If they are using the money to lobby for climate causes then the political power is a necessary evil. We have much more money being spent by companies to lobby governments into killing our planet. All in the name of profit.
@@tomturton 100%. I think it's hard to argue that politics isn't the biggest player here. The progress we've seen has been largely in spite of large scale political intervention in many cases
Wish that lobbying didn’t exist for businesses and special interest groups but since it is then it is smart for Patagonia to spend millions to get influence over billions of public spending.
I just think a lot of people with negative thoughts about this just can't fathom why someone wouldn't want to make money, why someone wouldn't want to make a little profit off their good actions, I think it says a lot about the people who don't like this
Free market capitalism is all about facilitating greed at the end of the day. They hate it because this sidesteps that process and makes them less money
tbh, with the way a few rich men are dealing with their business, it's easy to be cynical Though sometimes it's easy to forgot that if all things being equal, all people would at least some moral conscience if Patagonia is in the situation where they can easily act on their conscience (being a private company, having the correct culture) it's hard to see why they would even want to keep that much money, so much money you don't even know how to spend it
He still donated his company to his own non profit company Meaning that he’s paying much less tax than he would if he’d passed it down to his kids like normal people with their inheritance Just another rich man refusing to pay his taxes expecting praise, why should he get a tax cut and be able to influence politics If another rich person did the same thing but opposed womens rights they’d still get the same benefits
@@aronseptianto8142 it’s sensible to be cynical They have teams of accountants whose jobs is ensure efficient management of accounts and reduction of tax obligations These accountants are paid to lessen liabilities I’d be less cynical if they didn’t all donate to themselves, everyone else donates to established charities why can’t they
@@jonevansauthor What you mean? Someone could have a deal already to trade resources for the company's influence. It think it's more likely that that isn't the case but who knows.
@@dddmemaybe people are saying it doesn't matter that he's put shares in this foundation, because they still have all the voting power. Thus they're still super wealthy people with all of the money. Except, influence over a company does not equal money. There'd have to be some way for them to extract value, in dividends, or by selling shares, or through salaries. There's not much point selling voting shares if the whole plan is some devious tax avoidance (the legal version) scheme and retain control of the company. Now, would I be surprised if there's some clever way it works that benefits them, no, not really. But it's completely heard of for wealthy philanthropists to give away their fortunes. Not abnormal at all. Thus, I'll wait for genuine experts and history to determine if this was a massive PR/tax thing or an actual act of philanthropy. Until then, I'll take it at face value.
I do think not selling the company is really important. If he sells the company, buyer can ruin the company's policies and thus ruining continuous positive effect it has. Not to mention after all the money from sale is spent, that's it, money is spent. But with profits going to good causes regularly that's much more impactful since both company and the money will do good. Just more gradually, but I think with greater impact since the brand isn't tarnished. Overall, I think this will be best solution for everyone, customers will still get their stuff being assured they are doing right decision, and founder can give more to the causes he believes even after he's gone.
Well thats pretty much the story of north face. North face and patagonia were founded by 2 friends and the north face guy decided to sell it. It has become a shadow of itself since then, while patagonia has thrived and followed its original path. Yes, north face has become much bigger and more comercialy successful, but at what cost.
@@mvnkycheez Patagonia partially forced the textile industry to at least act like they care, lest patagonia would be the only one who cared. They are too responsible for sustainable clothes businissess forming. But as far as not taking profits and redistributing them to shareholders? That would be an entirely different story. Sustainability was, in its essence, a marketing move - so no matter how you look at it, it made them more money. Why would others not get inspired by that right? Im afraid thats not going to be the case here though.
yeah, while i think the most PR safe is to relinquish all the power and wealth you have, it's still more morally impressive if they actually wield it for good, it's tricky because power corrupt and so on. and the fact that when you're rich, no matter how benovelent they can be, there will always be hater purely because how imbalance the power dynamic is it's the stuff about great power comes great responsibility kind of stuff, just letting go of the power doesn't somehow lessen the responsibility right?
Yes, they still retain a lot of political power through the holdfast collective, but it is a nonprofit that solely aims to tackle climate change. Patagonia's profit will arguably be used for a good cause, not corporate greed.
