[HN Gopher] Patagonia founder gives away the company
___________________________________________________________________
Patagonia founder gives away the company
Author : sharkweek
Score : 233 points
Date : 2022-09-14 19:45 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| beefman wrote:
| https://www.patagonia.com/ownership/
|
| > The Chouinard family will guide the Patagonia Purpose Trust,
| electing and overseeing its leadership. Family members will
| continue to sit on Patagonia's board ... The family will also
| guide the philanthropic work performed by the Holdfast
| Collective.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > "Mr. Chouinard does not own ... a cellphone." An amazing
| factoid in an amazing story.
|
| Major props to Yvon and family for setting an example that few
| will follow but many should.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| I would be a little surprised if the guy doesn't have a body
| man with a cellphone on hand all day long.
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| Pretty good illustration of the concept that no matter how much
| wealth you have, it's always the other guy that is rich:
|
| "Even today, he wears raggedy old clothes, drives a beat up
| Subaru and splits his time between modest homes in Ventura and
| Jackson, Wyo. Mr. Chouinard does not own a computer or a
| cellphone."
|
| ...
|
| ""I was in Forbes magazine listed as a billionaire, which really,
| really pissed me off," he said. "I don't have $1 billion in the
| bank. I don't drive Lexuses.""
|
| Yeah, raggedy old clothes and a Subaru. Got it. Definitely middle
| class.
| a4isms wrote:
| An irrelevant story about Yvon's climbing days:
|
| In 1967, he met a young woman named Joy Herron, and they went
| climbing together on a new route. The route is named "Jump for
| Joy" after her.
|
| https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105866381/jump-for-joy
| ramesh31 wrote:
| They literally sell oil. Oil with extra steps, which consume even
| more oil. All of Patagonia's profits are _completely_ based on
| selling oil to people who load up into a huge SUV or get on a
| plane to go consume more oil as they wear their fashionable oil.
|
| The modern sportswear industry (and fast fashion in general) has
| been an absolute catastrophe for the environment, and he
| certainly knows it. But yeah, whatever helps you sleep at night.
| avalys wrote:
| What do you do for a living, exactly?
| delecti wrote:
| Oil itself isn't the problem. Climate change is about adding
| the carbon from fossil fuels to the air. If we could magically
| convert all remaining unburned coal/oil to an enormous cube of
| polyester, it would more or less immediately put a cap on
| global warming. Of course it would also cause worldwide famine,
| but my point is that global warming itself isn't a directly
| result of the extraction/use of fossil fuels, but specifically
| the _burning_ of them.
| smileysteve wrote:
| 89% of their fabrics are from "preferred materials", 100% of
| the down is responsibly sourced, and 100% of their cotton is
| grown organically.
|
| Sportwear is rapidly becoming more responsible, using recycled
| polyester, nylon, and spandex
|
| https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint
| [deleted]
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >"They sell and market wool"
|
| As a tiny niche product, sure. But the entire reason
| Patagonia became successful in the first place is Polar
| Fleece [0], a product that came about as a "cheaper" (that
| is, where the true cost is externalized to the whole planet
| through emissions) wool alternative that could easily be made
| from hydrocarbons.
|
| >"89% of their fabrics are from "preferred materials", 100%
| of the down is responsibly sourced, and 100% of their cotton
| is grown organically."
|
| Meaningless marketing terms. The "responsibly sourced down"
| and "organically grown cotton" has nothing to do with their
| climate impact.
|
| Regardless, this isn't about social justice, or saving the
| penguins, or fair trade. It's just blind naked hypocrisy for
| a company that is 100% dependent on fossil fuels and
| petrochemicals to be profitable somehow acting like they are
| responsible environmental stewards.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_fleece
| ceejayoz wrote:
| This post is the living embodiment of
| https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-
| som....
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Polyester fleece did not get popular because it was cheaper
| than wool, in fact it was quite a bit more expensive when
| introduced. It gained popularity because it was lighter,
| far more water-resistant, and did not shrink when washed.
| potamic wrote:
| > they really embody this notion that every billionaire is a
| policy failure.
|
| If only more people realised this. Instead we do the opposite and
| worship the system which make them happen.
|
| Very inspiring overall. I've always heard good things about the
| company but never knew of the founder. There's something about
| seeing one carry such dignified ideals throughout their life,
| without wavering to societal expectations, that is so admirable.
| randyrand wrote:
| Having a billion pieces of paper does not matter. Literally
| paper. Digits on a computer. The supply of this paper is not
| even fixed.
|
| It only matters when billionaires convert that paper into food,
| housing, jets, etc, for themselves does it actually affect
| anyone.
|
| But, by a huge margin, the largest expense billionaires have is
| investment in other people and companies.
|
| If billionaires squandered their wealth on short term self
| indulgence that would be one thing, but they don't. They
| typically give it all away.
|
| I don't see the big policy failure here, or why that is a
| currently a problem that needs solving.
| [deleted]
| dumpsterlid wrote:
| _spits out drink_
|
| What universe do you live in???
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Look up regulatory capture for something that might change
| your mind about that.
|
| Also the money they "give away" is given to their next
| generation typically not the public. Bill Gates would be the
| exception.
|
| Opting out of fiat money (crypto is fiat in disguise) means
| living a rambo-like life of basic survival. Therefore a
| billion dollars sure means something. Not just paper.
| mbesto wrote:
| > It only matters when billionaires convert that paper into
| food, housing, jets, etc, for themselves does it actually
| affect anyone.
|
| Fair point. One thing noting is that overall asset value
| isn't always directly converted to product/services but
| rather it's used as leverage. Sometimes this leverage is
| intangible ("don't f with me, I'm going to sue you"), other
| times it's very REAL tangible leverage - see Peter Thiel and
| Gawker.
| alistairSH wrote:
| _They typically give it all away._
|
| They do? The Kennedys, Rockefellers, etc certainly haven't.
| Those families have been massively wealthy for several
| generations.
| svnt wrote:
| This is a presentation of money that assumes there is no
| problem with other people not having that money.
|
| The major issue is systemic instability and unnecessary
| poverty.
|
| It is popular to presume that everything is not zero sum, but
| this is not the case.
|
| I don't see any good reason we should allow excessive
| potential energy to become the property of a class of people
| who want nothing more than excessive potential energy.
| Aunche wrote:
| Without billionaires, the net result wouldn't be that their
| money would be distributed among the populace. The result
| would be that this wealth simply wouldn't exist at all.
