Why I’m Investing $500M in Migrants
wsj.comThat article does some serious gymnastics. "It's almost as if Europe's refugee crisis was planned and prepared" follows from Soros's foundation seeing it as an opportunity to change immigration policies?
Reading that left me impressed with how thorough of a job Soros is doing to try to make the world a better place.
As far as I can tell the article tries to make the point that the Soros foundation is trying to manipulate global policy.
Which ... Yes. That's what these organizations do, and it's been essential to the process of developing good policy, over the last hundred years... There is absolutely nothing embarrassing about that memo. If I had written it I would be proud to see it leaked.
Sure as hell isn't making it a better place for Germans or anyone else in targeted nations.
At the risk of sounding overly cynical, while it's great that Mr. Soros is donating this money to a worthy cause, I wonder if, as long as he's feeling charitable, he might also be willing to stop domiciling his investment vehicles in jurisdictions known for supporting tax evasion/avoidance. Perhaps with the increased tax revenue, governments could afford to better shoulder the costs of adequately integrating migrants and refugees without the assistance of billionaires.
He's not donating money to a worthy cause. He's investing money in immigrants, and betting against the host nation's currency. It's how he's made his fortune.
You're right, I should have said investing rather than donating, but seeing as there seems to be a moral consideration on his part, I hope the rest of my post is still appropriate.
You're saying he's selling shorting the Euro? Because it's quite small for currency positions that he usually takes.
In his takes on currency, hes largely made fortunes from breaking pegged exchange rates. The Euro is free floating.
I didn't know he had a history of betting-shorting against currency. I thought it was just that one huge time?
I've always found him to be a straight shooter.
He's the only rich boy, who has constantly told the truth, at least to the creation of great wealth.
And what is that great variable in the equation? It's just is a wealthy father. A father who allows you to take financial risk. A father who mentors you--in the right way. A father who helps out at the right moments--with good advice, and steers you to his helpful friends when in trouble.
The wealthy boys always leave that out of the, "What it takes to make a large sum of money speech."
The one area he seems to be in denial, or wrong is his writing ability. He blames his lack of accolades for his writing on his wealth. He claims if he was poor, his writing would be taken more seriously. I have read some of his work, and he's just an average writer--in my opinion. Other than fancying himself as a great writer; he is one of the guys I listen to.
He is getting older though.
If he wants it all to go to migrants, giving it to the government would almost be the worst possible way to ensure that will happen.
While you are correct, most governments would undoubtably find much less productive uses for this money than helping either their own citizens or migrants and refugees, I would still prefer that choice be left up to society and not the whims of a person who's investments vehicles are most likely engaged in rampant tax avoidance or even worse, outright tax evasion.
Then change the tax laws. It's silly to suggest that they should pay more to the government than is legally required. Actual tax evasion comes with pretty serious penalties, so people with loads of money tend to be pretty prudent when ensuring what they are doing with their taxes is legal.
I agree that changing tax law would be the best remedy but I'm not entirely sure if tax "avoidance" on a massive scale doesn't have some ethical considerations. When the people engaging in said avoidance have an outsized influence on the way tax laws are set up and interpreted relative to working/middle class citizens, I can certainly understand why some might attach an ethical consideration to such schemes. Just to be clear, this is an issue that I myself still haven't come to a conclusion on, but at the very least I can see both sides of the argument. I don't necessarily think it's "silly", perhaps naive or ignorant on my part though.
With regards to your second point, I'm not sure if I agree with your statement that "people with loads of money tend to be pretty prudent when ensuring what they are doing with their taxes is legal". I mean, I'm sure this is the case for many people but it seems that illegal tax evasion is a pretty serious global problem so clearly there are plenty of people who's main concern seems to be not getting caught rather than following the law. I also don't have a tremendous amount of faith that the US or other governments can adequately tackle the problem of enforcement at this time. Again, I could very well be wrong on all counts.
Mr. Soros in particular is problematic to me since he has a prior conviction for insider trading and there have been allegations surrounding his Quantum funds for many years. The secrecy and opaqueness with which he runs his investment vehicles certainly seems somewhat antithetical to an "open society", I wonder if the irony is lost on Mr. Soros.
