Tag Archives: billionaire

Business, News, Observation

How MacKenzie Scott’s $12 billion in gifts to charity reflect an uncommon trust in the groups she supports

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic

MacKenzie Scott disclosed on March 23, 2022, that she had given US$3.9 billion to 465 nonprofits in the previous nine months. These no-strings-attached donations bring the total she has given away in the past two years to at least $12 billion. We asked philanthropy historian Tyrone Freeman to weigh in on Scott’s approach to donating large sums of money and her emphasis on other forms of generosity.

Is Scott’s philanthropic philosophy unique?

After her 2019 divorce from Jeff Bezos, Scott signed the Giving Pledge, a commitment that extremely affluent people make to give away at least half their wealth.

The pledge’s signatories may write a letter summing up why they are giving so much to charity and what their priorities are, which gets posted to the internet. Scott did that and amended the letter when she remarried. What makes her stand out from others who have signed the Giving Pledge is that she continues to write about her donations and what she’s learning about giving in general. As a historian of philanthropy, I study the philosophies and motivations of donors, which I call their “gospels of giving.”

Her approach is clearly unique among her peers – other billionaire donors – because of how she relates to the organizations she supports and the diversity of those causes. She says her overarching goal is “to support the needs of underrepresented people from groups of all kinds.”

Scott values the expertise of the groups she supports and their leadership. She says she doesn’t adhere to the conventional concept of philanthropy, and she questions the way many of us think about generosity. To her it is not just a numbers game. It’s more about the spirit of giving, the sacrifice in the gift.

One major difference is that very wealthy donors tend to drill down in a single focused area, such as higher education, or a few causes – perhaps the arts or medical research. There are advisers who often recommend this approach to have the most impact.

But the nonprofits she has funded cover pretty much everything charitable donors support, from education to health, from social justice to the arts. Her latest donations even include global organizations like CARE and HIAS that are serving the needs of Ukrainians whose lives have been turned upside down.

Which other gifts stand out?

Some of the largest gifts among the most recently announced are for Girls & Boys Clubs of America, Communities in Schools, Habitat for Humanity and Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

I think it’s important that she didn’t give to only their affiliates in major cities. Foundations have been underinvesting in rural America for years. Scott’s supporting dozens of local and regional affiliates in suburban and rural counties.

As I have explained before, her support for historically Black colleges and universities is important. Two recent gifts that she made, to Meharry Medical College and Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, $20 million apiece, were very significant in light of how elite white donors undercut Black higher ed institutions in the early 20th century.

Does it matter when she publicly discloses information?

Scott posted an update in December 2021 without any details about her latest donations.

Instead, she praised other forms of giving by people without billions to their name. One thing she has drawn attention to is how there’s a lot of informal giving, and that it’s not valued. This puts Scott where the average person is, especially in communities of color, where people look after neighbors and family members regularly in their giving.

Since these are charitable activities you can’t deduct from your taxes, you might not think of these helping behaviors and many forms of civic engagement as philanthropy.

Unlike nearly all donors operating on a big scale, she has no offices and, so far, no website. She’s been criticized for a lack of transparency, especially after she didn’t divulge details in December. This sentiment has to do with the widespread belief that the public has a right to know when private interests spread their resources around for public benefit.

Her blog posts draw attention to trends people might miss regarding the groups she supports. She states the percentage of these organizations that are led by women, people of color or people she says have “lived experience in the regions they support and the issues they seek to address.”

When somebody shows you how they’re thinking about their giving and what they support, that could have an impact on others. It may change whether they donate only to their alma mater, for example. Colleges and museums are used to getting these big gifts, but many of the organizations Scott is giving tens of millions of dollars to say these are the largest donations they’ve ever received. She’s shattering the notion of who is a worthy recipient – the unspoken idea that only the elite institutions and the most well-known are worthy of big gifts.

How does Scott talk about giving that isn’t purely monetary?

For her it’s about generosity, not just dollars. She’s definitely thinking beyond the tax breaks she’ll get for charitable gifts.

Her December 2021 post alludes to volunteering and other activities she calls the “work of practical beneficence” practiced by millions of people, estimating that it’s worth about $1 trillion. Researchers have reached similar conclusions.

