#7/April 25th “The End of the World?”

Dear Readers,

“It is the end of the world as we know it.” The R.E.M. song from 1987 rattles off one problem after another. In the world of social organizations, the end of the same has always been tier. That does, of course, help with fundraising.

Nevertheless, it feels different right now. Wherever I am speaking (currently on my book tour), debating (e.g. with Handelsblatt), or writing (e.g. on LinkedIn), I encounter three rhetorics from activists for a better world that actually make it harder to mobilize money for good causes.

So this newsletter is not about yet another commentary on the current state of the world, but rather a bit more philosophically about zero-sum thinking, polarization, and belief in the state.

Currently, the biggest hurdle for financial decisions is probably uncertainty. After a week with the largest swings on the global markets in decades, my major concern is that we are sliding into an even deeper crisis of giving.

And there is only one way out of such “Collective Action” problems: Individual action. And talking about it.

(On bcause, we've made this even easier: With bcause young, premium membership is now free for people under 25!)

Happy Easter, Felix

A number that sticks in your mind: ZERO

Trump's tariffs express a worldview that I would like to say something about, because I am experiencing it increasingly often: If someone else has more, I have less as a result. If you are not for me, you are against me.

The logic is infectiously simple. But that doesn't make it right. Because there are very few such zero-sum games in our society. There is almost always room for everyone to win something, even if not always the same amount.

Maybe it is a leap, but this thought is currently occupying me in the discourse about wealth, which I have now entered with my book. Why is outrage over inequality so much easier to mobilize than the discussion about what we can do with assets so that we win as a society? (see below)

Wealth is not a zero-sum game. If individuals have more, there are not individuals on the other side who have less precisely because of that. That would be like the Trump view on trade deficits.

When it comes to wealth, everyone can win if it is used to solve problems that can only be solved with it.

Thanks to Damien Cave for his NYT article, which set me on this track.

A person who inspires me (today: books)

In recent months, a number of books have been published that talk about wealth and society. I think it is right that these authors focus on the unjust distribution of wealth. For them, inequality is the central problem. They call for redistribution by the state (see below). Therefore, it is ultimately always about taxes. And thus about what others should do, and even then only when everyone has to. And no matter how you feel about it, at least since the first months of the Trump presidency and the emergence of the coalition agreement in Germany, it is clear that absolutely nothing will move here (again) in the coming years.

For me, this leaves precisely the blank space that my book is about: What can we do right now?

And then there are the terms. There, wealth is not only described as “crazy” or “toxic”, but the wealthy themselves (always the others) as “greedy”, “cynical”, and objections to redistribution as “ludicrous” or “naive”. Philanthropy plays no role, rather it is described as system-stabilizing window dressing. And it is always about billionaires, not about the broad wealth of the many in our society.

I hear you.

Yes, inequality is a problem. BUT: We do not have to solve it first before we solve all other problems. Especially when we are pressed for time. AND: We must understand what exactly the interests (of financial service providers rather than asset owners) are that determine where and how money works.

There is a fine line between constructive and polarizing discourse. How do we build  bridges that those who are the target of this outrage can cross?

An idea to think further: Belief in the state

And then comes the big question of who is allowed to distribute money at all. Here, the redistributors give a clear answer (only the state), which is, however, very different from that of most recipient organizations.

This is also something that is occupying me right now - and is the second topic of my book about which there is the most discussion. I look at the world from the perspective of solutions that need money: Startups with clean climate technologies, aid organizations for victims of violence, funds for investigative journalism, and political activists. All fields in which private money is crucial. That is a different perspective from that of justice. But they meet where time is pressing, where quick, unbureaucratic, and long-term funds are needed.

Although the German government has just borrowed almost a trillion euros from future generations of taxpayers, it will spend it primarily on mothers' pensions, commuter allowances, and defense.

The biggest question is in development cooperation, which is facing collapse after the withdrawal of the world's largest government program, USAID, and cuts by many other governments (including the German one). Here, belief in the state does not help, and anyone who is genuinely interested in a fairer world must think about how we can reprogram the wealth of our world instead of continuing just to hope for politics.