>I agree that changing tax law would be the best remedy but I'm not entirely sure if tax "avoidance" on a massive scale doesn't have some ethical considerations.
Do you suggest that people are unethical if they choose to take a mortgage interest deduction or deduct business expenses? How about people that rollover their retirement accounts?
I disagree with the tax benefits granted to homeowners and parents. However, it is the current law and I don't rant that people are being unethical by limiting their payment to the government under the law that exists. I would consider them fiscally irresponsible to do otherwise.
While I too disagree with some of the tax benefits afforded to homeowners, particularly with regard to long time homeowners here in CA, no, I would not consider that unethical. For one, there are probably more homeowners and parents than billionaires, so if they vote to give themselves certain tax breaks, even if I happen to disagree with them, I don't view it as a "corruption" of democracy. I'm sorry for using the word "corruption", it might not really be appropriate but I'm tired and couldn't think of a better term. At the very least, politicians seem to be pretty straightforward regarding tax breaks for homeowners, the process of taxation and financial lawmaking seems significantly more opaque to me. I view tax avoidance on the scale of hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars, differently than tax avoidance on a much smaller scale, even if both are perfectly legal. I admit this may not be a very good way of looking at things but I can't help but feel that scale is important here.
I hope my posts didn't come off as a "rant", that was not my intention and I deliberately tried to make sure to point out that I'm not concrete in some of these views. I like coming to HN largely because ideas can be challenged in a respectful manner, I apologize if my posts came off as rants.
Maybe he believes that he can use the same money more effectively for causes that he cares more about.
My point is that there's nothing inconsistent in being charitable whilst trying to minimise the amount of tax you pay.
I'm certain you are correct in that this is what he believes. I too believe that I can perhaps use my taxes more effectively for the causes that I care about rather than handing them over to the US Treasury. Of course, seeing as I don't have ownership over a slew of offshore shell corporations spanning multiple Caribbean nations and an army of legal experts at my disposal, I don't really get to make that choice.
On some level I agree with you though that there's nothing inconsistent about minimizing one's taxes and being charitable. At the same time, I'm having a hard time accepting this as an absolute truth. If the tax avoidance is a result of what some might see as a "corruption" of the democratic process, even if not necessarily illegal, I can understand why this might be considered ethically ambiguous.
Investing in something which is legal to make a huge profit does not necessarily mean that you agree with it being legal. Both Soros and Buffet have repeatedly said that governments should tax them more.
Please note that advocating for governments to tax more is not even remotely similar to voluntarily paying more taxes.
Destroy the world with your right hand, try to clean up some of the mess with the left hand.
On a slight tangent here...
I've always thought one of the biggest problems with globalisation as a concept is the absence of free movement of people.
What I mean by that is the ability of people anywhere to move anywhere else, to work, consume, pay tax, and otherwise take part in civic life, for as long as they wish.
We have free movement of capital and free movement of goods. However the limitation on movement of labour has turned some parts of the planet into labour ghettos, creating forced economic gradients that benefit a few. While this has been the case for some time, the free movement of information has informed even the most ignorant that this need not be the case.
The so-called "economic" migration sweeping the world is the inevitable result of this state of affairs. Its not just information that wants to be free.
I find it hard to see how one could be a true believer in the power for good of the free market, without including free movement of labour.
If you follow the thought experiment of what such free movement would look like, you could imagine the end state being an effective equalisation across most of the globe. The net effect would also be an acceleration of cultural equalisation (religious extremists notwithstanding).
Of course, the journey from here to there would be interesting!
Some cultures are more aggressive than others and do not allow for the free exchange of ideas. This is why this does not always work. The freedoms provided by western culture are fragile, a monopoly over a democracy can result in an antidemocratic anti-free society, one where the benefits of free anything are extinguished.
I think that's a bit of a simplistic generalisation. It's probably more accurate to say that there are aggressive and "dangerous" ideas that have taken hold among some groups of people, including among native westerners. And I agree that some of these ideas are inimical to free discourse and enlightenment ideals.
