We live in a flow of economic warfare. There are no markets. There are resources, politics that weave into highly complex legal and regulatory issues, as well as operational and market issues which impact the economics of doing anything. So this is the ecosystem. And the most powerful players on the chess board get pleasure from and enjoy evil and many players just see the world that way. If you want to play on that chessboard, you pull up your chair and you play with all the tools at your disposal in one integrated fashion. Your philanthropy informs and feeds and benefits your investment, ditto your social venture, ditto your investment. It’s one thing.
You have been operating in a non-integrated fashion. You were trying to avoid dealing with the real deal as a marketing matter — it has not been respectable to speak of it. You are trying to address philanthropy divorced from investment. That can not be done. The financial difference in nominal dollars between a financial plan and a financial plan that shifts significant assets into philanthropy is determined by assumptions. The market knows intuitively (although the market is not going to speak of it as it is not socially respectable) that the assumptions that traditional financial plans use are wrong.
What is called for is a vision of the map, the environment and then a vision of how a client can have a financial plan that does well even in the worst case and then a philanthropic plan that invests in those things that reduce the risk for the client and the world — transformation comes because proper use of social venture and philanthropy makes the world safer for the client (per the clients definition of safe which varies) and for those that the client seeks to serve.
In this environment, there is no time for the 26 step process that we invented to keep busy in a bubble economy and avoid the real deal. Now is the time for integration.
oops, in my last post “rough’ love is a typo — it should be tough love, and I specificaly mean it in terms of Catherines way of instilling a sense of accountability and that with priviledge, comes responsibility.
How we relate to and use money is very much a cultural value issue. I use culture is a much broader term than just nationality.
Phil, thankyou for continuing the conversation and providing context. Yes, I agree, Catherine is at once brilliant and shrewd, magnanimously giving and kind. What I personally appreciate most, is her courageous willingness to practice rough love,to be a “battering ram for the light”. Her modelling inspires me to want to be more of the best part of who I am.
For all the tangled complexity, I think we are fundamentally talking about an issue of consciousness, both individual and collective (cultural). For the first time in human history we have multiple memetic levels present on the planet at once(determined by the values and beliefs we hold, both consciously and unconsciously). A clear understanding of the various memes, how they express, how they relate to one another, what they need, and what will push them to the next level, can provide a potent tool for understanding and working with cultural difference. I love the work of Clare Graves and Don Beck – presented in the Spiral Dynamics model. I encourage you to read up on it. Don has written a great book. Thanks, Joanna
I will acknowledge that I was the philanthropic advisor who drew this comment, by email. I have saved it for several months, reading it often. A day or so ago, I sent it back to Catherine, with the following thoughts.
Catherine, What you say is true of the worst in philanthropy, that for some it is just another strategy or strategem for achieving ends like privilege, power, prestige, or forgiveness. But at its best philanthropy or giving is a civic virtue. Charity begins at home with gifts to those we love, but as giving and love expand so does the circle of civility. You yourself are a giver in your own community, through your church, to local projects, to friends, family, and neighbors. Your Solari circles are not about philanthropy, but they are about neighbors helping neighbors to restore or preserve the quality of life in their community. We prosper in community. We thrive in community. And what goes around are dollars, casseroles, lawn mowers, a cup of sugar, a recipe, clothing for Salvation Army, praise for work well done, civic pride and civic trust. The Popsicle index would not be high in a community where no one will help a neighbor, but will peek through blinds to see a person bleed.
I have told Catherine that she may be an entrepreneur and a shrewd businessperson, and a savvy investor, and a tough-minded Wall Street alum; she may be a DC veteran who has seen shockingly shabby behavior from public officials, but she is also one of the most giving people I know. She would go to zero for her convictions, and for her country, church, or community. What offends her and leads her to write as she did above is that she has seen what she loves sold out and abused. Before questioning her disgust, it is important to spend 4 or more hours at the link she gave above. She does quote chapter and verse on the most disreptutable, indeed sometimes malevolent, behavior imaginable in high places.
Anyway, her note was written in friendship to a friend and is part of a larger conversation about how to create private wealth and commonwealth in a thriving, financially intimate community, a project we both hold dear. The note was her dash of lemon in my over-sweet tea, and was appreciated as such.
I very much appreciate your taking the time to provide feedback. I would welcome your pointing me to pieces that you feel represent your approach.
Also, I would strongly recommend you read this case study:
http://www.dunwalke.com
Catherine
I was asked recently to review the Solari Website which I am still doing. I just read this Blog on Advisors. Its good to think outside the box what seems to be going on here is there is quite a lot of acronyms( tapeworms snails and other esoteric analogies ) and directed attacks with Euphemism innuendos and villany taken to cult status. Don’t take to hard you have a lot good things to say but your ying needs a little yang in communications. Further a lot of what is being said here is old hat or menaingless without someting solid.
Basic human nature has never changed and the BBC provides news without hyperbole and sensentionalization. American media clowns paint emotional pictures. When it comes to planning this philanthopy advisor statement is so far off it make me question everything here it sounds like crazed ranting. A balanced approach, thoughful research and meaning statements makes more sense – the number of evil people hasn’t changed. The culture shift in the society, dis-economics of American gifting is a more accurate depiction of reality, and while the world and global views are complex, a lot better way of saying things exist.