| This is why the Soviet Union stagnated after they reached a
| certain standard of living. There is no incentive to take
| on risk when you aren't entitled to a proportional reward.
| peyton wrote:
| What's your proposed fix? Like if I create the next Star
| Wars, am I not "allowed" excessive "potential energy"
| somehow? How would that even work?
| svnt wrote:
| This idea that a single person creates Star Wars is one
| gap in understanding of a healthy system. A person does
| not exist in my or your present state or create anything
| but for the work of millions if not billions of other
| people.
|
| The solution has been repeatedly demonstrated and isn't
| complicated. The benefits should accrue to the system
| that creates them in a balanced way. Limits on the return
| of capital, implemented as either voluntary donation or
| taxes and progressive income taxes.
|
| People scoff at taxes vs representation but right now,
| today, they can avoid those taxes by donating that money.
| isleyaardvark wrote:
| The choice of "Star Wars" as an example is pretty ironic.
| There has been so much discussion about how Star Wars was
| a result of the work of so many people. And how George
| Lucas, who would be the candidate for "single person",
| when left to his own devices made worse quality Star Wars
| films.
|
| In particular, there was: - Marcia Lucas, credited for
| "saving Star Wars in the editing" - John Williams
|
| Not to mention all the people working on the special
| effects, the sound designer Ben Burtt, the list goes on.
|
| The reality is that a "single person" doesn't create
| things like that. The "visionary/great man" ideal is just
| good PR.
| criddell wrote:
| The proposed fix usually amounts to some type of wealth
| and estate taxes.
| makomk wrote:
| There is not some fixed amount of money in the world,
| though, and there hasn't been since at least the point the
| world abandoned the gold standard. We don't have to worry
| about someone sitting on all the money and stopping the
| economic activity that it would enable by doing so -
| governments and banks can literally create money out of
| thin air as necessary to keep the economy supplied with
| cash. The big limiting factor in how well off ordinary
| workers can be is the capacity of the actual, real economy
| of factories and stores to supply them with goods and
| services. That's why it's not a bad thing that people found
| successful businesses which are worth a large amount of
| money: by doing so they are, in general, directly making
| everyone better off by coming up with better, more
| efficient or higher quality ways of satisfying their needs.
|
| Sure, they didn't do it alone, they had employees and the
| whole rest of society, but all those workers and the rest
| of society was there before and yet the business was not.
| Successful business enterprises don't just instantaneously
| spontaneously assemble because the world is capable of
| supporting them, they have to be created and if they cease
| to exist the world is worse off even though all the workers
| and buildings and so on still exist. (Also, the parts of
| society that enable successful businesses - and even basics
| like food and energy - are much more heavily made up of
| other businesses than I think people appreciate.)
| simonh wrote:
| This is the point. What's important is how ownership and
| management of economic production is allocated. Who runs
| businesses? In capitalism they are largely owned and
| managed by the people that built those businesses. In
| communism and nationalised industries they are owned and
| managed by a government bureaucracy. In this case the
| owner transferred that control to a charitable trust.
|
| Personally I believe each of these can have advantages in
| various situations. Some critical shared infrastructure
| and services I think do belong with government. Defence,
| healthcare, emergency services, perhaps some utilities.
| Charitable trusts have a place. But I also believe
| private citizens that demonstrate the ability to build
| and run businesses also have a place, a big place in the
| system. Private capital investment is a massive and
| highly productive and efficient force for economic good.
| Typical billionaires don't spend billions on themselves.
| Millions yes, but most of those billions exist as shares
| that represent control of productive businesses that
| provide goods, services and jobs. If they spent it all on
| themselves they wouldn't be billionaires for very long.
|
| I don't think it's generally in the public interest or
| beneficial to society to confiscate businesses from their
| owners, and what? Give it to who? There is a legitimate
| concern that such control can lead to negative effects
| like exercise consumption or political influence, but the
| way you deal with that is to address those problems
| directly.
| hahaxdxd123 wrote:
| The only issue with wealth/income inequality in countries
| like America is that some goods are artificially
| constrained or positional (mostly housing).
|
| A mediocre salary of $40,000 is enough to buy so many goods
| from competitive markets (phones, cars, anything you can
| get off Amazon/AliExpress). This becomes very apparent when
| you go to lesser developed countries.
|
| The major costs in people's lives do not come from the
| billionaire class. If you tax them into oblivion and give
| that money away, it will be soaked up by housing anyway
| (look how sharply housing costs have risen after the growth
| in real income the past 2 years).
| bumby wrote:
| > _The major issue is systemic instability and unnecessary
| poverty._
|
| Jon Stewart once put it in a different frame: he called
| better policy "revolution insurance". At least that frames
| it in a way as to what the rich have to gain instead of
| solely focusing it on what they have to lose.
| jollybean wrote:
| It's not paper or digits it's a social contract i.e. 'power'.
| layer8 wrote:
| Those billions give them a lot of power and influence.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > largest expense billionaires have is investment in other
| people and companies
|
| that's not an expense, but an investment, on which they
| (usually) get a return, increasing their net worth
|
| > if billionaires squandered their wealth on short term self
| indulgence that would be one thing, but they don't
|
| they do, just not enough to make a dent in their wealth
| because once it's grown so large, it's hard to spend it
| faster than its growth. If you have $1B growing at a modest
| 6% / year, that's $60M / year.
|
| > They typically give it all away.
|
| they don't (unless by "all" you mean "a small percentage").
| Even the few who have pledged to give 50% away in their
| lifetime have not (since their fortune has continued to
| grow). There are exceptions of course (and MacKenzie Scott
| will probably be one of them).