However, other than the pathological power-seekers that cynically exploit such ideas for their own benefit, most followers (those that are more inclined to support simplistic and extreme positions) are not much different across ideas. There is more in common between a neo-Nazi and a fundamentalist Muslim than either would care to admit. Both are fear-driven, exclusionary, apocalyptic, conspiratorial, and inclined to violent remedies. Both regard typical western centrists (both progressive and pale-conservative) as weak.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but surely some elements of a successful strategy must include education, focusing on unifying similarities, and forging alliances of moderate groups across religious, cultural, political and national boundaries. All of which take generations of sustained effort. There are no quick fixes, contrary to what demagogues would have us believe.
This discussion if quickly being flooded with right-wing extremists. If you make a claim, please, provide a reputable source. If you see a claim being made without a source, do something for the intellectual health of this community and downvote.
I don't think just because people disagree with the preferred political narrative of the global rich that that automatically makes them right-wing extremists. You know, it's possible to not like George Soros while also not being a literal Nazi.
I fail to see how three comments by two authors about rape rates going up are sign of discussion quickly being flooded by right-wing extremists.
If you really wish for intellectual health of community, please strive to cultivate it yourself by avoiding the attempts at pre-emptively silencing your opponents by labeling them.
I just noticed a pattern in a few comments. Does it have a name? It would be useful as a shorthand to point out this behavior in "discussions". If not, maybe "reference flooding" is a good way to describe it?
These comments make a claim, then link to a paper that seems related to it. Sometimes the only thing in common is the title of the paper. Not sure if it's in good faith and these people have trouble understanding what they read, or a strategy intended to convince people who don't have the time to read the paper that they have science on their side. It also puts a heavy burden on an honest participant in the discussion, since their intellectual bandwidth will be flooded by semi-relevant papers.
This only works if the reference is vague enough. Like the title of a paper without a quote or even page number, or "just Google X".[1]
1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3980010/pdf/nihm...
Please apply your request to your own claim by being precise regarding what constitutes a right-wing extremist - an emotive phrase and clearly intended as such.
I downvoted you. This type of comment isn't constructive or helpful.
I would prefer to see policies that will cost soros his money:
- weapons cannot be sold to countries we do not have reciprocal defence agreements with
- weapon and oil sanctions are enforced globally
- a decade long investment of around 5% of world GDP increasing energy efficiency, at the same time as building electricity pipelines to take solar from tropical zones to rest of world and an end to oil pipelines
- end to oil subsidies globally
- global agreements on water rights between countries, on investment and policy for efficient (drip) water use in agriculture
Grief, that's just off top of my head and is probably only half the problem. Basically if we can do all that, Soros will lose his wedge. I doubt he would mind too much.
Heh, I just made a joke in another thread about how I like to imagine sometimes people like Soros are actually hidden ultra-conservatives. They promote pro-immigration policies because it is the most robust way to turn West Europeans towards conservatism and nationalism.
If one indeed wanted to achieve that goal, I couldn't think of a faster way.
At this rate, we'll probably see walls built in Europe before we see Trump's wall over here.
"Investing in migrants" is an incredibly cheap way to buy votes.
Soros seems to have a hand in everything...
"I will invest in startups, established companies, social-impact initiatives and businesses founded by migrants and refugees themselves."
Delusion pro!
Sure there will be talented people, but they'll find a way, it's still nice they'll get help getting funded,
but what about the masses who come for social benefits, and don't really wish to work during their lifetime.
Not to mention the lack of single f*ck they give about European culture.
Come back and live in Europe Soros papa, THEN have it as your playground.
$500M wouldn't last very long if you had to split it among the masses. It's easy for Soros et al to support mass immigration if they aren't the ones who bear the cost.
Have no knowledge of Mr. Soros' policies or public stance on issues, but I ask: why is there even a need for a separate fund for migrants?
From what I know, investors are driven by profit, not be ethnicity. If a business has potential to turn a profit, I don't think any VC would want to turn away.
At least that's how things work for some of my Indian friends in the Valley. No one has ever denied them investment because they were immigrants.
It only makes sense from a PR stand point: Drawing attention to the far outliers at the top. On a cognitive level, we all know that migrants are people not entirely unlike ourselves, capable of a wide range emotion sand behaviors, but what the news would organically expose us to are the outliers at the bottom - rapists, terrorists, organized crime. By creating this fund, Soros is trying to steer the conversation towards the top outliers, the innovators and job creators.
