Exploring the World of Philanthropy: Making a Meaningful Impact Through Giving

Aloha inspired money maker. Thanks for tuning in. If this is your first time here, welcome. And if you're returning, welcome back. Let's all be inspired money makers together. When it comes to giving, I see this often. You're scrolling through your social media feed and you come across a fundraiser for a disaster relief effort. You click donate, you feel a little spark of purpose and then you move on with your day. But later you might wonder,

did that donation actually make a difference? Did it go to where it was supposed to? Is there a better way to help? And that's at the heart of today's conversation. We're discussing something that affects us all. How to give with meaning. From billion dollar foundations to crowdfunding pages and crypto donations, the world of philanthropy is evolving, but with more ways to give than ever before. It can also be more complicated and more important.

It's important to give well. So today we're going to explore how generosity can be smarter, more inclusive and more impactful. We've brought together a powerhouse panel of change makers, people who aren't just talking about doing

good, but actually reshaping how it's done. So whether you're a business leader trying to align your profits with purpose, a nonprofit pro looking for innovative strategies, or just someone who wants to make a difference in your community, and if you agree with me, that we can leave the world a better place, then this episode is for you. So stay with us because the future of giving just might start here. Before we start, a

quick thank you to our sponsor. Today's episode is brought to you by Seeking Alpha Premium, your go to resource for smarter investing decisions. I've used Seeking Alpha. I know a bunch of retired investors who use Seeking Alpha because it's good for in depth stock analysis, its quant ratings and its expert insights from thousands of investors. You can find lots

of analyst reports there. So whether you're a seasoned investor or just getting started, Seeking Alpha can help you to see both the bull side and the bear perspective of every holding in your portfolio. You can try it for seven days. I think the offer is for 30 day, $30 off your first year. You can go to InspiredMoney.fm/trial30. That is an affiliate link. So if you subscribe, you're supporting the show and I appreciate it. Let's bring in our panelists. Our first guest is

Jacob Harold. He's a leading voice in social impact strategy. He's the author of the Toolbox Strategies for Crafting social impact. He's former CEO of Guidestar and CoFounder of both Candid and Project Starling. With deep roots in philanthropy, climate advocacy and nonprofit innovation, Jacob now serves as a Planetary fellow at the Berggruen Institute and Senior Advisor at Rewiring America. Welcome, Jacob. Andy, I'm thrilled to be here.

Next we have. We're thrilled to welcome Jamie Minden, Executive Director of Zero Hour, a bold youth led climate justice movement. Jamie began organizing at just age 13 and has since helped lead powerful campaigns with Sunrise Movement and Fridays for Future. Her advocacy is grounded in personal experience with California wildfires and a passion for mobilizing the next generation. Jamie, great to have you here and congrats on your graduation. Thank you so much

for having me. So youth led. You will be representing the youth today. Thanks. No pressure. And rounding out our panel today we have Bruno Fierens. He is joining us from Brussels. He's a fifth generation heir turned activist for tax justice. He's the first Belgian member of Millionaires for Humanity, using his voice to call for fairer taxation in a more equitable global system. A seasoned media trainer and former spokesperson, Bruno combines personal insight with political advocacy

to challenge the status quo. Bruno, welcome. Thanks for having me. I really look forward to having this conversation about philanthropy and giving. I think that we have diverse perspectives and areas of expertise. Let's jump right into segment one. Philanthropy has shifted from spontaneous giving to structured impact driven approaches. Traditional giving supports immediate needs while strategic philanthropy focuses on long term change through planned contributions and measurable

outcomes. Impact investing blends financial returns with social benefits, funding, sustainable businesses and social enterprises. Unlike donations, these investments aim to generate profit while addressing global challenges. Corporate social responsibility integrates philanthropy into business strategy with companies supporting environmental, social and ethical initiatives. Volunteerism allows individuals to contribute beyond money, offering skills based support, pro bono work and community

engagement. These efforts strengthen organizations and create direct, tangible benefits. Resources like online platforms and philanthropic advisors help individuals align giving with their values. Whether through donations, investments or time based efforts. A strategic approach ensures meaningful and lasting contributions to social and environmental causes. Bruno, you told me that you wouldn't call yourself a philanthropist,

but you are familiar with different ways of giving back. Can you walk us through how those experiences ultimately led you to question their limitations and become an advocate for fairer taxation through Millionaires for Humanity? Gladly. Yeah, I am familiar with everything in that segment. Basically, you know the, the, the emotional donation, the, the structural donation trying to, to make the family company more ESG focused. What was the impact investment thinking.

Over the years, basically I guess, like many people, I've tried to find ways, oh, where can I help? You know, the needle. Go in the. In the right direction or move the needle a bit so that the world is a better place. And I've tried them all, and I put a lot of time in it, but then every time. And at the end, there was a very, a very tangible thing. It led me to

thinking, something isn't working. And basically what really brought me to that, and the first thing I want to say as well, is that it hasn't made me cynical about philanthropy or it hasn't made me cynical about giving. I think it's important, and it's always going to be important. And I also think it's always done for the right reasons, for actually people genuinely want to be. To make the world a better place.