How can we be sure about that, it’s a private entity they can change direction How can this promise of environmental work be verified He could of retained the voting shares and still ensured the direction of the company while donating the value of or the actual non voting shares to experienced charities with a track record and accountability But no he controls it. I don’t blame him I’m arrogant enough to believe I’d do a better job than a government with the money. This is why this loophole must be closed, you don’t know what weird stuff a strange man on the internet might like
There are some horrible people in the world, his provocative is to help the environment. By remaining in control he clearly knows it is the only way he can verify this. Not selfish but very clever
Sorry to break it to you but this whole giving away his fortune is a load of shit. Watch th-cam.com/video/0Cu6EbELZ6I/w-d-xo.html where Adam explains why.
If he did the exact same thing but gave his purpose as opposing civil rights would you see differently? I have nothing against him giving his fortune away but he hasn’t done that, he’s shuffled assets around within his own controlled companies in order to save on taxes and allow political influence for generations His family will be able to draw high incomes anyway (even as a non profit) as they will still have control over their own salaries
People are right to be wary of actions by corporations and the rich. Especially in the realms of philanthropy and the climate. But to me it looks like the people who are mad about this are just looking a gift horse in the mouth, scrambling to find something to be mad at.
Sorry to break it to you but this whole giving away his fortune is a load of shit. Watch th-cam.com/video/0Cu6EbELZ6I/w-d-xo.html where Adam explains why.
@@aye3678 Yeah don't get me wrong I don't think that billionaires should even exist. And I certainly would never have made a post or article sucking the dudes balls for doing arguably less than the bare minimum. But people probably could spend their time better than being mad about a case which (relative to others) will have a more positive outcome. That being said, it's probably important to push back given the amount of breathy and uncritical praise this case received.
How Chouinard Equipment disappeared and Patagonia was set up from the ashes (along with another major outdoor company) is probably a more fascinating story… seriously. Also read “Let my People Go Surfing”. This isn’t a cynical dodge, it’s consistent with the values of company and core customers.
Nice, they also have a business incentive to preserve the environment so that more people can go outside without worrying about floods, extreme weather, etc.
7:50 IMHO, this seems like it fits perfectly with the purpose. To solve climate crisis a lot of political change is required, policies and laws have to be passed. To do that political influence is probably the most important part.
For people who criticize this move , I honestly don't understand you. When you consider other supposedly large "green" companies such a apple and tesla , I hope you notice the difference.
I'm sorry, what now? Patagonia's products are nowhere near as green as Tesla's products which have huge environmental benefits which is not surprising given that's the entire point of the company. Apple, obviously not, I'll absolutely grant you that one.
@@jonevansauthor (Sorry for the long comment but summarizing it is really difficult without losing information) Sorry to break your bubble electric cars are NOT environment friendly. They are MUCH more friendly than traditional cars in the long run. Now there comes the second problem electric batteries tend to lose most capacity by the 10th Year. You can't restore/repair batteries because the chemicals inside lose potency. Li-ion batteries contain large amounts of rare-earth materials and they are VERY polluting are resource intensive during extraction. In addition completely destroys local fauna in nearby cause in raw from these materials are toxic. If you have time you can look into a documentary on this topic from a place you trust. So making more cars and replacing battery every 10 years ain't helping, like at all. And on the software front its closed source so making modification "illegal" for something you "bought". If the companies decides it no longer wants to support you device they can just disable functions "completely legally". I have never used Patagonia's products are mostly bio-degradable and of course cars and phones are not , I am just saying general attitudes of the company . Tesla has yet to commit any finances for green projects like Cycling insfrasturce/ walking/Public transport/better Urban-planning which are real "green" options. They don't support or encourage 3rd party repairs. If you enjoy their cars, sure enjoy them, but please don't call them green.
@@jonevansauthor I'm sorry but converting to expensive electric cars, which most people can't afford, which rely on batteries that are extremely bad for the environment to create, which can literally explode, will NEVER be as good for the environment as using public transport
@@mvnkycheez hahahahaha. Oh, you're serious? I'm afraid you've fallen for FUD if you think batteries are bad for the environment. Maybe you're thinking of lead acid from the last millennium? In theory public transport is great, in practice it's an absolutely nightmare of damage and waste and will only become truly efficient in the future. In no currently available format is public transport the complete solution to human movement. Only self driving vehicles will allow us to actually serve communities efficiently, leaving the less efficient vehicles such as train like vehicles to serve the major routes. That'll most be battery electric vehicles.