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| > They typically give it all away.
|
| _If_ they give it away (many don 't) they specifically
| choose where it goes, and often it's some legacy BS, like
| overpaying to get their name on a university library.
| Alternatively that money ends up going to their children and
| it stays in the family for generations.
|
| Billionaires will not save us.
| thebooktocome wrote:
| > They typically give it all away.
|
| To their children, perhaps? Or to a non-profit they control,
| for tax reasons? Sure.
|
| But in general, I believe, actual philanthropy is a
| relatively small part of the typical billionaire's portfolio.
| OGWhales wrote:
| Money is a representation of resources, those with more money
| can control more resources. I think it is undeniably a
| problem for any individual to have control over such a large
| portion of resources.
|
| All of this wealth they have accumulated gives them immense
| power and control over our society. Billionaires largely use
| their wealth to create even more wealth for themselves or to
| influence people, they don't "give it all away".
|
| Your framing is _extremely_ disingenuous.
| [deleted]
| sokoloff wrote:
| They created a company that people willingly buy over $1
| billion of product from every year. Why shouldn't creating that
| much value in the world result in the owners collectively
| benefiting? If that happens to be a million different people
| each having a $1000 stake or 1 family having a $1B stake, I
| don't have a problem thinking that either is a valid outcome.
|
| IMO, we should look at the value created and celebrate that
| rather than jealously fret over the concentration of the number
| of people who own it.
|
| To be clear: I think what they did is admirable on both the
| building and the recent transaction. I respect them greatly for
| both parts.
| jacknews wrote:
| But one person did not create all the value.
|
| And it's not even all the employees of this single company
| who created it. The entire structure of society, technology,
| law and order, transport infrastructure, etc, etc, enabled
| such a concentration of wealth.
|
| It's good to see when beneficiaries realise it's not really
| 'their' money at all.
| nine_k wrote:
| You speak as if almost all these societal benefits are not
| paid for by willful trading, and by taxes.
|
| Did this particular billionaire evade taxes? used tons of
| governmental subsidies, or government-granted monopolies?
| Does this company look like it did not pay its fair share
| back?
| djbebs wrote:
| I dont believe Patagonia uses slave labor in their
| factories
| sokoloff wrote:
| Indeed, they did not create all that value alone. They also
| provided stable jobs for many thousands of employees along
| the way. We should also celebrate that and I was remiss to
| not mention it originally.
| smileysteve wrote:
| And in the context
|
| Created a billion dollar company that people buy from to
| enjoy the outdoors (at least some of the time for a large
| portion of the customers)(or at least signal)
| criddell wrote:
| > a million different people each having a $1000 stake or 1
| family having a $1B stake
|
| Money is power. Do you see no difference in a million people
| have a little power vs one family having enormous power?
| marcusverus wrote:
| If you want to reduce the influence of money on politics,
| you're not going to achieve that by punishing billionaires,
| or by destroying the incentive structure that allows them
| to exist. If you want to reduce the influence of money in
| politics, you'll have to understand the _specific
| mechanisms_ that create said influence, and address them by
| law.
|
| Wealth is good. People acquire wealth by adding value. We
| want to incentivize people to add value. Of course, the
| "billionaires shouldn't exist" crowd understand little and
| less, and would happily have us destroy this system of
| incentives _without even achieving their stated goals_ ,
| because they, much like the "defund police" crowd, are more
| interested in appearing virtuous than in actually solving
| problems.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| > Wealth is good. People acquire wealth by adding value.
|
| Those are axioms presented without evidence. It's trivial
| to find counter examples.
|
| I'm no radical redistributionist but the idea that wealth
| in and of itself shows added value is clearly wrong.
| orwin wrote:
| Money is just an arbitrary mean of distributing
| production. In a capitalist society (and at a lesser
| extent in a mercantile one too), having a lot of
| "things", in this case money and capital: we can call
| wealth, is power (this has implication for anarchist
| beliefs).
|
| Democracy and in a limited way, socialism (pensions for
| the elderly, healthcare, subsidized public
| transportation, i know this is not the original meaning,
| but for this its good enough) counterbalance the power
| gap between wealthy people and non-wealthy people, but
| clearly in the western world (at least in my country),
| the counterbalance is weaker and weaker.
|
| I don't think a random millionaire like Eric Finman
| should have more power than a random citizen, and yet he
| have.
|
| I don't think the "billionaire shouldn't exist" crowd
| actually exist. But i'm part of the "billionaires
| shouldn't have this much power" crowd, since it feels
| like in my country, they own the press, the executive and
| 40% of the legislative power. The judiciary power is the
| only one that might be a bit free from influence, but i'm
| not certain.
| nine_k wrote:
| OTOH concentration of capital makes companies like Tesla
| and SpaceX possible. It also makes large, self-sustaining
| charities possible.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Of course I see a difference between those two; I just
| don't think it's a problem. Over many decades, many
| millions of people transferred some of their power to
| Patagonia as a result of their belief that they'd rather
| have the Patagonia product than the amount of power that
| money represented. Millions were made better off, by their
| own value function.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| > Why shouldn't creating that much value in the world result
| in the owners collectively benefiting?
|
| One can benefit without being a billionaire.
| avalys wrote:
| What do you think "being a billionaire" means?
|
| If you start and retain ownership of a company that is one
| worth day a billion dollars, you're a billionaire.
|
| That doesn't mean you have a billion dollars in cash. It
| doesn't mean you have a billion dollars in hard assets. It
| means you built a functioning organization that is
| performing some valuable service in society, and some
| accountant has associated some value to that entire
| organization of more than $1,000,000,000.
|
| At what point do you think founders should be punished for
| that accomplishment by having some of their ownership stake
| taken away from them?
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| > At what point do you think founders should be punished
| for that accomplishment by having some of their ownership
| stake taken away from them?
|
| When they sell it for a billion dollars.
| ipaddr wrote:
| They don't sell it now they borrow money against the
| value of shares and get to keep the stock, not pay taxes
| because it is not income. Your plan would not work. No
| plan like this could work...
| avalys wrote:
| Sure, that would be a reasonable position, but most
| people the media characterizes as "billionaires" have not
| actually sold their company for a billion dollars. This
| is a fundamental misconception.
|
| These listings of "net worth", etc. all include the
| nominal market value of their remaining ownership of
| whatever company they founded.
|
| Jeff Bezos has a "net worth" of $160B. That's not because
| he sold Amazon for $160B. It's because Amazon is worth
| $2T and he still owns 8% of it.
|
| At what point would you suggest the government should
| have taken away that 8% ownership so he would not become
| a billionaire?
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| > At what point would you suggest the government should
| have taken away that 8% ownership so he would not become
| a billionaire?
|
| I'm not suggesting that.
|
| It's ok if people are billionaires, if defined by having
| large holdings that, if liquidated, would shrink to non
| billionaire scales to give back to society.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Those billionaires don't sell their shares but they do
| take extremely low interest loans that are non-taxed
| against those shares kicking their tax obligations into
| future generations while using liquidity to live as if
| they've sold the shares.
|
| So I'd suggest the tax code be amended to account for
| that.
| avalys wrote:
| That's also a reasonable suggestion. It wouldn't stop
| them from becoming billionaires. The GP suggested "every
| billionaire is a policy failure". What's the policy that
| prevents this failure?
| smaddox wrote:
| Should we cap the benefit at some particular monetary
| value? Wouldn't that disincentivize building companies past
| a certain point of success? Is that really what we want?