But I remember 10 years ago, I think I started helping out an organization here in Brussels that is working against homelessness. Basically, they were trying to make a building to have homeless people be able to take a shower, which was almost impossible in the city. And I helped out with another family, with an aunt of mine, we found some money. We asked other family members for more money. It worked. There was a building set up. It's still there 10

years later. 11 years later, it's still there. And it's. And it's working. It's growing. And beyond showers, now, they try and put people into housing. It's quite amazing, you know, and I kept in touch and I. Every year I keep. I keep giving a bit and, And, And, And I love it. But then I. I had a really crucial moment where I thought, this is also extremely demoralizing, because when it started, I think the number of homeless people in Brussels was assessed to be

3,000 or something. Last year, the number of homeless people in Brussels, or people, you know, without homeless people, was assessed to be around 10,000. I can keep giving money to that fantastic organization. Its name is DoucheFLUX. And I can keep, you know, asking my family to give money as long as the structural issue of homelessness is not also taken care of. It's. Do you say it in English? It's a. It's a plaster on a. On a. On a wooden. On a wooden leg. It's.

It's not going to help the structural issue. For me, it was a learning. It was learning moments where I was like, okay, philanthropy is amazing and is needed, but it's almost always going to work on symptoms and not enough on causes, always on the consequences and not on the structural aspects. And that ultimately was one of the elements that led me to becoming a member of Millionaires for Humanity because I kept, you know, I kept going up the waterfall and thinking, okay, what's. What causes

this? What causes many things? You know, there was other things I was thinking about just sustainability and others is attacks, unfairness, or tax. You know, things not being taxed the right way and growing inequality because of it. And that is the cause of many, many problems, amongst which that one. So me, it brought or it helped me understand certain limitations of philanthropy. Now, it's not, I, I strongly think it's not one or the other. They're both one aspect of a

solution to, or, you know, moving that needle. They're both one element of moving that needle the right way. But I've noticed that not many people where or especially well, since I'm the first member, not many people are or not many wealthy people are advocating for more tax fairness. Focus on that. Jacob, you've been sitting at a vantage point where you've seen a lot of different organizations and

how people engage with different organizations. Also in your book the Toolbox, you discuss nine tools for social impact. How can we use these tools to give more effectively? A good question and a hard question, and one that is a lifelong quest for me to try to explore and turn that exploration into

lasting results. And I'll build on what, what Bruno was just saying, this sort of contrast, we saw it in the video between the sort of traditional approach that was a symptoms oriented, charitable approach and this, this shift that we've seen over the last approximately 20 years in the direction of strategic philanthropy, really thinking about structures, thinking about lasting impact. But it's also interesting to note that, and that's something I've been

deeply a part of and something I really believe in. But we also have seen in the last several years something of a reaction against that. And I think it's because we at times lost a little bit of our humanity and lost a little bit of the, the common touch and the, the relationships that, you know, often characterized the, the. The sort of traditional

approach. And so our challenge now, I think, is to figure out how to be rigorous and how to be strategic and impact oriented while recognizing the world's really complicated and relationships are hard and power dynamics are real and that we've got to figure out how do we maintain our humanity in the process of trying to change the world? And I fully, deeply believe that that's doable, but it does require some real intentionality. One part of that is recognizing that there's no one answer.

And I think some in philanthropy have fallen into a trap, and this is true both on the giving and the receiving side of thinking. Well, there's one way to solve this problem. The secret is a market based solution, or the secret is community organizing, or the secret is using behavioral economics or design thinking, or building new institutions or

telling the right story. And what I've come to believe is that it's actually all of those things and that in a complex world, we can't apply any one framework and think that's going to solve all of our problems. The good news in all this is though, that we have this whole toolbox, this abundance of ways of thinking that humanity has developed over the course of centuries of how to make the world

better. And so we have this opportunity to tap into that wealth of knowledge and experience as we go forward and tackle some really messy problems. And we're not going to get it right the first time, but with the right feedback loops of learning and the right degree of humility balanced with an ambition to actually make some impact, I do think it's possible for philanthropy to be a core part of how humanity tackles some of the great challenges that we're facing. Sounds like a juggling act,

but we can all learn how to juggle. Yeah. Jamie, I want to ask you because as someone who's been organizing since age 13, can you share some of your early experiences, how that shaped your understanding of effective giving and yeah. Your comments on what Bruno and Jacob have said so far? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I definitely got involved in climate organizing through personal experience with the

impacts of the clients climate crisis. I grew up in the Bay Area, California, where the region had been in a drought since before I was born. And I sort of slowly, as the drought intensified while I was in middle school, I sort of started watching like the world I grew up in shrivel up before my eyes. By the time I was in high school, we were experiencing the paradise wildfires. By the time I was in college, we had historic floods.