This is exactly what I want to see more from with companies. I agree wholeheartedly about his take on the stock market and the way in which public companies needing to focus solely on profit being toxic for the world as a whole
It's a genuinely incredible and brilliant thing that he's done, absolutely no question. There will always be cynics about someone making such a progressive move but they have truly got the wrong end of the stick in this instance.
We'll have to wait and see how they spend their money going forward, but it seems like the world would indeed be a much better place if every large company operated like this.
Maybe you could make a video detailing the difference between voting stocks vs non-voting stocks? Or just the different kinds of stock in general? I'd watch that.
It'd only be a cynical move if Patagonia hadn't had such a commitment to green(er) commerce already. Equally, some of the more vocal criticism I've seen seems to be of the nirvana fallacy Student's Union politics sort: "oh you're doing something, why not EVERYTHING eh eh" sneering.
It's not the founder or family that are cynical, it's the system that leaves all of us relying on the benevolence of a global 1%, the vast majority of which would never give up their wealth like this.
Tata in India is considered the hero and does a lot of goods things while still heading the company, so I don't think they have any nefarious reasons for doing this
More important would be to look back on this 5 years from now and see of the outcome/purpose is as expected. Thus far looks as legitimate as can be and I really hope it's true.
I'm fairly confident that this is a good thing, but there's no way it's going to, like, transform capitalism like that guy said, either. There's no real incentive to do it!
very few do something that is 100% NOT self benefiting. and even if some of it is selfish, isn't the bulk of it being good for the earth outweighing that? kinda like when companies donate. Sure, they do it for tax write-off, but there is still benefit to it, so is it that bad? (this assumes they actually donate, not just into a charity that becomes their own political entity, etc)
Also please note that the majority of tax write-offs simply mean you don’t need to spend taxes on the income you donated. You still lose the rest of the income that you’d otherwise have made in profit. Essentially, a tax-deductible donation is a real donation that gets supported by the government waiving taxes on it. Same with "taking losses" for tax reasons. You’re still worse off than if you made a profit on them and paid taxes, but at least you don’t get taxed for the investment losses.
I mean, literally just buy solar farms or plant trees would do it. You don't need political power to be honest, but is trying to change the minds of Luddite politicians also part of the solution? Of course it is. I'm not sure if they've announced what the fund will do but people are just sort of assuming the worst case would be that they wield political power for nefarious means. As far as I can tell their plan could be to back renewable energy projects.
The people that do nothing are always telling the people that do something that it's not enough or that they have an ulterior motive. I don't mind if he and his family continue to be well off and I don't mind if he retains political power: it's needed to fight for climate change, and the fossil fuel corporations are not going to stop lobbying any time soon.
Great video!!! Very engaging... With everything going on right now, the best decision is having a profitable investment strategy. Stocks are good but crypto is better.
>Inflation is killing my budget and my salary. I can't invest anymore and it seems like I will need to sell all of my risk assets to keep my head above the water this year.
@@fabriziorossi5664 Investment on risk assets (stocks, crypto, etc) is easier with proper guidance, especially from a proffessional it really helps reduce the chances of running into losses
@@fabriziorossi5664 I had this experience during the last downturn and thought I had lost everything but thanks to Mr Brian who managed my portfolio, I recovered all my losses.
Wouldnt just want all of those profits for yourself? Or just invest it back into the business? P.s. I assume expansion of the buisness would be included in the expenses right? more stores, distribution hubs etc.
Title "Patagonia: The Billionaire Who Gave Away his Company (to the earth)" The actual info: "Patagonia: The Billionaire Who Gave Away his Company (to the Fund)", so by Earth they mean a Fund.
As a newbie about to invest or new to the investment you must have these three things in mind 1:having a long term mindset. 2: Be willing to take risks 3: Have a trusted broker 😊👆🏻👆🏻
I down voted, I normally don't and wanted to give feed back. Reading quotes with energetic language is normal thats just how things are but when you present yourself as news you have a duty to behave in a way that is unbiased. Usuing excitement and loaded language can suggest a bias and I am personal not interested in any news that can't keep that to a minimum regardless of weather i am excited or not. The example that stuck out to me was the phrase "hoard their wealth" at the beginning which primed me for the rest of the video.
Yea but maybe you should learn to form your own opinion even after listening to the ones of others. And this is youtube here, do you expect monotone unbiased footage and talking where people are going to fall asleep?
This is a classic tax evasion scheme, the founder of IKEA also did this a while back. Anyone who believes that this is a selfless charitable act is naïve.