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| To answer the last two questions, yes. The expectation
| for companies to continue to grow no matter what, even
| when they're already massively profitable, is one of the
| biggest issues with modern capitalism. It's how you get
| the world's most profitable (non-financial) company
| switching its focus to nickel-and-diming its customers
| for services because it's run out of new human beings to
| sell iPhones to, and how you get every video game company
| switching to scummy fomo and gambling to maximize
| shareholder revenue instead of mindshare, and how you get
| every company jumping over themselves to sell your data
| even if you're already paying for the product. Companies
| should be able to get to the point where leaving money on
| the table for the good of their customers, and society,
| is a valid move.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| I think we should scale income tax based on wealth
| personally
| layer8 wrote:
| That will just lead people to outsource their wealth by
| whatever means, so that it doesn't formally count as
| their wealth anymore, but they effectively still control
| it.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Then I hope we can couple it with a well funded IRS.
|
| In theory this would be difficult to do unlike the games
| that occur now because you don't merely need to suggest
| that you're not earning the income. You can't give it to
| a family member or it gets it with a hefty gift tax. You
| can't stuff it into a shell corp because you still own
| the shell corp. You could donate it to a charity which
| you control which is a thing that happens now.
| layer8 wrote:
| Or maybe you don't receive it in the form of whatever
| formally counts as wealth in the first place.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Our tax law definitions of fair market value are
| sufficient that I think this is a non critical issue.
| sokoloff wrote:
| You don't think that before the Constitutional Amendment
| to allow taxation of wealth is ratified that there will
| be 1000s of CPAs and attorneys looking for loopholes?
|
| GRATs and IDGTs will look like quaint children's toys
| compared to the schemes invented to receive the benefit
| without formally having $10^9 of net worth.
| layer8 wrote:
| Looking at many of the big companies, that doesn't seem
| like a particularly bad idea.
| [deleted]
| bergenty wrote:
| I don't think so. The very rich can really try things and build
| industries that we wouldn't be able to do otherwise. Elon musk
| wouldn't have been able to do anything he did without the money
| from PayPal. Same thing with the Rockefellers and the Hearsts
| in the early 20th century.
| smt88 wrote:
| Wielding that amount of money/power is most often used for
| evil. Even if it were only used for good, it should be
| democratically controlled.
|
| It's nice that Bill Gates uses his billions for tackling
| diseases, but he shouldn't be able to decide the fates of
| millions of people unilaterally. He's an individual wielding
| nation-scale power, and that's dangerous for everyone else.
|
| The same is true for Musk, and it's especially true for the
| billionaires who are distorting our democracy (Thiel,
| Bankman-Fried, Bloomberg, Koch, Hastings, etc.)
| megaman821 wrote:
| What is the alternative here? The majority of the
| governments discretionary money is allocated toward the
| military. Should Bill Gates and Elon Musk being putting
| half their money to developing better jets and missiles? I
| think it is much better than their money goes to curing
| diseases, environmental causes, electric cars, and space. A
| few billionaires choosing to do nothing over than passing
| it down to children is a small price to pay.
| bergenty wrote:
| No, we should have billionaires like in my comment above
| but it shouldn't be easy to pass all of that to the next
| generation. Inheritance should be reasonably taxed and if
| the next generation has the chops to become a billionaire
| again then they are worthy of it and will actually
| probably contribute to rapid progress.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| So your suggestion is to have governments collect more
| inheritance taxes on a billionaire's estate. Then those
| taxes will be used for military purposes, no?
| mikkergp wrote:
| I don't know the way around this, but I do think it's good
| that power is not centralized in one governmental
| structure, even if that structure is Democratic, and I also
| think it's good that there are a diverse set of
| philosophies determining how philanthropy should happen.
|
| I don't know that I love the idea of billionaires being the
| solution to those two problems, but I do think that some
| part of our resiliency as a nation is because the
| government doesn't have total control over those things.
|
| Not to mention the obvious conundrum that this may be great
| when the party you support is in power but not so great
| when they're not.
| ryan93 wrote:
| They are not a "solution" they are private citizens
| engaging in activities that are not if your business.
| kornhole wrote:
| Both Gates and Buffet promised to give away all their
| money, but they have only become richer. Gates uses his
| philanthropic trust to influence decisions that enrich his
| investments while convincing people he is doing it for
| good. How long are we supposed to wait for these guys to
| actually give away that money, or was it just a lie?
| smt88 wrote:
| Giving away money is a form of undemocratic power, too. A
| billionaire recently gave away all of his money to the
| Republican Party in the US, for example.
|
| Even if Gates gives his money to ostensibly non-political
| organizations, he's still deciding how an enormous amount
| of power is transferred.
|
| Even Steve Jobs' widow, who is giving small amounts of
| hundreds of organizations, is reshaping society according
| to her own design. While I'm aligned with her values for
| the most part, it is still terrifying to think about all
| the Powell-Jobs' who have billions that they are spending
| on things that harm us all.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Maybe needing to be vastly rich to to cool things is the
| actual problem? Suppose there were higher levels of general
| financial security such that people could take more risks.
| Open source software generates huge positive externalities
| without fairy godparents.
| bergenty wrote:
| You just can't achieve really big things with a medium
| amount of money. You can have the government do it but you
| never really see that much innovation. There's a reason you
| don't see a huge amount of innovation coming out of Europe.
| sophacles wrote:
| Funny you say this on the internet, an innovative (at the
| time, now it's just taken for granted) communications
| network funded by the US government for it's first
| decade. On that network you are using a technology
| (http/html) that was inveted at CERN (a large government
| funded research institute) in Europe.
|
| These two things together have widely been credited with
| changing the world.
| isleyaardvark wrote:
| I couldn't help thinking about the space race, myself.
| That was a puzzling assertion.
| svnt wrote:
| We have no idea what innovation might have come because
| it was overrun by earlier deliberately monopolistic
| efforts driven by the aggressive and arguably unnecessary
| consumption of marginal human lives.