She also highlighted the estimated $68 billion in annual global remittances in that post. When people come to this country, begin working and send money to their homelands, that is a form of philanthropy. They may not use the word, but it’s the same idea, because it’s giving back to your family and your country of origin, and it responds to the same motivation as a donation to an established charity.

I agree that there’s much more to American philanthropy than the roughly half a trillion dollars donated annually. There are other kinds of giving that fly below the radar screen that are important for survival, community-building, meeting basic needs and even for democracy.

She also addresses the role and value of using your voice as an important part of social change. The history of the abolition, women’s suffrage, civil rights movements and various movements today bear this out. That is something I focus on in my research. https://www.youtube.com/embed/KS2n7VUBOa0?wmode=transparent&start=0 Historian Tyrone McKinley Freeman joined Bridgid Coulter Cheadle and Kimberly Jeffries Leonard to discuss how Black leaders are following in the footsteps of history’s trailblazers by devoting their time, talent and voice to many causes.

What do you hope the public takes away from Scott’s approach to giving?

Scott has emerged as the most notable practitioner of what’s called trust-based philanthropy. That refers to the notion that there should be fewer strings attached to donations and that reporting requirements and other expectations that often come with grants from foundations can be excessive.

In December 2020, Scott mentioned that she has a team of advisers to help her with screening, although she hasn’t shared what that process looks like. But after that, she is not asking anything else of the organizations she funds. Instead, she has chosen to step back and let them exercise responsibility, giving them space and flexibility.

I hope the public hears her answers to what I like to ask: Who counts as a philanthropist and what counts as philanthropy? I agree with Scott that it’s about more than money and that philanthropy is not only the domain of the wealthy.

Tyrone McKinley Freeman, Associate Professor of Philanthropic Studies, IUPUI

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Related Articles:

Check out Lynxotic on YouTube

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at Bookshop.org

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

News, Observation, Politics

As France and Germany Seize Yachts, UK Accused of Coddling Russian Oligarchs

Video

“We hope that the government will support our amendments which seek to strengthen our ability to hit Russian oligarchs as quickly and effectively as possible,” said one Labour Party lawmaker.

After authorities in France and Germany seized a pair of yachts owned by super-wealthy Russians on Wednesday, pressure is mounting on United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson to follow suit by confiscating the assets of oligarchs linked to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 “It shouldn’t have taken a war to force the British government to act on what had become an international money racket.”

French authorities reportedly seized a superyacht belonging to Igor Sechin—former deputy prime minister of Russia who has been CEO of the state-owned oil company Rosneft since 2012—in the shipyards of La Ciotat.

According to French officials, the 280-foot “Amore Velo” had arrived at the Mediterranean port on January 3 and was slated to remain there until April 1 while undergoing repairs. However, customs officers seized the yacht after they noticed it was “taking steps to sail off urgently” in violation of the European Union’s new sanctions on Russian oligarchs.

In a separate incident on Wednesday, German authorities reportedly seized “Dilbar,” a superyacht owned by Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov. The 512-foot vessel, valued at roughly $600 million, was taken in Hamburg’s shipyards, where it was being worked on.

Sechin and Usmanov were both included in a list, published Monday, of 26 Russian oligarchs who would be subject to E.U. sanctions imposed in response to Moscow’s deadly assault on Ukraine. The document refers to Sechin as one of Putin’s “most trusted and closest advisors, as well as his personal friend,” while Usmanov is described as a “pro-Kremlin oligarch with particularly close ties” to Putin.

The confiscation by France and Germany of some of Sechin and Usmanov’s most prized assets has led critics to demand more far-reaching action from the U.K., which left the E.U. in 2020.

Last week, Johnson, a right-wing Tory, announced that the U.K. would implement “the largest and most severe package of economic sanctions that Russia has ever seen.”

“Oligarchs in London,” said Johnson, “will have nowhere to hide.”

Britain has hit nine wealthy Russians with sanctions since Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine last week, but “Johnson has been accused by opposition politicians and some of his own lawmakers of failing to take more speedy action,” Reuters reported Thursday.