That's the point, paying income tax on a small amount of regulated income is still better than paying a lump sum tax on a 3 billion dollar inheritance. Say you're the son of a billionaire, would you rather pay 400.000 dollars of tax on a million dollars a year for the rest of your life. Or an inheritance tax of 1.2 billion dollars at once (40%)?
Imagine giving away a life's worth of work to solve a problem that does not exist. That's what this is.. They could have saved millions in poor countries with clean water and other low hanging fruit to help to the poor. Instead, the money is spent to alleviate the guilt on their own success. Just more anti-human eco-religion thinking.
![แฉกลโกงงานวัด 2024 [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.106 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/taC5dpP3HXA/mqdefault.jpg)
For the “they have too much political power” argument. You have to consider that climate change is just as much a political problem as a money problem
I'd go one step further and argue that it's far more of a political problem, than an economic one.
@@tomturton it's an economic problem made political by those with a financial stake in it so that they can continue to grow profit.
If they are using the money to lobby for climate causes then the political power is a necessary evil. We have much more money being spent by companies to lobby governments into killing our planet. All in the name of profit.
@@tomturton 100%. I think it's hard to argue that politics isn't the biggest player here. The progress we've seen has been largely in spite of large scale political intervention in many cases
Wish that lobbying didn’t exist for businesses and special interest groups but since it is then it is smart for Patagonia to spend millions to get influence over billions of public spending.
Hats off to the founder, it's really inspiring what he did. Thanks TLDR for sharing this fantastic story with the details of what is happening.
I just think a lot of people with negative thoughts about this just can't fathom why someone wouldn't want to make money, why someone wouldn't want to make a little profit off their good actions, I think it says a lot about the people who don't like this
Yes, it's not a good look for them, is it?
Free market capitalism is all about facilitating greed at the end of the day. They hate it because this sidesteps that process and makes them less money
tbh, with the way a few rich men are dealing with their business, it's easy to be cynical
Though sometimes it's easy to forgot that if all things being equal, all people would at least some moral conscience
if Patagonia is in the situation where they can easily act on their conscience (being a private company, having the correct culture)
it's hard to see why they would even want to keep that much money, so much money you don't even know how to spend it
He still donated his company to his own non profit company
Meaning that he’s paying much less tax than he would if he’d passed it down to his kids like normal people with their inheritance
Just another rich man refusing to pay his taxes expecting praise, why should he get a tax cut and be able to influence politics
If another rich person did the same thing but opposed womens rights they’d still get the same benefits
@@aronseptianto8142 it’s sensible to be cynical
They have teams of accountants whose jobs is ensure efficient management of accounts and reduction of tax obligations
These accountants are paid to lessen liabilities
I’d be less cynical if they didn’t all donate to themselves, everyone else donates to established charities why can’t they
It's people like this that keep my faith in Humanity alive
The production value of these videos is SO high, holy moly, good job !
Who the hell is calling this tax a tax dodge? Avoid 23% tax... by giving away 98% of your company?
@Adora Tsang but if you can't financially benefit from that influence...
@@jonevansauthor What you mean? Someone could have a deal already to trade resources for the company's influence. It think it's more likely that that isn't the case but who knows.
@@dddmemaybe people are saying it doesn't matter that he's put shares in this foundation, because they still have all the voting power. Thus they're still super wealthy people with all of the money. Except, influence over a company does not equal money. There'd have to be some way for them to extract value, in dividends, or by selling shares, or through salaries.
There's not much point selling voting shares if the whole plan is some devious tax avoidance (the legal version) scheme and retain control of the company.
Now, would I be surprised if there's some clever way it works that benefits them, no, not really. But it's completely heard of for wealthy philanthropists to give away their fortunes. Not abnormal at all.
Thus, I'll wait for genuine experts and history to determine if this was a massive PR/tax thing or an actual act of philanthropy. Until then, I'll take it at face value.
I do think not selling the company is really important. If he sells the company, buyer can ruin the company's policies and thus ruining continuous positive effect it has. Not to mention after all the money from sale is spent, that's it, money is spent. But with profits going to good causes regularly that's much more impactful since both company and the money will do good. Just more gradually, but I think with greater impact since the brand isn't tarnished. Overall, I think this will be best solution for everyone, customers will still get their stuff being assured they are doing right decision, and founder can give more to the causes he believes even after he's gone.