|
| Just because the fastest way of building something can
| win doesn't mean we should do it that way. In fact, we
| almost always shouldn't do it that way, upon inspection.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| But in return, everyone has a decent quality of life. In
| America, the innovation comes at the cost of grinding
| everyone not wealthy till death.
|
| Just be upfront that's the trade off for "innovation."
| The economic environment that allows for such enormous
| wealth aggregation comes at a cost.
| [deleted]
| bergenty wrote:
| Yeah I'm in the camp where I want to see rapid progress
| above a decent quality of life for everyone. I feel like
| we're rapidly approaching a point where technology can
| realistically solve all of our basic problems and want to
| get there as quickly as possible even if it means pain in
| the short term (probably our lifetimes). Obviously not
| everyone will agree with me but in the US even a grinding
| life isn't all that bad relatively. You won't go hungry,
| if you're not drug addled you'll rarely be on the streets
| for very long, if you have a mental condition or
| disability you get money from the government, minimum
| wage jobs are very, very easy to get, we have a problem
| with cops but on the whole our justice system actually
| lets anyone get justice etc.
| svnt wrote:
| I am really confused. Could you provide some data to back
| up your position that basically nothing is a big problem
| unless you are "drug addled"? How does one become "drug
| addled" if nothing is a problem?
|
| I would be more convinced if you could also link to
| studies showing how early family life and local history
| have no impact on developmental brain processes and don't
| create culture traps.
| sneak wrote:
| That's a false dichotomy. The percentage of people with
| bad quality of life is about the same in both places (for
| westernized Europe) and much worse for eastern Europe.
| wizofaus wrote:
| Officially the poverty rate is actually somewhat lower in
| the US than most countries in Europe. But it seems
| unlikely it's measured the same way, or that it
| necessarily translates to more people being unable to
| access basic services (health, housing, power etc.).
| bombcar wrote:
| No amount of general financial security would get me what I
| need to start a company that can land rockets.
|
| Even if I can get the group of people I need for free
| (because all their expenses are paid) I still need land,
| materials, etc.
| avalys wrote:
| Do you realize that your statement is logically equivalent to:
|
| "Every person who ever created a successful company and
| retained ownership of a lot of it is a policy failure".
|
| Would you support that statement?
| ChadNauseam wrote:
| I don't get the hate for billionaires, but the two statements
| are not logically equivalent. A statement implied by the GP
| comment would be:
|
| "Every person who ever created a successful company and
| retained ownership of a lot of it, causing them to become a
| billionaire, is a policy failure".
|
| Presumably the GP only has a problem with that process when
| it results in someone becoming a billionaire. My guess is
| that they think people will still found successful companies
| even if it doesn't result in billionaires, or that the
| benefits from successful companies will come about some other
| way.
| deltree7 wrote:
| adaisadais wrote:
| Does anyone know of any companies where this strategy has worked?
|
| Obvs lesser of the evils but the fear is that, at some point, the
| family or the fund, gets too far removed from the mission /
| founder (as is common with many companies) and ultimately chooses
| profits > environment.
| ddkto wrote:
| Yes - I work at Arup (https://www.arup.com/), a large
| engineering design and consultancy firm. The founder (Ove Arup)
| and original 7 partners "sold" their shares to a trust in the
| 60s or 70s (for something like 1 GBP, so they were effectively
| donated). The main difference between Arup and Patagonia seems
| to be that the beneficiaries of the Arup trust are Arup
| employees, while the Patagonia trust has other aims.
|
| Ove Arup had a strong philosophy of design and how the business
| ought to be run, and the trust was set up to allow that view to
| continue to drive how we work. (https://www.arup.com/-/media/ar
| up/files/publications/k/ove-a...)
|
| I worked at a smaller firm previously that had a very similar
| ethos to Arup, but the original shareholders sold to a publicly
| held firm and it evaporated in short order.
|
| The board that manages the trusts is mostly made up of folks
| who have spent much of their career in the firm, which helps to
| keep the trust from drifting too far from the mission.
| Obviously, there are changes with time, but we can make these
| changes for reasons other than next quarter's financials.
|
| (ps, if anyone is curious to see this from the inside, I am
| hiring devs! My burning need is C++ devs, but we are also
| hiring for skills all across the tech spectrum)
| csw-001 wrote:
| Hershey (all profits go to boys boarding school) is a case in
| point - but the argument there is actually the exact opposite -
| that dead hand control is keeping the mission from shifting to
| be more inclusive.
| tinalumfoil wrote:
| https://archive.ph/HoLPC
| Reubend wrote:
| What a bold move! I hope it works well for them. This will
| probably be very positive for his mission.
| celestialcheese wrote:
| Here's the note from Yvon https://www.patagonia.com/ownership/
|
| One of the most interesting parts of this is the choice to make
| Holdfast a C4. They really wanted to make this a political
| organization, and were willing to forgo a staggering amount of
| tax savings - in fact, $17m in tax donating away a $3b asset.
| Probably the least effective estate planning from a raw $
| perspective in history.
|
| Major props to the family for doing this - this is now the
| definition of "putting your money where your mouth is", and I
| hope this model is a success and serves as a template for others
| to follow.
| hammock wrote:
| Thanks for sharing the actual letter. Contrary to what the New
| York Times report (OP) would have you believe, Yvon's note
| doesn't say anything about climate change. Rather, it
| emphasizes "the environmental crisis," "defending nature," "the
| health and vitality of the natural world," and the Earth's
| finite resources.
|
| There is so much more to environmental conservation than just
| "climate change," and Patagonia has done much more around e.g.
| removing dams, minimizing PFCs in their products, recycling and
| increasing longevity of materials, and other actions that
| protect air, land, forests, rivers and oceans, and which
| encourage sustainable energy production.
|
| Dear NYT and fellow readers, please don't throw this diversely
| interested company into some politically expedient climate
| change bucket. Their view on the environment is so much more.
| test098 wrote:
| Quite literally references climate change in the third
| sentence of the letter?
|
| > "As we began to witness the extent of global warming and
| ecological destruction, and our own contribution to it,
| Patagonia committed to using our company to change the way
| business was done."
| exysle wrote:
| I like how "global warming" became "climate change." My
| favorite trick of the mind.
| orwin wrote:
| I dislike "climate change" too, because it carries the idea
| that we can change it back. I think "global warming" was
| fine, but if i had to pick something, it would be "climate
| drift" i think.