And so I think I'm part of a generation that has grown up experiencing the climate crisis on a very visceral level. So on one hand that's terrifying, but on the other, I think it's very hopeful in terms of the future of organizations that are responding to the climate crisis. I think in terms of philanthropy, now is a very important time to invest in climate. There have been times when the field of philanthropy has invested in climate, in times when they really have kind of backed off

of it a little bit. But right now we're seeing that the IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the international climate scientists have found that we need to limit global average temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius to avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis. Global consensus is that between February 2023 and January 2024, it was the first 12 month period in which the global average temperature was 1.5 degrees Celsius above temperature

pre industrial levels. Sorry. And so now it's really important time to invest in climate, especially as the US government is shutting down more federal climate grants. You know, philanthropic dollars make more of a difference right now. I would also relate this to what Bruno was saying earlier in terms of philanthropy addressing systemic causes of issues rather than just the symptoms. There are a lot of organizations that invest in tech and research around climate, which is

fantastic. We definitely need more of that. But the truth is we do have the technology now to solve the climate crisis if we're to stop burning fossil fuels on the level that we are currently. What we lack is and social will to pressure governments and corporations to make the necessary changes and bring our climate back from the

brink of collapse. And so maybe I have a biased perspective, but I think that investing in grassroots organizations that act to address the climate crisis on the level of policy and social change right now is really vital. Bruno, you had something to add? No, I want to say something about what Jacob said. The funny thing is that ever since I started, you know, being a member of Millionaires for Humanity, I started meeting way more people and also people active in philanthropy and more than I

thought or more than I imagined. I wasn't aware of this. I met some, I met people who, who are active in philanthropy. But that is, you know, the way they do it is kind of a slingshot of, they make their philanthropy, philanthropic activity a slingshot of, of policy changes. So they really are, they're like, you know, they try something new and then they, they go, almost go to the state of the government, say hey look,

you know, we need more. In this case it was, we need more, we need more daycare places in daycares and you're going to have a big problem. And we figured something out that might help you. But that, that was the beginning of that was through philanthropy, philanthropy and giving. So it, it, it can really work, work that, that actively. And then on what, what Jamie was just saying, that's kind of something you see a lot with wealthy people as well.

They start having their family office that where they do a lot of impact investment and they do a lot of philanthropy and they choose a certain type. And then the funny thing is that when you ask, you know, when you go into a bit more, the deeper policy sides, like, oh, wait, we don't talk about politics. My thinking is always like, you know, at a certain point

you can't do that anymore. Like you can have impact investments or, or donations about, say, more sustainable clothing, but as long as legislation around ultra fast fashion, you know, isn't, has, isn't taken care of, it's not going to have an impact or not enough. So we, Yeah, I think we're at a point where we kind of have to, we have to get to that level, which. Yeah, to that political level, I guess. Yeah, absolutely agree. Jacob, any thoughts there? I

mean, there are countless thoughts. I know we have more topics I'll just briefly mention. This is bringing up a real challenge, I think, for nonprofits and philanthropy in general, which is, I think that Bruno and Jamie are absolutely right that for many of the big issues that we're facing, we have no hope of solving it without engagement in both politics and policy, and that nonprofits and philanthropy can be a

key driver of that. The challenge that we're facing is that in this moment of political polarization, we're finding that that's meaning that particular issues get sort of coded with one political party or another. And climate change affects everyone. It doesn't just affect people on the left side of the political spectrum.

And so we've got to figure out how to engage with politics in a way that helps to solve the problem while being aware that sometimes we, if we're not careful, a overly polarized polity will make it harder for us to get anything done at all. And I should say I don't know the answer to this. I just know it's a challenge that people are facing throughout the sector and throughout society and that we collectively got to figure out how to get past that because

these issues affect everyone. Well said. Let's go to segment two. Crowdfunding platforms like GoFundMe and Global Giving have made giving more accessible, allowing individuals to support causes directly. While these platforms increase funding opportunities, challenges include verifying legitimacy and managing fees. Blockchain and cryptocurrency are improving donation transparency by tracking

funds and reducing transaction costs. Organizations like the Giving Block and Binance Charity foundation accept crypto donations, though volatility and regulations present challenges. AI and big data help nonprofits predict donor behavior, personalize outreach, and optimize fundraising. Ethical concerns include data privacy and algorithmic bias. Social media enables viral fundraising, as seen in the Ice Bucket Challenge and

GivingTuesday. Digital storytelling builds emotional connections and expands reach to donate safely, verify organizations use secure payment methods and research platform policies. Digital philanthropy continues to evolve, offering more ways to engage with and support impactful causes efficiently. Jamie, as a digital native activist, how has social media empowered or challenged your fundraising strategies? Absolutely.

I mean, as you kind of alluded, I am from a generation that has pretty much been born and raised on social media. And so I don't know the alternative, unfortunately. But I have seen social media make a big impact on the reach and scope that movements and campaigns can have throughout my lifetime. We've definitely learned a lot from other movements that have

used social media to their advantage. I started organizing, as I said earlier, when I was 13, but the climate movement really kicked off in 2019 when Greta Thunberg had her viral moment climate strikes, and that's when Zero Hour had our global climate marches around the world as well.

And so social media can definitely have a big impact on not only growing our base of volunteers, which I think, as you might mention later, is another way to give back through volunteering, but also expanding the reach of people who maybe can't give their time, who can give their money as well. Jacob, in your experience, you've really seen how platforms like Guidestar and Candid have transformed donor engagement. What's the next phase? Is it blockchain, AI and big data?