Well thats pretty much the story of north face. North face and patagonia were founded by 2 friends and the north face guy decided to sell it. It has become a shadow of itself since then, while patagonia has thrived and followed its original path. Yes, north face has become much bigger and more comercialy successful, but at what cost.
If this does start some sort of movement it will be a very good thing
@@mvnkycheez Patagonia partially forced the textile industry to at least act like they care, lest patagonia would be the only one who cared. They are too responsible for sustainable clothes businissess forming. But as far as not taking profits and redistributing them to shareholders? That would be an entirely different story. Sustainability was, in its essence, a marketing move - so no matter how you look at it, it made them more money. Why would others not get inspired by that right? Im afraid thats not going to be the case here though.
yeah, while i think the most PR safe is to relinquish all the power and wealth you have, it's still more morally impressive if they actually wield it for good, it's tricky because power corrupt and so on. and the fact that when you're rich, no matter how benovelent they can be, there will always be hater purely because how imbalance the power dynamic is
it's the stuff about great power comes great responsibility kind of stuff, just letting go of the power doesn't somehow lessen the responsibility right?
@@aronseptianto8142 Handing the power you acquired by luck to someone who actually seeks its is perhaps the most irresponsible way to handle it.
the production value on this channel's editing is awesome! not to mention the fascinating, seldom seen topics!
Yes, they still retain a lot of political power through the holdfast collective, but it is a nonprofit that solely aims to tackle climate change. Patagonia's profit will arguably be used for a good cause, not corporate greed.
How can we be sure about that, it’s a private entity they can change direction
How can this promise of environmental work be verified
He could of retained the voting shares and still ensured the direction of the company while donating the value of or the actual non voting shares to experienced charities with a track record and accountability
But no he controls it.
I don’t blame him I’m arrogant enough to believe I’d do a better job than a government with the money. This is why this loophole must be closed, you don’t know what weird stuff a strange man on the internet might like
There are some horrible people in the world, his provocative is to help the environment. By remaining in control he clearly knows it is the only way he can verify this. Not selfish but very clever
Sorry to break it to you but this whole giving away his fortune is a load of shit. Watch th-cam.com/video/0Cu6EbELZ6I/w-d-xo.html where Adam explains why.
If he did the exact same thing but gave his purpose as opposing civil rights would you see differently?
I have nothing against him giving his fortune away but he hasn’t done that, he’s shuffled assets around within his own controlled companies in order to save on taxes and allow political influence for generations
His family will be able to draw high incomes anyway (even as a non profit) as they will still have control over their own salaries
People are right to be wary of actions by corporations and the rich. Especially in the realms of philanthropy and the climate. But to me it looks like the people who are mad about this are just looking a gift horse in the mouth, scrambling to find something to be mad at.
Sorry to break it to you but this whole giving away his fortune is a load of shit. Watch th-cam.com/video/0Cu6EbELZ6I/w-d-xo.html where Adam explains why.
@@aye3678 Yeah don't get me wrong I don't think that billionaires should even exist. And I certainly would never have made a post or article sucking the dudes balls for doing arguably less than the bare minimum.
But people probably could spend their time better than being mad about a case which (relative to others) will have a more positive outcome.
That being said, it's probably important to push back given the amount of breathy and uncritical praise this case received.
How Chouinard Equipment disappeared and Patagonia was set up from the ashes (along with another major outdoor company) is probably a more fascinating story… seriously. Also read “Let my People Go Surfing”. This isn’t a cynical dodge, it’s consistent with the values of company and core customers.
Truly inspiring
Nice, they also have a business incentive to preserve the environment so that more people can go outside without worrying about floods, extreme weather, etc.
7:50 IMHO, this seems like it fits perfectly with the purpose. To solve climate crisis a lot of political change is required, policies and laws have to be passed. To do that political influence is probably the most important part.
For people who criticize this move , I honestly don't understand you.
When you consider other supposedly large "green" companies such a apple and tesla , I hope you notice the difference.
I'm sorry, what now? Patagonia's products are nowhere near as green as Tesla's products which have huge environmental benefits which is not surprising given that's the entire point of the company.
Apple, obviously not, I'll absolutely grant you that one.
@@jonevansauthor (Sorry for the long comment but summarizing it is really difficult without losing information)
Sorry to break your bubble electric cars are NOT environment friendly.
They are MUCH more friendly than traditional cars in the long run.