I don't know anything about Soros' intentions, but there are many reasons besides PR to create a fund like this. Refugees have a complicated nationality status, which can exclude them from the global economy. A fund such as this could specialise in working around those limitations.
IMHO he will be one of the people responsible for radically limitting the human right of asylum and the rise of right-wings all over Europe. Asylum once was a nice idea, but right now it is misused for mass-immigration in Europe.
The "web" link isn't working me (on my setup at this particular moment). It just returns HN pages and old stories. If you experience the same problem, google:
Why I’m Investing $500 Million in Migrants I will invest in startups, established companies...
Which is the story title + subtitle.
yep, paywalled.
Paste the url into google search and go from the results link.
I would invest in a fortified city in the middle east with added security and let people flee war there instead of having to go all the way to western countries. there they'll be able to claim asylum to their country of choice and when they are given a visa they'll get a free flight there.
The problem is - which country in the middle east will agree to host this city?
Syria at the turkish border
I guess that wsj links are invariably paywalled. Can't HN stop such links from being submitted?
Paywalls with workarounds are allowed.
Clink on 'web' underneath the link and open the article through Google, that'll bypass the paywall.
Doesn't work for this article, Google shows only one hit and it's paywalled.
It worked for me (and that was after I clicked the direct link once and got the paywall, so presumably I'm cookied). Maybe try using the web link in private browsing mode?
wsj.com Why I’m Investing $500 Million in Migrants George Soros Sept. 20, 2016 12:00 a.m. ET
The world has been unsettled by a surge in forced migration. Tens of millions of people are on the move, fleeing their home countries in search of a better life abroad. Some are escaping civil war or an oppressive regime; others are forced out by extreme poverty, lured by the possibility of economic advancement for themselves and their families.
Our collective failure to develop and implement effective policies to handle the increased flow has contributed greatly to human misery and political instability—both in countries people are fleeing and in the countries that host them, willingly or not. Migrants are often forced into lives of idle despair, while host countries fail to reap the proven benefit that greater integration could bring.
Governments must play the leading role in addressing this crisis by creating and sustaining adequate physical and social infrastructure for migrants and refugees. But harnessing the power of the private sector is also critical.
Recognizing this, the Obama administration recently launched a “Call to Action” asking U.S. companies to play a bigger role in meeting the challenges posed by forced migration. Today, private-sector leaders are assembling at the United Nations to make concrete commitments to help solve the problem.
In response, I have decided to earmark $500 million for investments that specifically address the needs of migrants, refugees and host communities. I will invest in startups, established companies, social-impact initiatives and businesses founded by migrants and refugees themselves. Although my main concern is to help migrants and refugees arriving in Europe, I will be looking for good investment ideas that will benefit migrants all over the world.
This commitment of investment equity will complement the philanthropic contributions my foundations have made to address forced migration, a problem we have been working on globally for decades and to which we have dedicated significant financial resources.
We will seek investments in a variety of sectors, among them emerging digital technology, which seems especially promising as a way to provide solutions to the particular problems that dislocated people often face. Advances in this sector can help people gain access more efficiently to government, legal, financial and health services. Private businesses are already investing billions of dollars to develop such services for non-migrant communities.
This is why money now moves instantaneously from one mobile wallet to another, drivers find customers by using only a cellphone, and how a doctor in North America can see a patient in Africa in real time. Customizing and extending these innovations to serve migrants will help improve the quality of life for millions around the world.
All of the investments we make will be owned by my nonprofit organization. They are intended to be successful—because I want to show how private capital can play a constructive role helping migrants—and any profits will go to fund programs at the Open Society Foundations, including programs that benefit migrants and refugees.
As longtime champions of civil society, we will be focused on ensuring that our investments lead to products and services that truly benefit migrants and host communities.
We will also work closely with organizations such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Rescue Committee to establish principles to guide our investments. Our goal is to harness, for public good, the innovations that only the private sector can provide.
I hope my commitment will inspire other investors to pursue the same mission.
Mr. Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC and founder of the Open Society Foundations.
The question is: why Europe specifically? There's plenty of neighboring countries that could take immigrants in and could use a boost of GDP by the businesses founded by migrants he speaks of. The migrants themselves would be better off there, since they wouldn't be affected by the rise of right-wing ideas in Europe.
Thanks for doing this. I mean, copying the article.