It's a good question. I mean, we have seen some real shifts in how information flows and fundamentally these technology platforms are about our information flows. They are a plumbing that helps get the data that a donor, for example, might need to them at the right moment. And we've made immense progress and millions and millions of people use these platforms now. We might even be up to billions.

But, but I will, I will note that we haven't quite gotten to the point where I think we need to get which is truly multi dimensional information. That is where people are already acting and I'll explain what I mean. So a platform like GuideStar, where I used to be CEO at millions of users each year, but there are hundreds of millions of donors in the United States alone. And so we are reaching a significant

portion of them, but not everyone. Mostly that's because the way the Internet works now, people don't tend to proactively go out to a particular website to find information. They're getting it through the AI search result to the top of a Google page. They're getting it from social media. Maybe they're on Amazon or they're on Facebook. And so how do we get the information

to where people are already operating? And we've described that as a push strategy instead of a pull strategy, instead of, hey, come over to my website, we've got some great data for you. We're going to push this data to wherever you're operating so that your choices can be infused with good information. That's also really important because in order for donors to be proactive and not just reactive, they need to have a

slightly different mindset. If donations only, people only make donations when they're asked, then they're making a series of yes, no decisions. This organization asked, I'm saying yes. This one asked, I'm saying no. Which is not really the way you want to do strategy. You want to think about what do I want to accomplish and proactively choose among a range of different organizations and make a bigger, longer

term investment. And that's just a different kind of mindset. But the truth is that's exactly how people think about big purchases in their life, a car or fancy electronics or a home. And so people actually have a lot of practice in making complex decisions based on a lot of information about something they care about. And so the hope is, over time that philanthropy can be infused with that kind of data while still holding

on to that humanity. I will say in terms of other technologies, I think blockchain and crypto will be useful, probably on the margin. AI could potentially be transformative for philanthropy and everything else, but I think at the heart it's actually getting some of the basics of how the Internet works, right in terms of sharing information, packaging in a way that's useful, getting it where people need it in order to enable a more proactive approach to giving.

Jamie, you have thoughts on social media? Yeah, I hate to change the conversation back, but yeah, I mean, I think one other positive impact to your earlier question of social media in organizing is it makes it a lot easier to get climate communication and education out there

to people who it might not have originally reached. And so we see that people, especially in my own generation, but cross generational lines, are really starting to make more connections between the impacts of the climate crisis and things like social justice, racial justice, economic issues and gender issues. And so people are, in making those connections, people are sort of starting to understand that climate is sort of one stop shop to help on a lot of

issues. And so I think that that is impactful when it comes to, you know, donation of time money into the climate movement. But there is definitely still a huge need. Thank you. Let's go to segment three. We're going to talk about measuring Impact. Effective philanthropy requires evaluating nonprofits based on transparency, accountability, and financial efficiency. Organizations that openly share financial reports, governance structures, and measurable outcomes

demonstrate credibility. Red flags include excessive overhead costs, lack of reporting, and unclear impact. Impact measurement frameworks help assess effectiveness. Social return on investment quantifies social and economic value, while the Theory of Change outlines how a program achieves its goals. Logical frameworks provide structured evaluation metrics. Third party evaluators like Charity Navigator, GiveWell and GuideStar provide ratings based on governance, impact and financial health.

Reviewing these resources helps donors make informed choices. Successful initiatives such as the Gates Foundation's global health programs and the Robinhood Foundation's poverty reduction efforts highlight the importance of data driven decision making. Using a charity evaluation checklist ensures donations support organizations that align with donor values and deliver tangible results.

Jacob, what frameworks do you recommend for donors to assess the effectiveness of their philanthropic contributions? I mean, this is another question we could talk about for days. I think it's important to start with what do nonprofits have in common and what are different among nonprofits? So all nonprofits are trying to do some good in the world, but to Bruno's point earlier, some of them are doing that in a way that's focused on the short term, some on the

long term. As Jamie was talking about, there are some strategies that require deeper engagement with community organizing, for example, others that are more about research, others that are more about high level policy advocacy. And there is no single framework that can tell you, you know, whether all organizations are effective because it's just too much diversity. You can't use the same way of thinking to judge a homeless shelter that you might use for a

grassroots group working on climate. And so I do think it's really important that we have some humility in terms of our ability to kind of universalize what effectiveness means. All that said, I think there are some basic principles. Transparency is really important and is almost always a really good indicator that an organization is not just open to the world, but it offers an

opportunity to judge the clarity of their thinking. And I think one of the best ways for a donor to consider a nonprofit is to look at the logic that nonprofit uses on how they articulate how they make change in the world. Just as Jamie was doing as she was talking about, why is it that community organizing at this moment is actually particularly high leverage strategy around climate? Which, by

the way, I think is true. And so one place where I think donors can sort of trust their own instincts is to make judgments about that logic. I think it's really important that organizations have both corporations quantitative and qualitative ways of learning and judging their own progress. Even if they aren't perfect, they may not be. I can show you one number that will prove that we're effective, but at least it shows I'm trying to hold myself accountable and I'm trying to learn and get better.

