blog banner
The way we think about charity is dead wrong | Dan Pallotta

The way we think about charity is dead wrong | Dan Pallotta

Translator: Joseph Geni
Reviewer: Morton Bast I want to talk about social innovation and social entrepreneurship. I happen to have triplets. They’re little. They’re five years old. Sometimes I tell people I have triplets.
They say, “Really? How many?” (Laughter) Here’s a picture of the kids —
that’s Sage, and Annalisa and Rider. Now, I also happen to be gay. Being gay and fathering triplets is by far the most socially innovative,
socially entrepreneurial thing I have ever done. (Laughter) (Applause) The real social innovation I want
to talk about involves charity. I want to talk about how the things
we’ve been taught to think about giving and about charity and about the nonprofit sector, are actually undermining
the causes we love, and our profound yearning
to change the world. But before I do that,
I want to ask if we even believe that the nonprofit sector
has any serious role to play in changing the world. A lot of people say now that business
will lift up the developing economies, and social business
will take care of the rest. And I do believe that business will move
the great mass of humanity forward. But it always leaves behind
that 10 percent or more that is most disadvantaged or unlucky. And social business needs markets, and there are some issues
for which you just can’t develop the kind of money measures
that you need for a market. I sit on the board of a center
for the developmentally disabled, and these people want laughter and compassion and they want love. How do you monetize that? And that’s where the nonprofit sector
and philanthropy come in. Philanthropy is the market for love. It is the market for all those people for whom there is no other market coming. And so if we really want,
like Buckminster Fuller said, a world that works for everyone, with no one and nothing left out, then the nonprofit sector has to be a serious part of the conversation. But it doesn’t seem to be working. Why have our breast cancer
charities not come close to finding a cure for breast cancer, or our homeless charities not come close to ending homelessness in any major city? Why has poverty remained stuck at 12 percent of the U.S.
population for 40 years? And the answer is, these social problems
are massive in scale, our organizations
are tiny up against them, and we have a belief system
that keeps them tiny. We have two rulebooks. We have one for the nonprofit sector, and one for the rest
of the economic world. It’s an apartheid, and it discriminates against the nonprofit sector
in five different areas, the first being compensation. So in the for-profit sector,
the more value you produce, the more money you can make. But we don’t like nonprofits to use money to incentivize people
to produce more in social service. We have a visceral reaction
to the idea that anyone would make very much money
helping other people. Interestingly, we don’t have
a visceral reaction to the notion that people
would make a lot of money not helping other people. You know, you want to make
50 million dollars selling violent video games
to kids, go for it. We’ll put you on the cover
of Wired magazine. But you want to make
half a million dollars trying to cure kids of malaria, and you’re considered a parasite yourself. (Applause) And we think of this
as our system of ethics, but what we don’t realize
is that this system has a powerful side effect, which is: It gives a really stark,
mutually exclusive choice between doing very well
for yourself and your family or doing good for the world, to the brightest minds
coming out of our best universities, and sends tens of thousands of people who could make a huge difference
in the nonprofit sector, marching every year
directly into the for-profit sector because they’re not willing to make
that kind of lifelong economic sacrifice. Businessweek did a survey,
looked at the compensation packages for MBAs 10 years out of business school. And the median compensation
for a Stanford MBA, with bonus, at the age of 38,
was 400,000 dollars. Meanwhile, for the same year,
the average salary for the CEO of a $5 million-plus
medical charity in the U.S. was 232,000 dollars,
and for a hunger charity, 84,000 dollars. Now, there’s no way you’re
going to get a lot of people with $400,000 talent to make
a $316,000 sacrifice every year to become the CEO of a hunger charity. Some people say, “Well, that’s just
because those MBA types are greedy.” Not necessarily. They might be smart. It’s cheaper for that person to donate 100,000 dollars every year
to the hunger charity; save 50,000 dollars on their taxes — so still be roughly 270,000 dollars
a year ahead of the game — now be called a philanthropist
because they donated 100,000 dollars to charity; probably sit on the board
of the hunger charity; indeed, probably supervise the poor SOB who decided to become the CEO
of the hunger charity; (Laughter) and have a lifetime
of this kind of power and influence and popular praise still ahead of them. The second area of discrimination
is advertising and marketing. So we tell the for-profit sector,
“Spend, spend, spend on advertising, until the last dollar no longer
produces a penny of value.” But we don’t like to see our donations
spent on advertising in charity. Our attitude is, “Well, look,
if you can get the advertising donated, you know, to air at four o’clock
in the morning, I’m okay with that. But I don’t want my donation
spent on advertising, I want it go to the needy.” As if the money invested in advertising could not bring in dramatically
greater sums of money to serve the needy. In the 1990s, my company created the long-distance