Now there comes the second problem electric batteries tend to lose most capacity by the 10th Year. You can't restore/repair batteries because the chemicals inside lose potency. Li-ion batteries contain large amounts of rare-earth materials and they are VERY polluting are resource intensive during extraction. In addition completely destroys local fauna in nearby cause in raw from these materials are toxic.
If you have time you can look into a documentary on this topic from a place you trust.
So making more cars and replacing battery every 10 years ain't helping, like at all. And on the software front its closed source so making modification "illegal" for something you "bought". If the companies decides it no longer wants to support you device they can just disable functions "completely legally".
I have never used Patagonia's products are mostly bio-degradable and of course cars and phones are not , I am just saying general attitudes of the company . Tesla has yet to commit any finances for green projects like Cycling insfrasturce/ walking/Public transport/better Urban-planning which are real "green" options. They don't support or encourage 3rd party repairs. If you enjoy their cars, sure enjoy them, but please don't call them green.
@@zotac1018 also most people can't afford tesla(in developing countries) which neglect it benefit
@@jonevansauthor I'm sorry but converting to expensive electric cars, which most people can't afford, which rely on batteries that are extremely bad for the environment to create, which can literally explode, will NEVER be as good for the environment as using public transport
@@mvnkycheez hahahahaha. Oh, you're serious? I'm afraid you've fallen for FUD if you think batteries are bad for the environment. Maybe you're thinking of lead acid from the last millennium?
In theory public transport is great, in practice it's an absolutely nightmare of damage and waste and will only become truly efficient in the future.
In no currently available format is public transport the complete solution to human movement. Only self driving vehicles will allow us to actually serve communities efficiently, leaving the less efficient vehicles such as train like vehicles to serve the major routes.
That'll most be battery electric vehicles.
This is exactly what I want to see more from with companies. I agree wholeheartedly about his take on the stock market and the way in which public companies needing to focus solely on profit being toxic for the world as a whole
This is how you get remembered in history.
It's a genuinely incredible and brilliant thing that he's done, absolutely no question. There will always be cynics about someone making such a progressive move but they have truly got the wrong end of the stick in this instance.
A precedent for how to reconcile political corporate and ecological motivations is definitely a good thing right now
Politicians shouldn't be for sale. Maybe that's the issue.
We'll have to wait and see how they spend their money going forward, but it seems like the world would indeed be a much better place if every large company operated like this.
I salute you, sir.
Maybe you could make a video detailing the difference between voting stocks vs non-voting stocks? Or just the different kinds of stock in general? I'd watch that.
Just know some video clips in the video are a bit behind the audio.
very good video, keep up the good work
So many spam comments of bots posting about crypto trading plateforms as soon as the video went online.
Everywhere on TH-cam for the last few days.
A TLDR of what a 501(C)(4) is would have been nice.
Considering how much lobbying is coming from fossil fuel companies, I think some from the other direction is a welcome change.
It'd only be a cynical move if Patagonia hadn't had such a commitment to green(er) commerce already. Equally, some of the more vocal criticism I've seen seems to be of the nirvana fallacy Student's Union politics sort: "oh you're doing something, why not EVERYTHING eh eh" sneering.
Like what you’re doing with the new channel
I dont know whether his motives are as idealistic as he claims, but it's an interesting move. Time will be the final arbiter of his actions.
There’s no excuse for other companies to practise Patagonia’s production. They have the capital.
It's not the founder or family that are cynical, it's the system that leaves all of us relying on the benevolence of a global 1%, the vast majority of which would never give up their wealth like this.
Tata in India is considered the hero and does a lot of goods things while still heading the company, so I don't think they have any nefarious reasons for doing this
loved the intro!
More important would be to look back on this 5 years from now and see of the outcome/purpose is as expected. Thus far looks as legitimate as can be and I really hope it's true.
I'm fairly confident that this is a good thing, but there's no way it's going to, like, transform capitalism like that guy said, either. There's no real incentive to do it!
very few do something that is 100% NOT self benefiting.
and even if some of it is selfish, isn't the bulk of it being good for the earth outweighing that?
kinda like when companies donate. Sure, they do it for tax write-off, but there is still benefit to it, so is it that bad? (this assumes they actually donate, not just into a charity that becomes their own political entity, etc)
Also please note that the majority of tax write-offs simply mean you don’t need to spend taxes on the income you donated. You still lose the rest of the income that you’d otherwise have made in profit. Essentially, a tax-deductible donation is a real donation that gets supported by the government waiving taxes on it. Same with "taking losses" for tax reasons. You’re still worse off than if you made a profit on them and paid taxes, but at least you don’t get taxed for the investment losses.