And again, I think that should be both quantitative and qualitative. You want to have the number of people who are showing up to your events, you might want to do a survey of them and then you want to maybe do some one on one interviews to get a little bit deeper and get under know what the numbers might tell you. So there is no simple answer. But I do think that people are used to, again, going back to what I was saying earlier, making hard questions in the context of

uncertain information. I'm sorry, making hard decisions. And they can bring that skill which we've all cultivated in our lives to the work of philanthropy. And we can do that in a way that is humble in that we're not going to have a perfect answer, but is ambitious in that we're really going to aspire to maximize the impact of our giving.

Bruno, as somebody who wants to do good, and you're also a media trainer, how do you interpret the storytelling versus statistical data in communicating like philanthropic success? A good question, but actually I had a question for Jacob actually based on what he's saying. I love what you just said about, you know, people are capable of making, making difficult decisions. It's maybe it's a question a bit related to behavioral stuff, behavioral dynamics.

When I, you know, when I take my position of someone like me should actually be paying more taxes. And that is an, you know, it's a, it's a, it's an imbalance. Huh. In, in Belgium, taxes are really high. And what I say is that labor tax should be lower and wealth tax should be higher, not more tax in general, but different for every country. But when I say that most people, a lot of the reactions are, oh, you know,

that means you want to give money back to, to the state. And state isn't handling your money well, look around, they're splurging it. So they prefer, especially wealthy people prefer having a certain level of control and having a level, usually they are quite in control of their money. And that's also one reason of their success. That's what, that's how people,

people make money. That comes with the other problems with, you know, that gives Me or philanthropy is too much dependent on my goodwill as a wealthy person and also gives me ultimately too much power. But my question is, you know, saying you want to be taxed more is actually, yeah, it's giving up control. It's, it's, in a way, it's very counter intuitive psychologically. And I think especially for wealthy people, that's difficult. How do

you work with that on a, on a. Because in the end, it's just. For me, it's kind of the same. It is giving back. It is like philanthropy. It's giving back and wanting to make the world a better place. How come that story, how could we make that story work, you think, Jacob? Yeah, I mean, what a hard question. And I'll offer some brief thoughts at least first by saying that I think, you know, especially at least in a democracy, everybody has some

control over the state in their vote. And so, you know, part of it is like we're using different tools: our money, our time, our vote to have a voice in our, in our society. And so I think part of it is telling a story about there's this multiplicity of ways that we're contributing and having a voice. I do think it's an interesting paradox because inherently, you know, asking wealthy people to pay more higher taxes is counter to their direct interests. The, you know, economics research

is very mixed on this. It's clear that if you look at, for example, the research on what motivates employees is clear that money is one motivator, but it's not the only one. There are other things that really motivate people, and I think that's true as well around the tax debate. And one advantage that organizations like Millionaires for Humanity have is that the pitch is counterintuitive. And that makes for a great story.

And so it's both an advantage and you've got this structural disadvantage that is not as much of a disadvantage, I think, as some people think, but it's still real. But you have this sort of narrative advantage of being able to get attention. I mean, we've seen a lot of this with the recent retirement of Warren Buffett as

CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. You know, there's been a lot of talk about his advocacy for higher taxes and his constant, you know, over and over again saying, why is it that my secretary pays a higher average tax rate than I do? And that's a story that sticks because it's counterintuitive. But to actually get past that, that sort of broader structural barrier is a real puzzle. And I think A lot of it has to do with thinking about the other dimensions of life that people care about.

Thanks. By the way, if I can respond to the story, to the narrative and telling the story when I, when I give, you know, a conference or something where I go and speak to people who kind of need to hear the story. I hear a lot of yes. But I so far haven't heard anyone say you're off the, you're off track. Which is interesting. I think it goes back to what Jacob was saying, is that there's not just one answer. It requires a little bit all of the

above. But as a financial advisor, I can say with quite high confidence, most people do not want to pay more taxes. And the idea of, okay, I will acknowledge that yes, if there are taxes, then maybe you can have more consistency in how funds are being collected and distributed. But then the question is a MacKenzie Scott, for example, I think she's made a lot of waves in I think giving, giving teams that she believes in a lot of flexibility to making her grants without having a lot of

strings attached. It's like she believes that this team can best allocate toward the mission and right. Gives them that latitude. Why should she trust the government to do better? Is that the question? I think that I, I, if I can respond to that, I think the question is really good. Why should, why should I trust the government to do a better job? I, I don't, I, I, I don't know. I don't

know. I don't know if I do. What I do know is that it doesn't exempt me from asking myself the question, what is a fair, what is fair taxation? I can't use this. I can use the fact that like look around, they're using, you know, and it very often it's true. But I can't use that as an excuse to say, you know, oh, then fair taxation doesn't matter. It's still the cause of a lot of a lot of stuff. Jamie, what's your thought on taxes from an environmental perspective?

