Anyone else? >> Over there. >> Sorry? What? yes, one. >> To what degree do you think that making personal altruistic choices is more or less important than affecting political change that would perhaps change the circumstances of the people that you are talking about. >> Okay, so this is a question about the relative importance of making personal contributions, rather than contributing to political change. Julia since you have been fielding a lot of questions, maybe we will go to you Alexander if you'd like to, comment on this and then we can. Perhaps I'll get a comment from, from the others after. >> Yeah, sure. I mean, this is something I thought a considerable amount about and it's something that to some extent, I work on as part of my work at Goodwill, trying to think through well, you know, what kinds of differences can, philanth, philanthropic dollars make when they're trying to achieve policy change. I mean, I think that there's one sense in which. The answer is just going to be sort of a purely empirical one, which is, you know, you might have some opportunities to try and influence policy in your life. You as a Princeton students, you might have access to certain kinds of opportunities or circles. And so, like, I don't think there's necessarily a one size fits all answer about the likely returns over those activities. Certainly, there's cases where I think that, that those kinds of opportunities are the, the best ones one might be able to take, whether with dollars or with career choices, and those are obviously going to be fairly different calculations. You know, I, I don't agree that this is something where, there's a sort of like [UNKNOWN] or logical argument that, you know, you just need the privilege, political exercise over sort of personal spending or personal efforts. You know, the, the basic story I would tell here is just that, you know, people like Julia, who are giving sort of really considerable amounts of their personal wealth. Or income to people living in, in developing world, or in particularly poor countries I think, you know, serve as a, as a sort of obvious constituency for various kinds of political change and that by, by being out there and publicly working towards these kinds of efforts. I, I, I, I fine it hard to believe that were there not, you know, a lot more Julia's, and Jeff's running around, the discourse onforeign aid, and other aspects of US policy that really affect poor people. Would it be sort of in a much better situation? Though I, I, sort of deny that there's like a strict dichotomy but I'm using like, there's a really good question for individual about like, exactly what the trade-offs are and where the returns lie. And I don't think it's obvious that, you know, one or the other always wins. >> So, you mentioned coming from a family that has a leftist political background. Did, did you think, when you decided to give money away that maybe you would give it to some organization that's working for political change, rather than donating it to what's a more conventionally thought of as a charity? >> I guess the argument can be made, I, I don't know if I was on the mic when I was telling you about my, my father believed he was against, he was angry at, at the money I gave away, and said that I'd made a fool of myself, and he believed that private philanthropy blunts the edge of revolutionary fervor. So, and, and that, you know, that's something that [INAUDIBLE] against private philanthropy, [UNKNOWN] was against private Philanthropy, they were terrified by the thought that, by [UNKNOWN] who could make things better and then, you wouldn't have a revolution. Alright, but the revolution didn't make things all that better [CROSSTALK]. I, I think that the best argument against, I'm not saying that you shouldn't support progressive causes, but the best argument against it is that the, the time, energy and money that you're putting into one cause is being matched by same amount being put into the opposite cause and that hundred billion dollars, supposedly, that's spent in every election cycle on getting people elected will be enough to lift Africa out of poverty. >> Did you want to comment on that too? >> I, I do think there may be cases were, certainly there are a lot of cases where, different political sides are just butting heads and it's just sort of a waste of money but there may be cases where policy could just be done better in a way that no one is especially opposed to. And I think part of the the emphasis that we're seeing now on doing charitable interventions better, you know, having them be more effective, more transparent, more measurable, and being able to tell what's happening. I think that's a really positive thing in general, and I'm hoping that that will, you know, go forth to some public policy things as well. >> So that we're actually getting assessments of whether you get good value for your dollars in public policy, and I think [INAUDIBLE] are starting to look at that, is that is that right Alexander they're? Yeah, I mean mostly we're still thinking from the perspective of people who are giving sort of private dollars. And the question is sort of like, how can you influence policy using those dollars in a way that, that's productive and meaningful as opposed to sort of trying to say, with a government as the sort of recipient of our research? You know, what, what could, how can government policies improve and then ourselves sort of trying to get them to practice that. So I, I guess I would say like, we're less think tank, more sort of like, philanthropic adviser. There certainly are a lot of groups out there now who are trying to think about the question, you know, how could government policy be sort of, more transparent, more effective, more evidence based? And really trying to, sort of, advocate to the government directly on that, it's just, not where we see our comparative advantage. >> Okay. Thank you. sorry, we're over here. >> What if, instead of donating now, I were to invest that money? >> So the question was what about if instead of donating now you invested that money you suggested investing it in a mutual fund. In Zell's case maybe you could invest it himself, since he's got a very successful record of doing that, and therefore had more, had more to give away some 20 years down the tracks [INAUDIBLE]. >> But, you know, I, I guess there are a number of arguments you, you obviously know the arguments for it which is the, the accumulation of capital over the years will be considerable. But the argument, one argument against [COUGH] is that you'll loose the philanthropic impulse. Another argument against it is that the, indulging that philanthropic impulse is actually creating happiness of mind in you. That will cause you to be more [INAUDIBLE] successful in the future so you, your net giveaway in the end will be greater. If their argument is that exigent circumstances exist now that are, they're tremendously pressing and they have to be met immediately and but the main argument, I think, is that people don't do it. >> You say anything [CROSSTALK] becomes an excuse for not giving at all. >> The rational, rationalization yeah. >> Go ahead [INAUDIBLE] >> I th, I think also yeah personally, I want to keep in the habit of giving. I don't want to risk, you know, getting to age sixty, and deciding. That, you know, changing my mind. But I also think that. So, through places like Give Well, I think the philanthropic scene is changing, and there is more evidence based giving, you know, or giving to charities that can demonstrate their impact. I think that's really important, and I think that's something I want to support and want to encourage. And donation I think is the best way to do that, so I'm hoping that by the time I'm sixty, you know, charities will be better and it will be easier to find better charities, which is some people's reason for wanting to wait. But, I also think that they're not as likely to improve, if we're not giving them that incentive ,which is that they see there are donations out there, for charities that are improving their impact. >> And I think the other thing that. [CROSSTALK] >> I, I agree with Julia on that last point especially. But, I just want to add, I mean, I do think that there's a really clear trajectory in global health towards sort of cheap, cost-effective things being taken up and taken care of basically. You know, 20 years ago you could have paid to get more kids, like, really basic, cheap childhood vaccines, and now the vast majority of those are done, or at least the cheapest ones. And so, you know, this [UNKNOWN] third point, but the, the world keeps getting better in ways that I think make it harder and harder to use money to make a positive impact. And if, my guess is that it's getting better, at a rate that's faster than like whatever investment returns you're going to make, maybe Zell is a, is an, exception, but for most of us who are sort of going to buy like, diversified index funds, you're not going to be, I think the pace of sort of positive change of the world. And so, the prior I think should be, you're going to give sooner rather than later. Julia's pointed out, giving continuously, and helping the community grow, I think it's, an important one, [INAUDIBLE] >> Okay, so in other words, you're saying you can actually make a bigger impact now than you might be able to make in, in 20 years. And I'd also add that there may be some kind of other kind of investment payoff in that if you contribute to make a family better off now the children perhaps are better nourished, therefore their brains develop better. Or, perhaps they get education which they wouldn't have got before, and they may therefore be able to do great things to boost the economy of their country, which they would not have done if you had not given them, >> There's also. >> Yeah, we're going to have to wind up soon [CROSSTALK] >> Just a quick point that the US tax code makes it extraordinary more advantageous to give, before you die, then, then it's, [INAUDIBLE] donations, it makes. If, if you have money, it makes no sense, to, to wait and give people the money in your will when you can set up charitable trusts now. >> But, definitely better to give while you're still alive, and also in fact if you're, giving large amounts, to give each year, right? Because there is actually a limit to how much you can de, deduct, and if you, were thinking I won't give anything for 20 years but then I'll give it all it's more tax effective to give some of it each year. We are going to have to wind up so I'm sure say thank you to Alexander and a thank you to [INAUDIBLE] [NOISE] [BLANK_AUDIO]