AIDSRide bicycle journeys, and the 60 mile-long
breast cancer three-day walks, and over the course of nine years, we had 182,000 ordinary
heroes participate, and they raised a total
of 581 million dollars. (Applause) They raised more money
more quickly for these causes than any events in history, all based on the idea
that people are weary of being asked to do the least
they can possibly do. People are yearning to measure
the full distance of their potential on behalf of the causes
that they care about deeply. But they have to be asked. We got that many people to participate by buying full-page ads
in The New York Times, in The Boston Globe, in prime time
radio and TV advertising. Do you know how many people
we would’ve gotten if we put up fliers in the laundromat? Charitable giving has remained stuck
in the U.S., at two percent of GDP, ever since we started
measuring it in the 1970s. That’s an important fact,
because it tells us that in 40 years, the nonprofit sector has not been able
to wrestle any market share away from the for-profit sector. And if you think about it,
how could one sector possibly take market share
away from another sector if it isn’t really allowed to market? And if we tell the consumer brands, “You may advertise
all the benefits of your product,” but we tell charities, “You cannot
advertise all the good that you do,” where do we think the consumer
dollars are going to flow? The third area of discrimination
is the taking of risk in pursuit of new ideas
for generating revenue. So Disney can make a new
$200 million movie that flops, and nobody calls the attorney general. But you do a little $1 million
community fundraiser for the poor, and it doesn’t produce a 75 percent profit
to the cause in the first 12 months, and your character
is called into question. So nonprofits are really reluctant
to attempt any brave, daring, giant-scale
new fundraising endeavors, for fear that if the thing fails, their reputations will be dragged
through the mud. Well, you and I know when you prohibit failure,
you kill innovation. If you kill innovation in fundraising,
you can’t raise more revenue; if you can’t raise more revenue,
you can’t grow; and if you can’t grow, you can’t
possibly solve large social problems. The fourth area is time. So Amazon went for six years
without returning any profit to investors, and people had patience. They knew that there was a long-term
objective down the line, of building market dominance. But if a nonprofit organization
ever had a dream of building magnificent scale
that required that for six years, no money was going to go to the needy, it was all going to be invested
in building this scale, we would expect a crucifixion. The last area is profit itself. So the for-profit sector
can pay people profits in order to attract their capital
for their new ideas, but you can’t pay profits
in a nonprofit sector, so the for-profit sector has a lock on the multi-trillion-dollar
capital markets, and the nonprofit sector is starved
for growth and risk and idea capital. Well, you put those
five things together — you can’t use money to lure talent
away from the for-profit sector; you can’t advertise
on anywhere near the scale the for-profit sector
does for new customers; you can’t take the kinds of risks
in pursuit of those customers that the for-profit sector takes; you don’t have the same amount of time
to find them as the for-profit sector; and you don’t have a stock market
with which to fund any of this, even if you could do it
in the first place — and you’ve just put the nonprofit sector at an extreme disadvantage
to the for-profit sector, on every level. If we have any doubts about the effects
of this separate rule book, this statistic is sobering: From 1970 to 2009, the number of nonprofits that really grew, that crossed the $50 million
annual revenue barrier, is 144. In the same time, the number
of for-profits that crossed it is 46,136. So we’re dealing with social problems
that are massive in scale, and our organizations
can’t generate any scale. All of the scale goes
to Coca-Cola and Burger King. So why do we think this way? Well, like most fanatical
dogma in America, these ideas come from old Puritan beliefs. The Puritans came here
for religious reasons, or so they said, but they also came here because
they wanted to make a lot of money. They were pious people, but they were also
really aggressive capitalists, and they were accused of extreme forms
of profit-making tendencies, compared to the other colonists. But at the same time,
the Puritans were Calvinists, so they were taught literally
to hate themselves. They were taught
that self-interest was a raging sea that was a sure path to eternal damnation. This created a real problem
for these people. Here they’ve come all the way across
the Atlantic to make all this money, but making all this money
will get you sent directly to Hell. What were they to do about this? Well, charity became their answer. It became this economic sanctuary, where they could do penance
for their profit-making tendencies — at five cents on the dollar. So of course, how could you
make money in charity if charity was your penance
for making money? Financial incentive was exiled
from the realm of helping others, so that it could thrive in the area
of making money for yourself, and in 400 years, nothing has intervened to say, “That’s counterproductive
and that’s unfair.” Now, this ideology gets policed
by this one very dangerous question, which is, “What percentage of my donation
goes to the cause versus overhead?” There are a lot of problems
with this question. I’m going to just focus on two. First, it makes us think
that overhead is a negative, that it is somehow not part of the cause. But it absolutely is, especially