How could any entity corporate or personal affect climate change without political power though?
I mean, literally just buy solar farms or plant trees would do it. You don't need political power to be honest, but is trying to change the minds of Luddite politicians also part of the solution? Of course it is. I'm not sure if they've announced what the fund will do but people are just sort of assuming the worst case would be that they wield political power for nefarious means. As far as I can tell their plan could be to back renewable energy projects.
The people that do nothing are always telling the people that do something that it's not enough or that they have an ulterior motive. I don't mind if he and his family continue to be well off and I don't mind if he retains political power: it's needed to fight for climate change, and the fossil fuel corporations are not going to stop lobbying any time soon.
I waited to click on this because I didn't realise it was TLDR.
Instead of $700m, $17.5m seems reasonable.
Tldr needs to talk about Ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees
Just give the company to the workers...
!Question: At would point does foreign donations to political parties and organizations be considered foreign interference?
Great video!!! Very engaging...
With everything going on right now, the best decision is having a profitable investment strategy. Stocks are good but crypto is better.
>Inflation is killing my budget and my salary. I can't invest anymore and it seems like I will need to sell all of my risk assets to keep my head above the water this year.
@@fabriziorossi5664 Investment on risk assets (stocks, crypto, etc) is easier with proper guidance, especially from a proffessional it really helps reduce the chances of running into losses
@@fabriziorossi5664 Stop managing your portfolio and write to him since you keep losing money, his a trading pro. He will help you win passively.
@@fabriziorossi5664 I had this experience during the last downturn and thought I had lost everything but thanks to Mr Brian who managed my portfolio, I recovered all my losses.
I lost a lot in the stock market crash, please I need help. Thank you 🙏
Hmmm..... Interesting 🤔
While you’re down there ;)
He's better than Elon "let's go and muck up Mars after we've finished mucking up Earth" Musk in my book.
Wouldnt just want all of those profits for yourself? Or just invest it back into the business?
P.s. I assume expansion of the buisness would be included in the expenses right? more stores, distribution hubs etc.
One of the 15% mate lol
What about his kids?
Elo is doing the same thing in Pakistan.
bump
Why does it have to be a kind of capitalism? It could be, say, socialism
3:00 not something to be proud of
Title "Patagonia: The Billionaire Who Gave Away his Company (to the earth)"
The actual info: "Patagonia: The Billionaire Who Gave Away his Company (to the Fund)", so by Earth they mean a Fund.
first heh
Congrats
"Chouinard" means "crybaby" with a pretty rude tone in french
You certainly sound like one
Common Patagonia L
I keep on getting $38,000 every week from a new trading platforms in town which Elon recommends
As a newbie about to invest or new to the investment you must have these three things in mind
1:having a long term mindset.
2: Be willing to take risks
3: Have a trusted broker 😊👆🏻👆🏻
Yes I do recommend Mrs Valerie yarvin she’s awesome in trading 😊
+1765
350
9659 USA 🇺🇸
I down voted, I normally don't and wanted to give feed back. Reading quotes with energetic language is normal thats just how things are but when you present yourself as news you have a duty to behave in a way that is unbiased.
Usuing excitement and loaded language can suggest a bias and I am personal not interested in any news that can't keep that to a minimum regardless of weather i am excited or not. The example that stuck out to me was the phrase "hoard their wealth" at the beginning which primed me for the rest of the video.
Yea but maybe you should learn to form your own opinion even after listening to the ones of others. And this is youtube here, do you expect monotone unbiased footage and talking where people are going to fall asleep?
This is a classic tax evasion scheme, the founder of IKEA also did this a while back.
Anyone who believes that this is a selfless charitable act is naïve.
That's the point, paying income tax on a small amount of regulated income is still better than paying a lump sum tax on a 3 billion dollar inheritance.
Say you're the son of a billionaire, would you rather pay 400.000 dollars of tax on a million dollars a year for the rest of your life.
Or an inheritance tax of 1.2 billion dollars at once (40%)?
There is no tax being evaded because a sale was never made. Your hypothetical argument is null.
Imagine giving away a life's worth of work to solve a problem that does not exist. That's what this is.. They could have saved millions in poor countries with clean water and other low hanging fruit to help to the poor. Instead, the money is spent to alleviate the guilt on their own success. Just more anti-human eco-religion thinking.