Yeah, so I just wanted to share one of zero hours. Main campaigns right now is about ending fossil fuel fuel subsidies both within the United States and globally. Because in 2022 the total revenue of the US oil and gas industry was US$332.9 billion. But despite being this profitable, the US still provides at least $20 billion a year in federal subsidies to the industry and billions in state

subsidies from our tax dollars. So we talk like Bruno was saying about like you know, being a little bit having a little bit of disquiet about where our tax dollars are going. I think that's a very valid point. And we see this, we were engaged in this fight at Zero Hour because we see it as very kind of going for the jugular on the fossil fuel industry. The Stockholm Institute has reported in 2021 that as much as 60% of future oil and gas development would not be economically viable without

these subsidies. And because solar and wind power are both cheaper to produce than energy derived from fossil fuels, the expansion of the industry that's happening right now, the fossil fuel industry that is, would not be possible the way it's currently happening without our taxpayer subsidies. So I completely agree and I'm very heartened to hear these points from folks working in the, and you know, existing within the billionaire or the millionaire sort of

the wealthy donor space, talking about, you know, raising taxes on the wealthy. I think that's fantastic. But I think also it's very important to look at where our tax dollars are going and which industries they're propping up, the impacts that have on our world. Thank you. Let's go to segment four. Ethical philanthropy goes beyond donations by ensuring funds are

used responsibly and create lasting impact. Feel good philanthropy prioritizes emotional satisfaction over effectiveness, while ethical giving focuses on research, transparency and measurable results. Power dynamics in philanthropy shape how those results are achieved and who benefits from them. Funders must balance influence by supporting long term solutions and collaborating with local stakeholders. Philanthropic colonialism occurs when external donors impose solutions without community input,

creating dependency rather than empowerment. Transparency is key. Responsible organizations openly report financials, governance and impact. Donors should assess how funds are allocated and whether aid aligns with local needs. Supporting grassroots initiatives and prioritizing ethical decision making ensures philanthropy strengthens communities rather than controlling them. Thoughtful giving based on research and accountability maximizes positive change while avoiding unintended harm.

Bruno, you've said that philanthropy, while valuable, ultimately places too much power in the hands of the wealthy. Can you share what ethical dilemmas does this raise for you personally? It's a question I got, I, when I started this, this, this voyage of Millionaires for Humanity, it's a question I get a lot about. Yeah, what about philanthropy? And it's always two things I say is, well, first, you know, they say, oh, look at, for example, Bill

Gates. He has this foundation, does amazing stuff. He does. And I'm also not cynical about that. But if he chooses to, he could also not do it. And if, you know, I donate every year to this organization and if tomorrow there's another one that has a better pitch I could decide to give to that. It's too dependent on my goodwill and

ultimately then in a way, gives me a bit too much power. And I love the thing that said, like, feel good philanthropy, you know, suddenly maybe my daughter loves giraffes, and then I'm going to start giving to giraffe organization. It's, it's, it's not a healthy situation, let's say ethically, it can be also used for me, psychologically, it can be used very easily to, to feel better and then think, okay, I'm, I'm doing my part, but

not going to the core of things. That's the ethical dilemma, I guess. Jacob, I think you previously mentioned power dynamics in philanthropy. What ethical guardrails would you recommend to ensure giving aligns with community priorities and not donor egos? Yeah, one good piece of news and all this is that there are some practical things that donors can do in terms of how they structure their donations that can make a really big difference.

So I'll talk about those, and then we'll talk about some of the sort of human dynamics as well. But, you know, very much of philanthropy is what's called project support, where it's, the money is allocated to a particular part of an organization, some little sliver. And there can be good reasons for that. But in general, the people at the organization have a better sense of where the money could be put to best use than the donor does. The donor's on the outside looking in.

And so the more that donors can give flexible dollars, what's often called general operating support, the better, because that empowers the individuals at the recipient organization to use all of their on the ground knowledge to allocate more effectively. It makes the accounting a

whole lot easier. And it really can change the power dynamic, too. It's not just, I'm a nonprofit, so I'm a contractor for the wishes of my wealthy donor, but instead, I'm a nonprofit, I have my own agency, and the donor is trusting me. Another way this plays out is in duration, in that most social problems take years and years to solve, and yet most grants are made one year at a time, which just can make it really hard for nonprofits to plan and think in the long

term. And so the more that an individual donor or an institutional donor can say, you know, it's, it's not just, I'm giving you $10,000 this year, I'm, I'm going to give you $10,000 each of the next five years and offer you that runway, that sense of stability to help in your. Help in your planning. So those

are a couple of concrete things. On a more sort of emotional level, you know, there's just the fact that many donors are really smart people who have a lot to offer and I think should be willing and open to offer their thoughts, but fundamentally to recognize that it is the recipient who's the expert and to ensure that the nature of the conversation is one that's defined by respect. I'll offer two more final thoughts. One is that doesn't mean that every nonprofit is equally good or that donors

don't have to make hard decisions. They do, but let's make them based on substantive reasons, and let's make them in a way that is honest and kind in relation. And then finally, on this question of community voice, this is hard because some nonprofits truly do have their ear to the ground and have a deep sense of what a given community might want. Other ones don't. And that also is harder if you're working on a global or planetary issue like climate change.