if it’s being used for growth. Now, this idea that overhead
is somehow an enemy of the cause creates this second, much larger problem, which is, it forces organizations
to go without the overhead things they really need to grow, in the interest of keeping overhead low. So we’ve all been taught
that charities should spend as little as possible on overhead
things like fundraising under the theory that, well, the less
money you spend on fundraising, the more money there is
available for the cause. Well, that’s true
if it’s a depressing world in which this pie cannot
be made any bigger. But if it’s a logical world
in which investment in fundraising actually raises more funds
and makes the pie bigger, then we have it precisely backwards, and we should be investing more money,
not less, in fundraising, because fundraising is the one thing that has the potential
to multiply the amount of money available for the cause
that we care about so deeply. I’ll give you two examples. We launched the AIDSRides with an initial investment
of 50,000 dollars in risk capital. Within nine years,
we had multiplied that 1,982 times, into 108 million dollars
after all expenses, for AIDS services. We launched the breast cancer three-days with an initial investment
of 350,000 dollars in risk capital. Within just five years,
we had multiplied that 554 times, into 194 million dollars
after all expenses, for breast cancer research. Now, if you were a philanthropist
really interested in breast cancer, what would make more sense: go out and find the most innovative
researcher in the world and give her 350,000 dollars for research, or give her fundraising
department the 350,000 dollars to multiply it into 194 million dollars
for breast cancer research? 2002 was our most successful year ever. We netted for breast cancer
alone, that year alone, 71 million dollars after all expenses. And then we went out of business, suddenly and traumatically. Why? Well, the short story is,
our sponsors split on us. They wanted to distance themselves from us because we were being
crucified in the media for investing 40 percent
of the gross in recruitment and customer service
and the magic of the experience, and there is no accounting
terminology to describe that kind of investment
in growth and in the future, other than this demonic
label of “overhead.” So on one day, all 350
of our great employees lost their jobs … because they were labeled “overhead.” Our sponsor went and tried
the events on their own. The overhead went up. Net income for breast cancer research
went down by 84 percent, or 60 million dollars, in one year. This is what happens when we confuse
morality with frugality. We’ve all been taught that the bake sale
with five percent overhead is morally superior to the professional
fundraising enterprise with 40 percent overhead, but we’re missing the most important
piece of information, which is: What is the actual size of these pies? Who cares if the bake sale only has
five percent overhead if it’s tiny? What if the bake sale
only netted 71 dollars for charity because it made no investment in its scale and the professional
fundraising enterprise netted 71 million dollars because it did? Now which pie would we prefer, and which pie do we think people
who are hungry would prefer? Here’s how all of this
impacts the big picture. I said that charitable giving is
two percent of GDP in the United States. That’s about 300 billion dollars a year. But only about 20 percent of that,
or 60 billion dollars, goes to health and human services causes. The rest goes to religion
and higher education and hospitals, and that 60 billion dollars
is not nearly enough to tackle these problems. But if we could move charitable giving
from two percent of GDP, up just one step to three percent of GDP,
by investing in that growth, that would be an extra 150 billion dollars
a year in contributions, and if that money
could go disproportionately to health and human services charities, because those were the ones we encouraged
to invest in their growth, that would represent a tripling
of contributions to that sector. Now we’re talking scale. Now we’re talking the potential
for real change. But it’s never going to happen
by forcing these organizations to lower their horizons to the demoralizing objective
of keeping their overhead low. Our generation does not want
its epitaph to read, “We kept charity overhead low.” (Laughter) (Applause) We want it to read
that we changed the world, and that part of the way we did that was by changing the way
we think about these things. So the next time
you’re looking at a charity, don’t ask about the rate
of their overhead. Ask about the scale of their dreams, their Apple-, Google-,
Amazon-scale dreams, how they measure their progress
toward those dreams, and what resources they need
to make them come true, regardless of what the overhead is. Who cares what the overhead is if these problems
are actually getting solved? If we can have that kind of generosity — a generosity of thought — then the non-profit sector
can play a massive role in changing the world
for all those citizens most desperately in need of it to change. And if that can be
our generation’s enduring legacy — that we took responsibility for the thinking that had
been handed down to us, that we revisited it, we revised it, and we reinvented the whole way
humanity thinks about changing things, forever, for everyone — well, I thought I would let
the kids sum up what that would be. Annalisa Smith-Pallotta: That would be Sage Smith-Pallotta: a real social Rider Smith-Pallotta: innovation. Dan Pallotta: Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause) Thank you. (Applause)

