“We’re not running out of rich people,” Bill Gates recently told David Wallace-Wells of the New York Times Magazine in an interview about why he was deciding to close the doors of his foundation in 20 years. More than any other sentiment, it is this one that seems largely missing in the world of philanthropy today.

Recommended Stories

• Trump administration and EU officials aim to clinch trade deal
• Canada to adjust retaliatory tariffs on steel next month based on progress of Trump deal
• Gas prices: Increase at the pumps throughout the country

Gates was explaining why he decided to sunset the foundation earlier than originally planned. “The idea that I could write some set of goals that somebody would either honestly try to interpret or misinterpret 50 years from now — that’s kind of silly.” Gates cited the development of artificial intelligence, among other reasons, for why “the world is going to change very dramatically” in ways he cannot predict.  

But the decision to close the foundation within a few years of his death is not just a decision about control — “If you’re giving while you’re living, you’re knowing where it’s going,” in the words of Sir John Templeton — but also a certain optimism about the future. Gates apparently believes the free-market system in this country will continue to create wealthy people to replace those who have spent out their fortunes. 

Most people in the world of nonprofit groups and philanthropy seem to be adopting two somewhat contradictory views on charitable giving. First, there is the view that philanthropists should give all their money away tomorrow. This view is usually couched in panic about the Trump administration. 

Writing for the website of Philanthropy New York, for instance, leaders of the Arab American Family Support Center say they have shifted “into emergency response mode.” But philanthropists are saying that they are waiting to see what will happen. To which these nonprofit leaders say, “The damage is happening now. The potential that our organization will have to furlough two dozen federally funded staff is now. The mental health counseling and the domestic violence survivor support that we will have to stop providing is about to stop now.” 

And some philanthropists seem to agree. Garrett Neiman and Otis Pitney, for example, recently encouraged philanthropists to “Take a Sabbatical from Getting Richer.” They argue that philanthropists calculate their net worth on Jan. 1 and give enough away to ensure the number doesn’t increase. Jeff Atwood, the co-founder of the tech company Stack Exchange, accused his wealthy cohorts of hoarding their money in “underground bunker[s].” Abigail Disney just announced that she would be spending down her foundation soon in light of the current political environment. 

But observers seem to want to have it both ways — foundations should solve every crisis “now,” but they should also be around forever. Buzz Schmidt, the founder of GuideStar, urged Gates to keep his foundation going because, he wrote, “given the unpredictability of the American government to address accelerating threats to global health and well-being, philanthropy will only grow in importance in the coming decades.” Schmidt said, “This is surely not the time to consider, much less celebrate, the midcentury closure of one of the world’s most impactful private funding juggernauts.” 

Wallace-Wells, too, worried that Gates and his staff “talk excitedly about a world in which the Gates Foundation has made itself unnecessary. That world sounds tremendously appealing. But — given the obstacles — can it be built?” Can we lose the Gates Foundation at a time when Wallace-Wells says, “I worry about the humanitarian impulse subsiding, replaced by more mercenary self-interest.” 

The philanthropic world is also worried about the tax on foundation endowments that is being debated in Congress now. Such a policy would hit large foundations such as Ford, MacArthur, and Rockefeller hard. Their nearly centurylong existence has created a world of nonprofit groups dependent on their generosity year after year. The president of the Council on Foundations argues that “aggressively taxing charitable foundations doesn’t just restrict today’s giving — it also reduces the resources available to support local organizations through future crises.” 

So, should foundations give everything away right now, or should they be around to help with every crisis forever? 

Gates seems to be one of the only people not running around with his hair on fire. He is obviously disappointed in the Trump administration’s reduction of foreign aid — “the cuts are so dramatic that even if we get some restored, we’re going to have a tough time” — but he also doesn’t think he needs to give all his money away tomorrow. 

He predicts the current situation is temporary: “I see it as a four- to six-year interruption. And if we zoom out and think about 20 years from now — I do think we’ll cut childhood deaths, despite all this, because the Golden Rule was not repealed.” His optimism seems to baffle his interviewer and many of those in the nonprofit orbit, who not only believe that we are in a state of crisis but also that people generally won’t be as generous in the future. 

Indeed, if nonprofit leaders are interested in ensuring the existence of philanthropic funds both now and in the future, they might think more about the conditions that create wealth and new foundations. Many of the largest foundations were seeded with the proceeds from the period that the Left now decries as the height of “wealth inequality.” But the great industrialists they have come to rely on were able to fund decades of generosity thanks to a relatively unfettered market. 

The 1970s, a period of higher regulation and government spending, threatened the existence of many foundations. As a 1991 article in the Chicago Tribune about the troubles of the MacArthur Foundation noted, “Inflation took a heavy toll on all foundation assets” during that period. “In 1974, the mighty Ford Foundation — the largest U.S. foundation with $6 billion — walked right off the cliff after an aggressive strategy of investing in stocks. Ford grants were cut by 50 percent, and hundreds of the foundation’s workers lost their jobs. It took 12 years to recover the investment losses.”

FINANCIAL AID FOLLIES: THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY

It was only thanks to the stock market boom of the past few decades and relatively low inflation that foundations have been able to afford their high levels of giving. 

For all the complaints about the Gates Foundation, Gates himself seems to take the long view. And his optimism about the ability of other philanthropists to pick up where he has left off is helpful. One might see his attitude as part of the “abundance agenda” that is gaining steam in certain circles. Politicians come and go, but the tradition of Americans making money and giving it away will endure. 

James Piereson is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Naomi Schaefer Riley is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.