You know, having this specific knowledge as to the particular needs of a given neighborhood sometimes is really relevant and sometimes less so. And so I just flagged that. That's a hard question. And I think it's. It's a great one to ask a nonprofit, how do you bring in those voices? But also to recognize that's not always an easy thing to do. And it is often really relevant, but sometimes there are other kinds of knowledge that might be even more, more

powerful. Bruno, do you have an example of the human dynamics? No. I was thinking about that from the beginning of what Jacob said. One reaction I had that I thought was really interesting because it shows that link with, with philanthropy and how philanthropy also is almost, sometimes almost becomes a certain, an identity, an important identity to wealthy people. And for me, it was a reaction like quite emotional. Was saying, you know, I give that much. I

give, I give to, to stuff I believe in every year, blah, blah. And you come up with this, with this, which is strange thing about being taxed more. And I could, I could feel how emotional it was. And I also noticed that I didn't bring it. Why I, first of all, I didn't say anything to that person particularly. It was as if I had attacked her identity almost, or her way of thinking, saying, like, I am giving back and you are saying I haven't done it the right way.

Or you were saying I haven't led a meaningful life, which I thought I, I was doing so finding that balance between saying, you know, what you do is really important and, and not getting that emotional reaction of you've had it wrong the whole way is not that easy. I noticed and that, that for wealthy people that, that that identity of giving can become quite, quite dominant in a way

I think. Jamie, this, this phrase, philanthropic colonialism, it's not something that I really think about that much in the segment mentioned it. How does Zero Hour address the potential for philanthropic colonialism in its initiatives? Yeah, I guess. Could you give me a definition of what you, you think of as philanthropic colonialism? It's a phrase that, that I think resonated for Bruno. No, it did because for me it's giving but then imposing, imposing a certain, a certain solution

and hey, you know, money's power. So I am giving you this. So you're going to do it this way because I am the one, I'm the one with the power. It's having donations with strings attached. I see. Yeah. Thankfully we've had sort of the dynamic with many of our larger donations at Zero Hour where we've been trusted, sort of like we've proposed our campaigns and donors think it's a good idea and so they trust us to work

forward from there. But I've absolutely seen in other organizations and you know, certain, I guess political parties, I've heard from anecdotal evidence from folks who are, do a lot of work in the donor space in parties in the US that to your definition of philanthropic colonialism there does really have an impact negatively when we're trusting consultants or donors who might not have the lived political experience needed to make the high level decisions or make

the strategy decisions that need to be made. Like if we're giving them that power, ultimately our movements sometimes fail because they might not be the best person to make that decision and they might not have that experience. So I think it's very vital that

philanthropic organizations take that into account. And as you have been saying, trust trust movements and trust the organizations they're donating to, to maybe have more knowledge or demonstrate the knowledge that is needed for those high level decisions and that strategy. Let's bring it home and go to the last segment. Philanthropy is shifting toward collaboration and technology driven solutions. Giving circles and pooled funds allow

individuals to combine resources for greater impact. While community driven initiatives ensure funding aligns with local local needs. Universal basic philanthropy proposes guaranteed giving opportunities enabling broader participation in charitable efforts. AI and machine learning enhance impact by analyzing data to allocate resources efficiently and match

donors with causes aligned to Their values. Personalized giving portfolios help donors diversify contributions across different causes and geographies, maximizing life long term impact. As philanthropy becomes more data driven and inclusive. Staying informed on emerging trends ensures effective giving. By leveraging collaboration, technology and strategic planning, the next generation of philanthropy aims to create more equitable, transparent and impactful solutions for global challenges.

Thoughtful adaptation to these changes ensures meaningful contributions that drive sustainable progress. Progress. Jacob, what emerging trends do you foresee having the most significant impact on philanthropy in the next decade? So, you know, the segment mentioned a few that I think are really important, like giving circles, a new form of infrastructure that makes that offers a way for giving to get filtered through community in ways that I

think can be really quite powerful. So it's no longer just an individualistic act, but it's a collective one. So as, and that's really been expanding globally and I think that could be really powerful. There have been efforts like Giving Tuesday that I think are really in the giving pledge that are just highlighting the pure power of generosity as a human impulse. And so I think if those can continue to get

momentum, we'll be, you know, we'll be better off. To me, the big question is how does philanthropy think about its role in the social contract? What does business do, what does government do, and what does the nonprofit sector slash philanthropy do? And the world is changing faster and faster. Some of that is amazing. AI might supercharge some really interesting

interventions. Some of it is terrifying. It's often operating at this truly planetary level on a question like pandemics or climate change or potentially true AGI. And so we've got just some work to do to figure out. Okay, we had traditional charity. We moved on to strategic philanthropy.

What is the next way of thinking that really figures out a role that is willing to grapple with these big hard problems while maintaining that fundamental humanity, that compassion, that honesty, that integrity that characterizes the best of philanthropy. And so that's an incredible puzzle, but I see it as an incredible opportunity as well. Where do you think AI can really have a positive impact and how can it be scary?

Yeah, well, I think AI could have a positive impact on the giver side just by helping donors sort through all of the complexity and help them find organizations that really match their interests and that are operating at a given level of excellence. On the recipient side, there are lots of ways that AI could really help nonprofit interventions. Whether that's through tutoring, whether that's through discovering new cures for diseases, whatever it may be.

In terms of the, the dangers of AI, I mean, we can think about all sort of the sci-fi scenarios, and I think some of those, they're possible. My bigger concern is that AI will change our politics and change our labor market so fast that humanity will not be able to catch up to that change and that it will just create a lot of churn, conflict, it might exacerbate political polarization.