  • please help the cause, even if you just read the story it'll be greatly appreciated 🙂

  • Charities organizations are naught but professional beggers! There is no such things a free lunch! Jobs, tech solutions, researchs, investments… No charities! Ever! Not even leftover food!

  • Its a bit confusing. I stopped donating for big charities when I learned that their CEOs were earning millions of $$$. Unlike corporations, charities are not taxed.

  • Thank you very much for this amazing eye opener. It has inspired me to try to create a new "business/charity" model (25 years of experience in finance) in Switzerland where the laws are favorable for charity organisations. If it becomes alive I will definitely let you know and explain it to you, if you are interested of course.

  • Very thought provoking and overall I really appreciate Dan Pallotta’s thinking in this video.

    I have always thought about what a disadvantage charities are at when it comes to attracting the best talent based on limited compensation opportunities.   But I never really thought about the other macro goal that Dan talks about which is the scale of the money charities can raise and put to work being a primary goal.  I am almost embarrassed about that.  Current thinking about charities really does hold them back from huge potential for delivering goodness to society. 

    However, my quandary with this perspective lies in the huge potential for abuse.  In the business world, you have to strike a balance and accountably produce results for your customers, employees and investors, or your business fails.  So you have lots of market pressures or eyes on how you operate.  While this three way balance is not 100% perfect for accountability, it has proven to be very good and stood the test of time.  In a charitable world as Dan describes, employees probably act similar to the business world and stay committed to the cause as long as their personal situation is fair and they see organizational success, so that could be one accountability pillar. But the balance gets tipped over as the “customers” would likely be pretty silent as they really cannot vote by going elsewhere, and also investors being highly accountable to their stakeholders would be very skeptical and probably take an awful long time to ramp up.  Government is not a viable potential balance force either in my opinion as too many of them are very inefficient or even corrupt.  An African charity which I helped raise a lot of money for, and the Haitian government are just a couple of thousands of examples.

    For Dan’s vision to become a reality at least one or hopefully two more market accountability forces in addition to employees would need to be brought into play.  I am not sure what they would be at the moment.  Hopefully others have some good ideas on this.