When Damian Hinds, a Tory serving as the U.K.’s national security minister, was asked Thursday if the Cabinet was too “scared” to target Russian elites due to the “legal implications,” Hinds said, “No.”

An unnamed government source told the PA news agency, however, that it could take “weeks and months” to build legally sound cases against some Russian oligarchs. 

According to The Independent, “Johnson is coming under pressure to tighten the net on illicit Russian finance in ‘weeks, not years,’ as officials confirmed that they are aware of wealthy oligarchs moving cash out of the U.K. in advance of expected sanctions.”

London Mayor Sadiq Khan, a member of the Labour Party, urged the government last week to seize assets owned by Putin’s allies, who use London as a “safe harbor… to park their cash.”

Since then, more elected officials, including conservatives, have echoed Khan’s call.

Tom Tugendhat, the Tory chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, said Thursday that “we should be looking immediately to seize those assets linked to those who are profiting from Putin’s war machine, holding it in trust, and returning it to the Russian people as soon as possible.”

In a Washington Post opinion piece published Tuesday, British journalist Hannah Fearn wrote that “it shouldn’t have taken a war to force the British government to act on what had become an international money racket.”

According to the Post, “Russian money is so ubiquitous, so notorious in Britain’s capital city that the global financial hub was long ago nicknamed “‘Londongrad.'”

While mega-rich tax dodgers from around the globe have dumped billions into London’s real estate market—inflating property values and exacerbating an affordable housing crisis—anti-corruption researchers have called the city a “laundromat” for Russia’s dirty money, in particular.

As The Independent reported:

Labour has tabled amendments to the government’s Economic Crimes Bill to require the true ownership of properties to be registered within 28 days rather than 18 months.

Sir Keir Starmer—who has offered Labour’s help to rush the long-awaited legislation through the Commons in a single day on Monday—told the prime minister that the proposed delay would give cronies of Vladimir Putin plenty of time to “quietly launder their money… into another safe haven.”

In a recent letter to Kwasi Kwarteng, a Tory serving as the U.K.’s business secretary, Labour Party parliamentarian Jonathan Reynolds wrote: “In the spirit of ending malign influence in our economy we hope that the government will support our amendments which seek to strengthen our ability to hit Russian oligarchs as quickly and effectively as possible.”

“Much more must be done to stop the movement to oligarchy not just in Russia, but all over the world.”

According to the prime minister’s official spokesperson, “We are not being held back from introducing sanctions.” But, he said, “we do have laws that we need to abide by” when it comes to implementing economic restrictions.

“When it comes to individuals it is the case that we need to do the preparatory work, the requisite work, to make sure it is legally sound before introduction,” said the spokesperson, who added that “if there are ways to further speed it up then we will.”

Meanwhile, in the U.S., members of Congress cheered Tuesday night when President Joe Biden said during his State of the Union address that “we’re joining with European allies to find and seize [Russian oligarchs’] yachts, their luxury apartments, their private jets. We’re coming for your ill-begotten gains.”

Several Russian elites have reportedly moved their yachts to the Maldives, which lacks an extradition treaty with the U.S., in anticipation of a possible crackdown.

Some progressives have called for confiscating all luxury vessels owned by billionaires, not just those close to Putin, while others have demanded urgent action to combat worsening inequality all over the globe.

“None of these oligarchs should be allowed to park their yachts, fly their jets, sleep in their mansions, or stash their cash offshore during the war in Ukraine,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Tuesday. “But much more must be done to stop the movement to oligarchy not just in Russia, but all over the world.”

Originally published on Common Dreams by KENNY STANCIL and republished under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Related Articles:

!function(d,i){if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(“script”);j.id=i;j.src=”https://widgets.getpocket.com/v1/j/btn.js?v=1″;var w=d.getElementById(i);d.body.appendChild(j);}}(document,”pocket-btn-js”);

Check out Lynxotic on YouTube

Enjoy Lynxotic at Google News and Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

Business, Economics, Finance

The Ultrawealthy Have Hijacked Roth IRAs. The Senate Finance Chair Is Eyeing a Crackdown.

