245 billion, gave about $500 million of $500 million, one percent –Mainly through your own basic funnel. Mark Zuckerberg created not a traditional foundation, but a for-profit company, allowing him to direct funds to start-ups and political causes while still claiming charitable credibility.
Seven of the top 10 charity recipients in 2021 are donor-suggested funds (DAFS) – essentially investment accounts with tax benefits. according to Internal charitythere is an entire “wealth defense industry” – a network of tax lawyers, accountants and wealth managers who manipulate charity through DAFS and private foundations to maintain control of clients rather than maximizing the charitable impact. Even the credibility of the idealist framework erodes – now more evident than Sam Bankman’s fall Embrace effective altruism collapses Apart from the revelation of mass fraud, the movement itself is under censorship.
However, in this landscape of manufacturing heritage and tax optimization control, some billionaires have chosen a different path. Since divorce in 2019 With rare transparency and zero strings– No naming rights, no board seats, no detailed application. Melinda French Gates also heads to a trust-based donation hub after her divorce $12.5 billion Promoting women’s rights globally without the overhead of bureaucracy is a characteristic of most large-scale foundations. There are also the late David Gelbaum, Green Technology Investor and philanthropists who have pooled billions of dollars through an anonymous trust. There are other anonymous large-scale educators whose identities have not been revealed yet.
What's even more amazing is the contrast provided by those who completely reject the naming game, including, ironically, Warren Buffett is the world's largest philanthropist. He provided nearly half of the funding for Gates’ foundation, supported his children’s initiatives, and provided a foundation with the name for his wife, Susan Thompson. Still, his low-key approach Raising the standard very high For those who haven't joined a large donation club yet – a new generation of super-rich clubs.
Since the younger generation is often believed to be more self-aware and idealistic, “Zillennial” billionaire I also hope to spread my wealth in a large amount. Interestingly, Top 10 Tech Billions Under 40– None of them, from Alexandr Wang of Scal Scarial Ai to Pavel Durov of Telegram, signed a vow or to make any personal altruistic obligations that are of great significance. Evan Spiegel of Snap only Showcase a large number of charity events.
The explanation may be simple, and it is from generation to generation. Entrepreneurs have never been rich to this young man. Venture capital has compressed the timeline from initiation to stratosphere. Many of these billionaires are still in their twenties and thirties, not long enough to feel accumulated. As Ecclesiastes points out, “There is time to collect the stones, and there is time to throw them away.” They are still gathering, while the doors near the age of 70 are scattering.
But if today’s philanthropists claim to heal the world, what might be left of those who follow? In our world, everything is growing – earnings, companies, ambitions and problems. The next generation hasn't entered the big donation game yet, but when they do, what will they need to surpass their ex? Discover a new world? Decode consciousness itself? Finally answering the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything? The unsettling fact is that bars have been rising in the impact of the Olympics. Today's moon forms the benchmark for tomorrow. But while billionaires compete to heal the world, their wealth is faster than giving.