  • Betty-the Kidney:_ being born disabled + becoming disabled thru negligence of another person Are entirely different notions financially, when I refer to "Certain Expectations".

  • The problem isn't that charity bosses are paid too little (they are paid too MUCH), but that the private sector allows people to be paid too much too. Some people being paid too much (whether in for-profit or non-profit jobs) is WHY there IS NEED in the first place. A BAD distribution of resources. This guy is a moron.

  • Interesting but…
    Does advertising make the donation 'pie' bigger or just help that individual charity get a larger slice of existing pie (minus the advertising costs)?
    Here's an idea. How about 1 million bake sales raising the same size pie with 35% saving (24.85M) in overhead costs and spreading that 'magical feeling' around, and everyone who donates gets a cake? Works for me.
    Please do a follow up on the Clinton foundation, Red Cross and Haiti and how higher administrative costs would have improved the outcome for Haitians.
    "Philanthropy is the market for love", seriously? I thought that was the red light district, just ask Oxfam.


  • I'm skint and living on jobseekers allowance, if anyone could help me with a little bit of money it would go a long way, please please please donate me some Bitcoin Cash so I can pull myself out of this vicious poverty cycle:


  • Great talk that seems spot on to me. However, your suggestions are not actionable. We need to go after the organizations such as Charity Star and others who give the charity ratings. Yes, individuals can change but it will be much more effective if we could drive change through the influencers of giving.

  • watch waht happend wehn we went with resla to fayum???

  • So how does my small nursing home raise money to get goods and services provided for the ones that can't get it themselves?

    What about the small markets?

  • i think the problem is that people associate "overhead" with "corruption", they dont realise that ecuipmet is needed, manpower, growth, and of course advertising is needed for them to actually help people.

  • ABSOLUTELY DO NOT GIVE ANY MONEY TO CHARITY. Why? Until their accounts are FULLY transparent and VIEWABLE just like a limited company, ALL charity is a money pit for swindlers. For example:-

    BAD CHARITY:- Chairman or Executives have Mercedes, BMW or Audi company cars wasting tax payers money – when a Ford or Japanese Car would be half the cost and just as reliable.

    BAD CHARITY:- Adverts laden with famous people who 9 times out of 10 are paid loads for the advert. Also charities who BLANKET the TV with adverts. Spending money that could be used for good causes.

    BAD CHARITY:- A charity who keeps MILLIONS in the bank.

    BAD CHARITY:- A charity that does NOT disclose EVERY financial dealing and accounts.

    WORST OF ALL IS THE HIDDEN CON. When a council runs a tender for contract – it is PUBLICLY viewable on request. A Charity is not. So for example – you have a charity that needs transport. Lorries or Vans etc. You open the contract bidding. But you have a friend (or even your own company) in the transport business. So you give your friend insider information enabling him to gain the contract. At the same time, you increase the amount he gets paid, and at the same time he gives you untraceable money or assets as a thank you. NONE OF THIS IS VIEWABLE TO THE PUBLIC OR IS ACCOUNTABLE. And you could do the SAME rip off scam with Food and any other supplies. THERE ARE NO VAT OR TAX CHECKS MADE.

    Charities ARE rip offs. And do NOT fall for those 'websites' which say 96% of the charities money goes into good causes. As shown by the con above – it is very VERY easy to rip off charities for your own means.

    Untill ALL the wages / company cars / perks of the top staff are made public – DO NOT GIVE. Until ALL contracts made for the charity are made public – DO NOT GIVE. Until charities are audited as STRICTLY as councils or limited companies – DO NOT GIVE.

  • 1. Making money under any non profit or NGO is a question of ethics specially if they are taking donation from people or organizations to run the NGOs. If the intent is to pocket money from Donner, it will raise concern. As a Donner, I want to see at least 92% -95% of my donation towards the cause and 5 -8% towards admin. If that because a low priority or not even in equation, why should any Donner pay. When charity takes money, they are are answerable to people whom they take money from.