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic / Adobe Stock

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden said on Thursday he is revisiting proposed legislation that would crack down on the giant tax-free retirement accounts amassed by the ultrawealthy after a ProPublica story exposed that billionaires were shielding fortunes inside them.

“I feel very strongly that the IRA was designed to provide retirement security to working people and their families, and not be yet another tax dodge that allows mega millionaires and billionaires to avoid paying taxes,” Wyden said in an interview.

Originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.Series: The Secret IRS Files Inside the Tax Records of the .001%

ProPublica reported Thursday that the Roth IRA, a retirement vehicle originally intended to spur middle-class savings, was being hijacked by the ultrawealthy and used to create giant onshore tax shelters. Tax records obtained by ProPublica revealed that Peter Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal and an investor in Facebook, had a Roth IRA worth $5 billion as of 2019. Under the rules for the accounts, if he waits till he turns 59 and a half, he can withdraw money from the account tax-free.

The story is part of ProPublica’s ongoing series on how the country’s richest citizens sidestep the nation’s income tax system. ProPublica has obtained a trove of IRS tax return data on thousands of the wealthiest people in the U.S., covering more than 15 years. The records have allowed ProPublica to begin, this month, an unprecedented exploration of the tax-avoidance strategies available to the ultrawealthy, allowing them to avoid taxes in ways most Americans can’t.

Wyden said ProPublica’s stories have shifted the debate about taxes at the grassroots level, underscoring a “double standard” that would have a nurse in Medford, Oregon, dutifully paying taxes “with every single paycheck” while the wealthiest Americans “just defer, defer, defer paying their taxes almost until perpetuity.”

Wyden said, “Now, the American people are with us on the proposition that everybody ought to pay their fair share, and in that sense, the debate about taxes has really changed a lot.”

The focus on recouping lost tax revenue comes at a critical time, Wyden and others say, as lawmakers look for ways to fund President Joe Biden’s infrastructure plan and other domestic spending.

Wyden had worried for years that Roth IRAs were being abused by the ultrawealthy. In 2016, he put forth a proposal that would have reined in the amount of money that could be stowed inside them.

“If I had my way back in 2016, my bill would have passed, there would have been a crackdown on these massive Roth IRA accounts built on assets from sweetheart deals,” Wyden said.

The proposal was known as the Retirement Improvements and Savings Enhancements Act. It would have required owners of Roth accounts worth more than $5 million to take out money over time, capping the accounts’ growth. It also would have slammed shut a back door that allowed the wealthy to move fortunes into Roths from less favorable retirement accounts. This maneuver, known as a conversion, allows a taxpayer to transform a traditional IRA into a Roth after paying a one-time tax.

Ted Weschler, a deputy of Warren Buffett at Berkshire Hathaway, told ProPublica he supported reforms to rein in giant Roth IRAs like his. Weschler’s account hit the $264.4 million mark in 2018 after he converted a whopping $130 million and paid a one-time tax years earlier, according to tax records obtained by ProPublica.

In a statement to ProPublica earlier this week, Weschler didn’t address any specific reform plan but said: “Although I have been an enormous beneficiary of the IRA mechanism, I personally do not feel the tax shield afforded me by my IRA is necessarily good tax policy. To this end, I am openly supportive of modifying the benefit afforded to retirement accounts once they exceed a certain threshold.”

Wyden’s proposal also targeted the stuffing of undervalued assets into Roths, which congressional investigators had flagged as the foundation of many large accounts. Under the Wyden draft bill, purchasing an asset for less than fair market value would strip the tax benefits from the entire IRA.

ProPublica’s investigation showed that Thiel purchased founder’s shares of the company that would become PayPal at $0.001 per share in 1999. At that price, he was able to buy 1.7 million shares and still fall below the $2,000 maximum contribution limit Congress had set at the time for Roth IRAs. PayPal later disclosed in an SEC filing that those shares, and others issued that year, were sold at “below fair value.”

A spokesperson for Thiel accepted detailed questions on Thiel’s behalf last week, then never responded to phone calls or emails.

The RISE Act was never introduced because, Wyden said, Republicans controlled the Senate at the time and made clear they opposed the effort. The proposal was also heartily opposed by promoters of nontraditional retirement investments. One of them wrote, at the time: “Everything about the RISE Act Proposal is opposed to capitalism and economic freedom.”

Following ProPublica’s story on Roths, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said the way to address the gargantuan accounts would be a wealth tax, which would impose an annual levy on households with a net worth over $50 million.

Warren tweeted a link to the story and wrote: “Yes, our tax system is rigged with loopholes and tax shelters for billionaires like Peter Thiel. And stories like this will keep popping up until we pass a simple #WealthTax on assets over $50 million to make these guys pay their fair share.”

Daniel Hemel, a tax law professor at the University of Chicago who has been researching large Roths, said that Congress should simply prohibit IRAs from purchasing assets that are not bought and sold on the public market.

“There’s no reason people should be able to be gambling their retirement assets on pre-IPO stocks,” Hemel said.

He added that lawmakers should go beyond reforms targeting the accounts directly and address a potential estate tax dodge related to Roths.

If the holder of a large Roth dies, the retirement account is considered part of the taxable estate, and a significant tax is due. But, Hemel said, there’s nothing to stop an American who has amassed a giant Roth from renouncing their citizenship and moving abroad to a country with no estate taxes. It’s rare, but not unheard of, for the ultrawealthy to renounce their U.S. citizenship to avoid taxes.

Under federal law, U.S. citizens who renounce their citizenship are taxed that day on assets that have risen in value but are not yet sold. But there’s an exception for certain kinds of assets, Hemel said, including Roth retirement accounts.

Thiel acquired citizenship in New Zealand in 2011. Unlike the United States, New Zealand has no estate tax. It’s not clear whether estate taxes figured into Thiel’s decision.

A spokesperson for Thiel did not immediately respond to questions on Friday about whether estate taxes factored into Thiel’s decision to become a New Zealand citizen.

In his application for citizenship, Thiel wrote to a government minister: “I have long admired the people, culture, business environment and government of New Zealand, as well as the encouragement which is given to investment, business and trade in New Zealand.”

Patching the hole in the expatriation law, Hemel said, “should be a top policy priority because we’re talking about, with Thiel alone, billions of dollars of taxes.”

by Justin Elliott, Patricia Callahan and James Bandler for ProPublica via Creative Commons.

Recent Articles:

Find books on Business, Money, Finance and Economics and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

Breaking News, Business, Finance, Observation, Politics, Social Media, Tech

Peter Thiel’s $5 Billion Bombshell: Hubris and Hypocrisy Beyond all Imagining

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic

ProPublica drops a second monumental article based on treasure trove of IRS, SEC & court data

Excellent reporting of tax injustices among the obscenely rich continues with a huge and revelatory piece on Peter Thiel and his “little” Roth IRA scheme. Going well beyond the previous article that detailed how Bezos, Musk, Buffet and others all use loans secured with share holdings to avoid income, and thus avoid paying tax the “Lord of the Roths” is even more explosive.

While the emphasis of the article on Thiel’s Roth IRA takes on the task of trying to somehow compare an “average” investor’s potential gains with the unimaginable magnitude of Thiel’s windfall, this is something that makes sense as a valid perspective, but the obscenity is nearly lost in the opaque fog of numbers beyond comprehension.

For example: your Peter is basically gifted 1.7 million shares by the company he was one of the founders of (along with Elon Musk and the rest of the so called “PayPal Mafia). That “purchase” costing less than $2000 based on the ridiculous price of $0.001 per share was used to found a Roth IRA.

The engineered numbers were no accident: at the time, in 1999, a Roth IRA account had a maximum allowable contribution amount of $2,000. Since the shares were “below fair value”, the fact of which was admitted by PayPal in an SEC filing from the time just before the company went public, the value increased massively, by 227,490% in the first year. Which increased the value of the paltry $2k up to $3.8 million.

buy The Age of Surveillance Capitalism from Lynxotic

Though obviously not enforced, regulations at the time forbade this kind of “stuffing”. Meaning, the initial trade that launched this scheme was possibly illegitimate, if not unlawful. Or, as ProPublica more kindly phrased it: “Investors aren’t allowed to buy assets for less than their true value through an IRA. “

As a matter of fact, according to the article, the “stuffing” was so successful that no further contributions were ever made into the account after that initial 1999 sum.

Since a Roth IRA allows a person to trade stocks within the account tax free, as long as no withdrawals are made, this large but still comprehensible sum was the start of a 20 year use of the tax statutes to build a fortune of over $5 billion without paying a single penny in tax.

Hitting $870 million in value by 2008, by 2019 the tax free enterprise, built on the less than $2000 initial contribution (stock “purchase”), ultimately ballooned to 96 sub-accounts with holdings of $5 billion.

Ok, so that’s the short summary of the mind blowing numbers. For a more detailed account, by all means visit the original article.

The numbers are outrageous, but the entitlement and arrogance is on a whole other level

The part of the story that should spark outrage is not in the numbers but begins where the almost inhuman greed, hubris and hypocrisy at this good fortune grows apace with the size of the tax free bonanza. Because Peter Tiel is not just any run-of-the-mill untaxed billionaire.

The endlessly expanding windfall he received, tax free, did not engender a mindset of charity or gratefulness at his miraculous providence.

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic

Instead Thiel, once the wealth lent him a position of power, preached and pushed the idea that the US government, the same one that he was able to avoid paying taxes to, was guilty of over-taxing people like him (and poor people too).

He spent millions of dollars in an effort to influence Republican politicians and groups that have anti-tax agendas, to change the laws in ways that would add even more advantages to his already preposterously privileged position. Then this: as per ProPublica: “In 2016, he became the rare Silicon Valley titan to endorse Donald Trump.”

And, in an arrogance that is as incomprehensible as the size his effortlessly expanding fortune, he espouses the belief that people like him are entitled to these kind of spoils because, after all, without him we might have to live without PayPal and….wait for it…. Facebook.

Yes, you heard that right. In 2004, Thiel used his IRA to buy $500,000 worth of shares in a, then private, company called Facebook, which was the first big outside investment in Zuckerberg’s soon to be massive monstrosity.

By using his IRA funds to buy shares of the start-up he was able to avoid tax on all the future gains of those shares. (ProPublica, in excellent investigative reporting, uncovered this tidbit by combing though Facebook court documents).

So, again, ostensibly, based on his well known statements, we are not only to congratulate him on his clever method of avoiding any taxation whatsoever on the first gambit with the PayPal shares, but we ought to effusively thank him for helping Facebook to become the dangerous purveyor of surveillance and phantom tollbooth Ponzi empire that is it today?

In perhaps one of the greatest illustrations of how power corrupts, this idea that because he was able to amass a fortune on such a massive scale without the burden of any tax whatsoever, he is somehow a hero to be emulated, is the real reason for us to be outraged.

That an average person might be lucky to turn $2000 into $250,000 over two decades, as was illustrated in detail in the article, while Thiel easily turned it into $5 billion, is outrageous, yes.

But the real “crime” is that it was done with zero benefit to anyone except him and other Silicon Valley insiders at companies like PayPal and Facebook.

Could it be argued that Facebook is a gift to humanity? Well, in 2021 that would be a tough argument to put forth without being laughed out of the room. And PayPal? It’s doubtful that Satoshi Nakamoto has to fear competition from any of the PayPal Mafia (including Mr. Musk) when the crown for greatest financial innovator of the century is awarded.

In a revelation that could have received more page inches, the article also exposes a second, possibly more plausible reason, regarding why Thiel went to great lengths to bankrupt Gawker Media, which he blamed for outing him as Gay. That politically convenient motivation could very well have covered up the real reason:

Again, as per ProPublica:

“In a story headlined, “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Taxpayer Money,” Gawker Media, citing anonymous sources, revealed that Thiel held his Facebook investment in a tax-free Roth.”

Companies built on greed and hubris create nothing and, in the end, die

Thiel believes he will live to be 120 years old. Based on his comments and writings he appears to believe that the world would benefit from that eventuality.

But when looking at the companies he helped to build, and the obscene fortune he was rewarded with for binging them into being, it seems like most of us, after accessing his life’s works and “accomplishments”, would be more thankful for the improbability of that dream coming true.

2087? That will be the year that either Utopia or Oblivion will have arrived for humanity and the planet earth. If by a miracle an earthly Utopia comes to be, it is highly unlikely that PayPal, Facebook or Mr. Thiel will have had any hand in bringing it about.

Related Stories from around the web:

Related Articles:

Find books on Music, Movies & Entertainment and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac 

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page

Business, Finance, Tech

Elon Musk rips off title ‘World’s Richest Man’ from Jeff Bezos: Net worth $180 billion

Above: Photo Collage / Lynxotic

Bezos knocked from #1 slot that he has held since 2017

According to Bloomberg, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX just passed up Jeff Bezos as the world’s richest person. While this, in and of itself is a fact that many will likely fetishize, the real story here is why and how.

There could not, IMHO, be two people more diametrically opposed in terms of motivation, inspiration and method. Both obscenely rich now? Of course. In each case because of stock holdings in companies they founded? Right again.

After that it is all a study in contrasts and contradictions. For example, as recently as Christmas eve 20o8 Elon Musk was nearly bankrupt and was on the verge of losing both SpaceX and Tesla. Later as recently as 2019, Tesla was in a deep financial hole.

Was this a case of bad management? Apparently not. What it was related to was the prime difference between Bezos and Musk. Musk has always only had one mission. Was it having the world’s most dominant eCommerce company? (or any other kind). One that would destroy entire business categories and be called the “grim reaper” due to it’s destruction of markets and competitors?

No – Musk has always wanted to save the world from itself. Tesla’s stated official mission is:

Tesla’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy. … Teslabelieves the faster the world stops relying on fossil fuels and moves towards a zero-emission future, the better.

Tesla / Elon Musk

Perhaps the cynical would say this is just some kind of veil hiding a capitalist and monopolist hunger a la Bezos. But they’d be wrong. Musk has openly stated that he is willing to share various proprietary technical information with his competitors if it would help the world’s transition to sustainable energy succeed faster. Would Bezos give away Amazon’s secrets. Take a guess.

Read more: Is Jeff Bezos soon to be World’s First Trillionaire? No Chance in Hell. Here’s Why

Another interesting tidbit – Both SpaceX and Tesla have publicly disavowed all copyright claims to their photos, videos or other marketing assets. They also do zero paid advertising. This is brilliant and has made them money in the end, but more importantly it is additional proof that it is the success of the mission, a mission that ultimately benefits all humanity more than any singe individual, that is paramount in his thinking.

Though Musk may not realize it, he and Steve Jobs are kindred spirits

The only other highly successful tech visionary that had this kind of focus on the real success, which can by definition only ever be success for all, if Steve Jobs. With so much misinformation and focus on meaningless stats, like whose stock is worth the most paper dollars (printed at will by the Fed) at any given moment, it is often misunderstood that the mission and the sincerity and effectiveness of the mission that will always matter in the end.

Read more: How Apple Created the Tech Universe and it Finally Makes Sense

Probably the greatest gift Bezos ever has or ever will give to humanity was via his divorce. Any other “charitable” act he will ever commit will be, first and foremost, have the goal of improving his image and stroking his massive ego.

Therein lies the difference.

Early Thursday Tesla shares (TSLA) rose by 6%, and further lifting the CEO’s stock holdings and options by $10 billion, resulting in the net worth of approximately $191 billion.  

Musk edged past the Amazon founder who is currently has the net worth of around $187 billion. 

He later added, “Well, back to work …”

Musk, who pinned the following past tweet from 2018 explained his intentions and how he will use money from his success, “You should ask why I would want money. The reason is not what you think. Very little time for recreation. Don’t have vacation homes or yachts or anything like that.”

Bill Gates is trailing as the third world’s richest person at $132 billion. 

SUBSCRIBE

Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.

Find books on  Big Tech,  Politics, and many other topics at our sister site: Cherrybooks on Bookshop.org

Enjoy Lynxotic at Apple News on your iPhone, iPad or Mac.

Lynxotic may receive a small commission based on any purchases made by following links from this page.