| edgyquant wrote:
| I really like climate drift
| e9 wrote:
| I disagree. Climate always changes. Constantly. Warming
| is just one part of the climate change. Many other things
| change too so climate change is a lot broader term for
| this.
| cma wrote:
| Read it again, it does mention climate change. Reflexive
| ctrl-f won't work because it words it: "global warming." It's
| in the very first paragraph:
|
| > As we began to witness the extent of global warming and
| ecological destruction, and our own contribution to it,
| Patagonia committed to using our company to change the way
| business was done.
|
| The New York Times didn't slip this in to mislead everyone.
| subsubzero wrote:
| Despite some of my issues with the company, they have a few
| really cool environmentally friendly programs. The "worn
| well" program is incredible, basically if you have a piece of
| patagonia clothing and return it through that program, they
| clean it up or recycle it and you get a free credit towards
| anything patagonia sells.
|
| For kids clothes this is a boon, I would buy my daughter a
| patagonia jacket from the patagonia outlet at 40% off, she
| grows out if it and I trade it in for a new jacket and get
| $20-$30 off of the new jacket. Her old jacket gets cleaned
| and sold to some other kid who can use it(they have a worn
| well portal where you can buy used gear), great for peoples
| pocketbooks, great for the environment - win all around.
| bmj wrote:
| Yeah, I don't agree with 100% of their political positions
| (though, to be fair, it is rare that I agree with 100% of
| anyone's political positions, including my own), but they
| are really trying to change the way people consume their
| products. And, many of their products are truly built to
| last. I have two jackets (one insulated, one a fleece) that
| are 15+ years old and have been dragged through the dirt,
| mud, rain, and snow all over the U.S.
| soperj wrote:
| > get $20-$30 off of the new jacket
|
| would you also get $20-30 off of a used jacket?
| hammock wrote:
| Yes "If you have an old Patagonia item that is just
| sitting around, we'll give you credit towards your next
| purchase on a used or new garment."
| https://wornwear.patagonia.com/
| ycta20220914230 wrote:
| Levi's has the same kind of thing for secondhand and
| vintage denim jeans and jackets:
| https://www.secondhand.levi.com/
| xmonkee wrote:
| That's interesting, I wouldn't have made the distinction. I'm
| not even sure there is a distinction (climate change is by
| far the greatest threat to the environment). What are your
| personal views on climate change, if you don't mind me
| asking?
| oliwary wrote:
| Not OP, but I think there are very important environmental
| impacts that are not related to climate change. Take, for
| example, plastic in the sea - clearly a big issue for the
| environment, but addressing climate change will not impact
| this at all.
|
| Other examples include destruction of habitats, NO2 in the
| air, dumping waste in nature and rivers, lead that gets
| into nature etc.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| 501c3 organizations have to be careful about the language they
| use when commenting on any government policy, even if they stay
| out of elections. It's just hard to be overtly opinionated
| about things as a c3. The Sierra Club found this out the hard
| way when fighting a dam across the Grand Canyon. They converted
| to a c4 as well back then (well, the IRS forced them to).
| gowld wrote:
| jaquer_1 wrote:
| nikolay wrote:
| In the past 15+ years, I've never bought a piece of clothing,
| even the so-called "performance wear", that's not made from
| natural fibers - such as cotton, wool, linen. I am not sure about
| bamboo fibers - they are heavily processed and mostly in
| countries with less control. Looking into how much junk the dryer
| collects after drying plastic wear is enough for a person with a
| brain to stop buying those unhealthy and not eco-friendly
| clothes! All the microplastics goes into the environment -
| locally or deep in nature - and includes your lungs and digestive
| tract. Wearing plastic clothes at home is the worst - there are
| enough studies showing you inhale the plastic particles, and they
| start corrupting your health slowly but surely! The so called
| "fleece" to me is horrific comparable only to glitter! I can't
| believe that this is the type of material most kids love, and we
| make sure their lungs are full of it from an early age! Even
| scarier is the new trend of recycled plastics used for stuff that
| touches your skin or stays in your home! Who guarantees that the
| plastics are not containing micro toxins such as heavy metals, or
| compounds that could be released in time?! I am not hijacking the
| topic - brands such as Patagonia and Prana should be avoided, not
| glorified!
| switch007 wrote:
| Spot on. This should be higher.
|
| I feel crazy sometimes explaining to people that despite all
| the buzzwords, it's still just plastic and not great for you.
|
| When I visited the US I went to some very big outdoor stores
| and their range of clothing made from cotton and other natural
| fibres was absolutely tiny. Such a shame. (Just as bad at home
| to be fair)
| nluken wrote:
| > "What makes capitalism so successful is that there's motivation
| to succeed," said Ted Clark, executive director of the
| Northeastern University Center for Family Business. "If you take
| all the financial incentives away, the family will have
| essentially no more interest in it except a longing for the good
| old days."
|
| Pretty telling that a business school administrator has no
| concept of being motivated by anything other than pure profit.
| Always a depressing wake up call to remember that these kinds of
| people exist and that people actually take anything they have to
| say seriously.
| alistairSH wrote:
| And the statement is based on a falsehood... the two adult
| children remain on the payroll. Sure, they aren't getting a
| slice of the profits, but they do have a financial interest, at
| least enough to keep their jobs.
| mountainriver wrote:
| Yeah what makes capitalism successful is that you will starve
| unless you work hard.
|
| Once you have a certain level of money it becomes much less of
| a motivator for most people.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Starving people are not a feature of a successful system.
|
| Capitalism does not reward hard work. Smart work, maybe, but
| not hard work.