    2nd – it is hard to differentiate who is truly working for a cause and who is using cause to put money in their pocket.
    See this CNN report about fraud in charities –

    3rd – If I take vedic view (e.g. Bhagavad Gita) / Spiritual recommendation from Gita – We need to ask what is the result of the charity work. If it results in more sense gratification vs focus on the purpose of life, from vedic science perspective it becomes a negative karma for all. It recommends to use all resources including intelligence, knowledge, money very wisely specially in this era where many cheaters are disguised as social workers, reformers, spiritual leaders , charity leaders etc.

  • Just give the people in need direct cash transfer no strings attached. They know what they need better than anyone else.

  • Despite his eloquence, his proposal will only make situation worse. People don't trust charity because they are opaque. The donation people invested has never paid back when seeing problems persist if not deteriorate. and they always ask for more without declaring achievable, cost-efficient solution like all other for-profit startups. Historical records has shown most charity are incompetent and inefficient regardless their size. Charity is a dull, wasteful and failing model, and I would rather pay for-profit social enterprise like SpaceX, Tesla, Hyperloop to solve problem or pay higher tax because they don't wave the moral high flags to shame me when I try to watch TV after a long day.

  • The Rockefeller Foundation. Rockefellers initial idea to set up a large-scale tax-exempt foundation occurred in 1901, but it was not until 1906 that his famous business and philanthropic advisor, Frederick Taylor. All of this while pending court decision to break up Standard Oil. They applied for a federal charter for the foundation in the US Senate in 1910( pay attention people here's where the dates are important and Tall telling) with at one stage John D Rockefeller even secretly meeting with President William Howard Taft, through the aegis of Senator Nelson Aldrich, to hammer out concessions. God dammit people do your fucking research. These people are instructed by lawyers and advisors in financieras 2 start so called nonprofit organizations. If bankers and lawyers to tell you to put your money in a foundation call it a non-profit and the laws of the land can't touch you then that is clearly money washing at its finest

  • A charity is a business. We evaluate a business by its profit. That profit comes from strategic marketing and efficient distribution and low operational costs. But it also depends largely on producing quality goods and services. That guy who earns $50 million from a video game wouldn't make squat if that game didn't work or if he couldn't get it to market. I can't speak to Mr Pallotta's charities as I have never heard of either of them. But, I just binged watched several videos about the failed relief efforts in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake despite $1.4 billion in aid through charity. The larger charities were inefficient and ineffective. Several videos showed how the workers had expensive meals, lodging and cars while a year after the earthquake, tens of thousands of Haitians were still without clean water and restrooms.
    Show me that your charity is efficient. Show me that it is effective. Show me results! Do that and I'll show you my donation dollars.

  • If a charity spends 80% of the money on overhead in the first half of the year and brings in 10 times more money in the second half, wouldn't the overhead be lower than 10%?

    This guy here is probably trying to deceive us by encouraging us to not looking at the overhead. Because if it really brings in the money, the overhead would be relatively low due to the huge influx of donation money.

  • The way we think about charity is wrong because we don't actually understand the meaning of charity!!!
    Charity is every human beings duty and should be part of everyones daily life.
    No one should have to "ASK" for charity via fancy events and advertising. It should given daily (deeds, assistance, even a smile, money, goods etc) good deeds should not be boasted about, they should be done solely to obey and please our Creator and distributed and managed by 100% volunteers to the needy. An excellent example is The Edhi Foundation. Proof it can be done without overheads.

  • Ah shucks, this dude is trying talk to the face of GREED economics that hides behind a Jesus mask. His proposal is brave and novel in its appeal to GREED. At best GREED allows the slightly less greedy do something, but why take the risk when Economic Eugenics is so close to completing its mission.

  • All fundraising should be how to detox our planet as that is the reason we are ill. Pharmacy & vaccines are sabotage & disease promotion due in part to pollution. Cholesterol, osteoporosis, steroids, antibiotics, psych drugs all chemicals are inflammatory as all artificial.