And so philanthropy is going to have a really important role, I think, in helping society navigate the fact that AI is just going to supercharge a lot of other trends. Jamie, how do you envision youth led movements influencing the future of philanthropy? Yeah, I think

just sort of some of the themes that have been discussed today. I think my generation, at least, I hope my generation sort of sees climate change as a little bit more of a less political issue because we are all being impacted by it disproportionately. And so I have hope that philanthropy might have a shift in a trend in terms of that political aspect. In terms of climate change. It's hard to say. I can't speak for all youth, but that's definitely a hope of mine.

I think also I hope that trends in philanthropy turn towards giving dollars back to chronically underfunded communities. Kind of going back to our concept of philanthropic colonialism we were talking about earlier. You know, especially in the environmental movement. The most chronically underfunded communities are indigenous environmentalists. They're targeted by states and corporations and killed at a much higher rate than other

organizers for their work. But their work has a much higher impact on the environment because they have that lived grassroots knowledge of land defense often and statistically. And so like, for example, I have a friend we who I met at COP28 in Dubai, who is a Waorani indigenous land defender and his tribe is currently being violently attacked by oil companies. And yet they're chronically underfunded for their work, which does have a disproportionate impact in defending the

Amazon where they live. And so I hope that it's hard for me to make predictions, but I do hope that my generation, you know, invests in the people that are having the highest impact and sees the climate crisis as an issue that will affect us all regardless of political leaning. We hope that technology and AI can help us execute things more equitably, but

we'll see how that goes. Bruno, what broader systemic changes do you believe need to accompany or even precede philanthropy in order to build a more just society? Well, I hope, first of all, I hope. My hope is that there is. There are so many aspects to philanthropy now, and we've mentioned them all in the first segment. It goes from classic philanthropy to structural, strategic, to impact investments,

to warning, fair tax, like. And that slingshot thinking I mentioned as well, like, there is, I love Jacob's question about what is philanthropy societal role going to be and how is he going to help? All these different things have so much power, I think, to help the world going the right direction.

To answer your question, I think that, yeah, however good everyone's intention is, however much philanthropy there is and however many impact investments there are, yeah, we need to address the growing inequality problems because ultimately they're the most dangerous. And yeah, that begins with, with looking at having a hard look at what fair taxation is. Jacob, any closing thought? I mean, just that giving in particular, sort of philanthropy, the social sector

in general, can represent the best of humanity. And what an incredible opportunity we all have to be creative and to lean into the challenges and opportunities that we have in front of us. It's a gift. Well, thank you, Jacob. Thank you, Bruno. Thank you, Jamie. What an incredible conversation this has been. If there's one idea I'm walking away with today, it's that real impact starts when we align our values with action. Giving isn't just about generosity. It's about intentionality.

Whether it's through philanthropy, advocacy, political change, each of us has the power to shape more than just sustainable and inclusive and a just sustainable and inclusive world. The key is not just to give more, but more meaningfully. And one of the things that I heard repeatedly today is we are in a very politicized world. And when we think about giving, you kind of have to peel the layers of, of politics back because so often we share common goals and common objectives. So

here's your one assignment for the week. Take 20 minutes, just 20 minutes to reflect on your current giving, whether it's time, money, or talent, and ask yourself, is this aligned with the change I want to see in the world? Then take one small action to move closer to that alignment. It could be researching an organization. It could be signing up for a volunteer shift, or even just having a conversation about wealth, fairness or climate justice with someone in your family or your network.

Because small steps create big ripples. If this conversation moved you, please like it. Comment and share the episode. Let's spread the inspiration and keep the momentum moving. Thank you once again to our guests. You can learn more and get more from Jacob Haroldr at craftingimpact.org. Anything else you want to share, Jacob? That's a good place to Follow him. Jamie Minden, she's executive director at Zero Hour. You can go to thisiszerohour.org. Anything else, Jamie, before you have to jump off?

Check out our website, our Instagram and our Twitter and Facebook are also at thisiszerohour. And if you're interested in, if you liked the message I had to say today and you're interested in donating your time or money, definitely check out our website at thisiszerohour.org and click on our donation link or action page and get involved. We'd love to have you join our work. A great grassroots community organization with a great mission. So definitely check out their website. And finally,

Bruno Fierens. You can learn more about him at brunofierensmediatraining.be and he is a member of Millionaires for Humanity. You can go to millionairesforhumanity.org Bruno, anything else you wanted to share? I talked a lot about tax fairness, but I certainly want to, yeah, I hope, like inspire anyone to donate. Philanthropy is really important and it should, everybody should think it that way. Think about it that way as well. Let's say that as well.

Thanks for having me. Thank you for joining. Thank you for doing good and making the world a better place. I want to thank the Inspired Money production team for, for their work. Bradley Jon Eaglefeather did the edits and Chad Lawrence animations. So we've got a small but mighty team. Thank you Inspired Money maker for tuning in today. The next Inspired Money episode I think is going to be Navigating the Stock Market: Strategies for Long-Term Investing

Success. Right now that's scheduled for Wednesday, May 21 at 1 pm so hope you'll join us then. Until next time, do something that scares you because that's where the magic happens. Thanks everyone.