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| Capitalism is designed to get people to work their fair
| share.
|
| It's Democracy that supposed to prevent starving people.
| (And crime, and that people are educated, and healthy)
| sophacles wrote:
| Capitalism is designed so that a relatively few leeches
| can skim value off the work of others.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Capitalism is designed to allow the ownership class to
| exploit the labor of the masses.
| ChadNauseam wrote:
| Capitalism is designed to get people who want each
| other's stuff to trade with each other
| melenaboija wrote:
| Capitalism is designed that you better have luck the day
| you are born
| brianwski wrote:
| > Capitalism does not reward hard work. Smart work, maybe,
| but not hard work.
|
| I'd say a person successful/rewarded in a capitalistic
| society (defined by accruing more wealth than they started
| with and not just spending down some large family
| inheritance they were born into) probably has some
| combination of: luck, smart (intelligent) decisions, hard
| word, probably has a good "setup" going into the working
| world like parents didn't abuse them growing up and at
| least helped pay for their education, etc. Maybe that last
| one is just a subset of luck, we certainly do not choose
| our parents.
|
| Sure, you can be missing one of the above list and do Ok,
| but probably not two. Statistically a smart, hard working
| person who had the world's crappiest upbringing probably
| won't be that successful compared with somebody who had all
| three going for them. But if you look at 20 "success
| stories" it is extremely rare the person didn't work hard.
| I think it's an important component of being rewarded in
| capitalism. It does a disservice to people to say "slacking
| off or working hard results in identical outcomes".
|
| To support at least half of your point, you cannot be
| stupid and work hard and be successful. But a smart person
| who works hard will most likely do better than a smart
| person who doesn't work hard.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| >you cannot be stupid and work hard and be successful.
|
| Unless you are born into wealth, of course. One of your
| three/four criteria. Lots of examples of people grifting
| and grinding to fail upwards who have no special talent
| or intelligence of their own. Some are very powerful,
| even.
| svnt wrote:
| Unless you just enjoy the process of acquisition.
|
| I've seen people shake and twitch with existential rage
| during negotiations that would result in their net worth
| possible going from ten figures to a marginally higher ten
| figures, and the same for the next order of magnitude. They
| were made either way, and they acted as though their life was
| at risk.
|
| It is nothing but a greed impulse that most of us were taught
| to overcome during early childhood, but we give it license
| and credibility as some ultimate good.
| Ferrotin wrote:
| There is a guy on the other side of that transaction who
| would capture that surplus value.
| boplicity wrote:
| Patagonia mostly sells fossil fuel based products (polyester,
| etc). The idea of reserving all profits from such a company
| towards fighting climate change just makes sense to me.
|
| We live in a fossil fuel based economy; the profit from fossil
| fuel based companies _should_ be reinvested towards transitioning
| away from fossil fuels. This just makes sense.
|
| I doubt more companies will follow suit, but if they do, that
| would be a sign of hope for the world. (Imagine, for example, if
| all the major oil extraction companies dedicated most of their
| profits to genuinely fighting climate change.)
|
| edit: I've never gotten downvotes so quickly on a post. I don't
| mind downvotes, but would appreciate a thoughtful reply in
| response. Thank you. :)
| exabrial wrote:
| Thousands of clothing items are an insignificant usage of oil;
| you are emptying a swimming pool into the ocean in South Africa
| and looking for sea level rise in Japan. Focusing on that
| misses core problems, but it does make good marketing and
| companies _exploit the hell out of that_ to see products.
| Spoken in plain language: It wouldn't make a difference even if
| all of Patagonia's clothes were made from bamboo. This is the
| simple science of the situation, yet people _vacuum_ this
| greenwashing marketing BS up like hotcakes.
|
| Curbing emissions from power generation is the #1 most
| effective way to reduce c02 and we have the answers right now:
| Nuclear, Wind, Solar, and battery storage.
|
| A few thousand jackets are a waste of time and is detrimental
| to causes that actually matter.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| > and battery storage.
|
| A note for all who might take issue with battery storage as
| too expensive, alternatives - albeit with lower efficiency -
| exist; hydro pumping, storing it in air turbines (8-9 hours,
| 95% efficiency iirc), even compressing air (this one goes to
| 85% efficiency iirc).
|
| http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2022/08/no-sun-no-wind-
| now-...
| maxbond wrote:
| This is a pretty uncharitable reading of what they were
| saying, they were commenting on a general principle and how
| there was something about the economics of this that had
| potential if it were scaled up. They didn't imply that this
| particular instance was of particular significance; they were
| saying it would be if there were a general trend of this
| among _extraction companies_, and they conceded that this
| probably wouldn't happen.
| boplicity wrote:
| Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
|
| In terms of fossil fuel based clothing, specifically, they
| are a growing cause for significant harm in the environment,
| and clothing does cause real harm that has lasting
| consequences. Fossil fuel based clothing accounts for around
| 60% of our clothing. This isn't just a problem of "a few
| thousand jackets."
|
| Microplastics regularly enter our water supply during
| laundering. This is a real problem that is causing real harm
| to our environment that will be very difficult to reverse.
|
| In terms of how this relates to climate change; how Patagonia
| as a company spends it's profits will now be up to them. I
| hope they'll address climate change directly, especially in
| terms of real solutions, but who knows what they'll do?
|
| However, I do know that if all fossil fuel based companies
| started re-investing all of their profits towards fixing the
| environment problems caused by their products, our world
| would be _very different._
|
| And yes, Patagonia is just a drop in the bucket in terms of
| overall clothing production, but that is not an argument
| against them taking action. I like the idea of _every_ fossil
| fuel based company taking similar action, not just one
| company. I realize this is not realistic, but it is appealing
| to me, at least.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| There is a ton of waste generated by the clothing industry
| that ends up being pushed onto the third world. Endless
| amounts of waste through fast fashion generated by companies
| like Shein.. ask any young women. We can do more than one
| good thing at a time, and we have to, our existence depends
| on it.
| nickff wrote:
| > _" We live in a fossil fuel based economy; the profit from
| fossil fuel based companies should be reinvested towards
| transitioning away from fossil fuels. This just makes sense."_
|
| These sentences seem like a non-sequitur to me, I'm not sure
| you're wrong, but why? Is it because transitioning away from
| fossil fuels is your top priority? If so, why?
| tshaddox wrote:
| I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with that statement
| completely, but the sentiment makes sense when you consider
| that some portion of the profits from fossil fuel consumption
| is associated with costs to unrelated third parties, i.e.
| externalities.
| andrewxdiamond wrote:
| A large issue with fossil fuels is the externalities that
| companies can ignore when using them.
|
| OP means that companies who are benefiting from these
| externalities should instead pay the cost
| maxbond wrote:
| Not GP but what makes sense about it for me is that it's a
| negative feedback loop that stabilizes in a desirable place.
| If we took the profits generated from a harmful activity, and
| used invested them into alternatives, than there's a self-
| correcting nature to it that's appealing. As those
| alternatives are realized, the pot of money becomes smaller
| and smaller, and vanishes altogether when the goal has been
| achieved.
|
| I don't know how well this would work in practice, but it
| seems like something people could tinker with and possibly
| get to work.
| chrsig wrote:
| honestly, this is why it's been a bit bizarre to me that
| oil companies haven't heavily invested in renewable energy.
|
| the move away from oil is inevitable - they'd probably
| stand to make more money by being at the forefront of the
| change than they will by dragging it out.
| maxbond wrote:
| I have noticed this as well. My conclusion is that they
| value power more than they value money. Sustainable
| energy is necessarily not a one-size-fits-all solution,
| but adapted to the local needs & opportunities of each
| community. It's necessarily more complex and less well
| suited to economies of scale; it doesn't favor a handful
| of gigantic multinationals, and probably would look more
| like hundreds of large regional corporations.
|
| I think they're probably waiting for some kind of silver
| bullet that lets us transition to a sustainable source of
| very similar chemicals, derived from biomass or directly
| from the air, without fundamentally changing society or
| changing how our power structures function, and that they
| think they're gunnuh do it in just the nick of time. Sort
| of a greater fool theory of climate brinksmanship,
| passing on each solution in the hope you'll find the
| perfect one before time runs out, but you're in a
| research lab where the clocks have no hands.
|
| I fear that it may be worse, and that they may think they
| can actually just push through ecosystem collapse with
| technological solutions, and just never transition off of
| fossil fuels.
| rovingEngine wrote:
| Technically, voting shares went to the trust, common shares went
| to an associated nonprofit. 100% between them.
| type0 wrote:
| He should give it to Patagonians in Argentina and Chile!
| BasilPH wrote:
| I'm currently reading Yvon's book "Let my people go surfing"[^1]
| and so far, I can highly recommend it.
|
| The first, shorter half, is about how Patagonia grew, which is
| interesting from an entrepreneurial point of view. The second
| half is about their philosophies and contains a lot of wisdom on
| creating great, lasting products.
|
| [^1]: https://www.patagonia.com/stories/let-my-people-go-
| surfing/s...
| ENOTTY wrote:
| I'm curious about the ownership, profits, and dividends to
| ownership for a private company. Obviously, details on this are
| not easy to come by. It seems like Patagonia is self-sustaining
| from a cash flow perspective.
|
| So Patagonia is 50 years old and did an estimated $1.5 billion in
| revenues in 2022 (according to Wikipedia). From the article, it
| seems like Yvon, his wife, and his two children held both
| ownership and control. It might even have been 100% within the
| family, given that NYT explicitly writes that, "the family
| irrevocably transferred all the company's voting stock,
| equivalent to 2 percent of the overall shares" and "The
| Chouinards then donated the other 98 percent of Patagonia"
|
| I wonder how much of the company's profits over the years were
| reinvested back into the company and how much went to Yvon and
| the other Chouinards. Seems like most or all of his wealth
| derives from Patagonia and he lives modestly but comfortably.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| I continue to respect the man, and find great utility in the
| clothing, to boot.
| supernova87a wrote:
| Apologies if this is an unpopular thing to ask -- but is a very
| wealthy person giving away his/her wealth to be held in trust in
| perpetuity (to accomplish some mission) an unambiguously good
| thing? Separate the question from this particular story today,
| that is not my intention to poke at specifically.
|
| One thing I can see with wealth being transferred among
| generations, between _actual people_ , is that people can die and
| their ideas (especially bad ones) can die with them. Even if the
| wealth is redistributed and misspent, it ends and turns over to
| someone else. New ideas and purposes for the wealth can take
| their place.
|
| On the other hand, when a trust/foundation holds wealth,
| putatively forever, their mission might turn out not to be
| productive, or even good. I think of certain examples of
| charities which, by their holdings and activities, keep certain
| things in status quo and unable to change, which we would
| sometimes like to leave behind.
|
| All this wealth transferring to entities that will not die and
| pass on their fortunes to other purposes. What does this cause in
| the long run that we haven't anticipated?
|
| Like many things that are on my mind, our system is not just
| about incentivizing the good, but avoiding the inadvertent bad.
|
| Am I totally off / this is not a concern?
| rebelos wrote:
| It's not really a concern so long as they are engaged in
| nonzero economic activity, in which case no money is
| permanently trapped within the vehicle. Money flows
| continuously in an economy and is only at rest in certain
| places such as bank reserves, mattresses, etc. But there is a
| very low incentive for it to remain at rest because our
| monetary system is inflationary. It certainly can be channeled
| into inefficient or unproductive economic activity (and often
| is), but the system ultimately keeps moving.
|
| To get more concrete, if you have a charitable trust of the
| kind described in this article, then it will pay out salaries
| to employees and purchase various kinds goods and services. The
| recipients of those money flows will in turn put that money to
| work for their own ends: supporting a family with food,
| shelter, etc, paying other employees further along the value
| chain, acquiring other goods and services, and so on.
|
| If someone accumulates this much wealth, they are well within
| their right to put it to work however they please. And doing so
| does not induce some permanent dysfunction in the system. In
| this case, I would argue that what the Patagonia founder has
| done is immensely commendable.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| I've heard this exact same argument levied at the Gates
| Foundations (despite acknowledging the good they do), so you're
| not the only one.
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| I'm still suspect of his motives in buying up so much
| farmland... hopefully it's just investment like many people
| think.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| It could be, but the greater risk is that the children squander
| the wealth or divert it from its original purpose (assuming the
| original purpose was a good one), which I'd say from history is
| more likely to be the case. It also avoids a huge legal battle
| between heirs and other parties trying to grab pieces, again
| wasting much of it on lawyers etc.
| jsolson wrote:
| Depends on the trust?
|
| If your ideas are abstract and roughly "climate isn't fucked"
| they seem pretty perennial. They're also open to
| interpretation.
|
| That said, sure, lots of periods in history would've produced
| trusts that are truly appalling. Something to be addressed case
| by case, for now, though, and collective social will can always
| disolve what is ultimately a social contract.
| elliekelly wrote:
| This is why the Rule Against Perpetuities[1] exists which
| limits the existence of a trust to a life in being plus 21
| years. There are various flavors of the rule with plenty of
| exceptions and longer waiting periods after the last existing
| life-in-being depending on the jurisdiction. I believe
| charitable trusts are usually exempt. Matt Levine has written
| about the "SPY kids"[2] used when the ETF was formed.
|
| [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
|
| [2]https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-08-09/the-
| sp...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-14 23:00 UTC)