  • When you start talking about "Overhead", I got it. It takes money to run any organization.
    But when you google the 1000 worst charities in america, they all use 99% to 100% of the donations received for "overhead".
    They justify this by claiming their mission is to bring "awareness" to the issue, and not actually rectify it.

    You've got to get almost 10,000 charities into the list before it breaks the 50/50 point between overhead to actual dispersion of money and materials.

  • I think he makes some great points but it assumes capitalism isn't problematic in the first place and can easily be applied to the charitable sector. For example, should any CEO be paid millions annually when it's workers (who put in 40 hours of hard work a week or more) are living hand to mouth? I suppose we expect that the CEO of a charity will show good standards.

  • This single video changed our way of thinking. The problem today is that charities act in a way that is completely counterproductive to their growth and especially their fundraising activities.

  • I am in road safety, if motorists failed to pay their parking fines or had a conviction, for speeding, would this be likely to be refused?

  • Hello guys! Did you know that actiTIME is helping dozens of nonprofits around the world to manage time, projects and volunteers in the most efficient way? Check it out:

  • This is SO sad. Yes, it makes huge sense in our current mutational form of capitalism (which is only a form/bandwidth of consciousness concerning collectively-attributed "value" to things and to time)…but it completely skirts the enormous "elephant" crowding the room, which is capitalism itself, which is relentlessly commodifying EVERYTHING, now including generosity and lovingkindness. In the same way as our current president, who experiences politics as a mere series of deals to "win" at, while somebody else has to "lose." The minute we make CONSCIENCE (Intellect+EMOTIONAL consciousness) a commodity we label ourselves permanent adolescents who refuse to grow up ("Oh, the Market will make everything okay"–i.e., Mommy and Daddy will save us when we drive stoned and crash the car.). So this nice smart talk is just symptomatic of our collective hypnotic state IMO, while the REAL problem to solve–which needs much smarter minds–is how can we make ourselves into a truly sustainable species in which we ALL get to live decently if we put in a day's work…

  • We discuss what charities are good and which one's aren't and how to make an educated decision on this weeks episode of, Pody Mouths :

  • This talk completely missed the truth. Normal people don't give to charity because they don't have money to give to charity due to capitalist jerks like this one exploiting them so heavily by paying them so much less than their work is worth so they can profit off of the sweat of others. Normal people are struggling just to keep bills paid and are giving most of their money to necessities–the prices of which have been jacked up by the out-of-control government and "federal" reserve devaluing the currency and causing inflation while their wages don't go up commensurate with that inflation. This means that–even if the number of dollars they get paid went up a little–the actual buying power they receive from their jobs went down. Normal people–who might barely be able to spare something for a charity because of the shitheads stealing from them via low wages and the other shitheads stealing from them via the unconstitutional printing of our "money" by an international banking cartel called the "federal reserve" instead of by our congress–don't want any of that money going to people just like those shitheads. They want it going to the people they were actually trying to help. 70% overhead is too much. 30 or 40 percent of donations going to the actual cause is ridiculous. Finally, people who care enough to donate aren't doing it because of fucking advertising so a huge advertising budget doesn't actually make sense. If you want donations from normal people to go up–and that is where donations would mostly have to come from–then raise the wages of normal people to actual livable levels and stop robbing them of most of the value of their work just so some CEO can make several hundred million a year.

  • Let's put our money towards nonprofit organizations. For a greater purpose of loving humanitarian sakes. Your donations makes a differences. Live a life full of purpose, love and lights.??I’d rather see a bigger nonprofit organizations then the other way around.? Thank you Ted.

  • 80% of the people in these comments missed the point. Bottom line: Nonprofits are limited in its effectiveness because systems are not set up to allow nonprofits to reinvest or compete for talent.

  • Excellent talk. A lot of points in there about how we perhaps rethink how charity works.
    I am not without my reservations though, with my biggest one being the proportion spent on overheads: When a charity gets a donation from someone, it generally comes at the expense of a donation to another charity. So if you are going to increase the proportion you spend on overheads, and take donations away from charities with smaller overheads, then you should ensure that you are either inspiring new generosity where there was none before, or working that money harder to provide more results per dollar, so as to offset the loss to other charities. Not impossible, but I think important to consider.

  • Hy guyz i am working for the welfare of poor people in developing countries , such people who have not cash to buy food even one time daily. They hardly eat food 4 to 5 times in a weak. I am running WO welfare organizations. Plz help such poor people with a single penny or any amount you can easly afford. So that they get food to eat. God Bless you.
    You can deposit in account no below
    Standard chartered pk

  • This is true when successful but money can be thrown in high salaries and advertisers of "my friend-relative" company as I saw in many ONG's

  • It's strange to see people demonise the most effective engine of prosperity aka capitalism. Socialism sounds good on paper but only capitalism has the skill and the will to solve the world's greatest problems.

    Sure it can go a little out of hand at times, but that's why we have checks and balances on the way.

    We should celebrate our entrepreneurs, because they are the only ones who are willing to risk it all for their dreams. Kudos to this man.


  • Donating to breast cancer research is futile as long as cancer-causing agents were "grandfathered" in by the FDA into all our health and beauty products, including birth control pills, hair dye, makeup, underarm deodorants (aluminum right by your breast: any wonder why?) and more. And lobbyists for Revlon and more got their dangerous cancer-causing ingredients IGNORED. What a waste!

  • Ask about what they have accomplished, not just "their dreams." Correct about overhead for bringing in more money, though. We just don't need 'overhead" to include limousines and private jets!"

  • Charities are mostly being held back because so many of them are crooked or used by Crooks to launder money when you fix that in which you will be able to advertise or use more for advertisement. It doesn't take much to taking to figure out how my mother's generation and my generation or discouraged by the Red Cross and some of the other problems that exist now like the Trump organization charity. Fix that and you'll fix your problem

  • He misrepresents Puritans and Calvinists in his speech….

  • So hyped…

  • A very important topic that needs genuine solutions. But, I was disappointed that you didn't address the elephant in the room: Donors are skeptical of dollars that don't go directly to beneficiaries due to the perceived prevalence of charlatans in the charities industry – liars & thieves. Find a way to remove the specter of that lack of confidence — secure their investment in humanity — there's your social innovation. What sophisticated social investor is so naive to think there aren't grifters who will prey on her altruism?

  • Okay, look, I totally understand all the talk about overhead and not stumping any company in its dreams and hopes to become big. But it's just that there is so much money! Charities have gotten such a bad name because of the billions that are said that are needed to solve certain problems such as say, clean water for everybody, yet we passed those billions so many times and guess what, still no clean drinking water for everybody. There is a major flaw in the way greedy bigger corporations and individuals that are for-profit are handling to become the richest ever. Not only do they take what, in their sense, they earned, but they actively work against people who DO want to do good and help others in a way they don't even see themselves.


  • Nova New Opportunities is a charity that is worth donating for ,

  • This presentation had a lot of "…oh" moments for me. I've definitely been guilty of the "overhead = bad/evil/greedy/inefficient" way of thinking.

  • Hi, friends! I have been diagnosed with testicular cancer(embryonal carcinoma) in 2009 when I was 22. Since then I suffered 3 surgeries and 8 courses of chemotherapy. Luckily my child was born in 2017 after IVF. He deserves a better life as any other kid. If you have enough for charity please send some bitcoins to the following address!


  • Look. He is totally right. Lots of people need to hear this.

    I think rather than think of your donation going to directly help one person. Think instead your money is going to the non profit so they can use it efficiently for how they need it. That’s just as good.

  • 410billion dollars was raised in 2017 … no problems were fixed… money is not the solution charities dont work if you want to make a difference in the world find another way

  • If any of you are feeling generous and want to, or find it in your heart to donate a little something for a very special person to have school supplies for kids. Please do so, if you want at cash app $Berrios201

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *