Business "Ethics"

[@HowMoneyWorks]

Looking to grow your business online? Get started today with a free 14-day trial from Odoo: www.odoo.com/r/xwl

[@michaeljfigueroa]

What if companies where required by law to be fiduciaries for all their stakeholders? Idk. It's a messy idea. Could that find some sort of equilibrium that isn't horrible?

[@kofiacquah6972]

If I subscribe to patreon, will I be able to have one-on-one discussions with you on some of the videos?

[@michaeljfigueroa]

@@kofiacquah6972 yes. After you subscribe.

[@mumermalik3253]

@HowMoneyWorks why not make a video on the dumbest and superficial idea of businesses:Marketing or say simply manipulation

[@michaeljfigueroa]

@@mumermalik3253well it's not the dumbest idea but marketing probably destroys more value than I would have thought. Id like to see that video.

[@atk05003]

In college I concluded there are three basic types of ethics courses. Oversimplifying a bit, they are: 1. Medical ethics - If you don't do the right thing, you might kill or injure someone. BE CAREFUL! 2. Engineering ethics - If you don't do the right thing, someone might die or get hurt, and it might be your fault. BE CAREFUL! 3. Business ethics - If you don't do the right thing, someone might die or get hurt, and we might lose money. DON'T GET BLAMED!

[@BasilHumke-ru3bb]

agreed with all but i'd add journalistic ethics-- if you don't do the right thing, you might negatively impact someone's life in irreversible ways-- be careful

[@JMScibra]

@@BasilHumke-ru3bb Wait, there are ethics there?

[@Earthboundmike]

@@JMScibra Keep in mind that a large amount of news anchors aren't actually journalists.

[@great2831]

​@@JMScibra Aparently they are not just "legal" stalkers

[@garythecyclingnerd6219]

Engineering ethics is a joke. We’re all protected by corporate masks and LLCs. Plus there dozens of layers of check offs so everyone gets hit when it hits the fan. But when was the last time a corporation admitted fault in court?

[@ChrisBrown-or8ky]

25 years ago, someone in my university class interrupted a csr lecturer to say it was a scam to create a new market of fees for nothing. Felt sorry for the lecturer at the time, but for 2 decades, it's become obvious that rude b*st*rd was on point

[@naveensundar0]

wh* t*e a*ter*sks ?

[@jordanmatthew6315]

See, you do not need a higher education to have financial common sense. Those poor fools listening on something that should have been taught in high school economics.

[@alejmc]

@@naveensundar0 maybe you are new to YT shutting antics, but the censo*r*ng is getting out of hand. Likely half of your messages are being deleted too without realizing it. Stick around for a minute or two after commenting to see if the message is still there. Got to refresh it by going to another comment thread and back

[@whutcat682]

KZbin is creazy with deletin comments with something even remotely not family friendly ​@@naveensundar0

[@incurableromantic4006]

The thing with all these "values" projects is they're vague and lack accountability - at least when a company is solely interested in profits, its behaviour is predictable and easier to regulate.

[@Meitti]

Reminds me of a finnish anti-bullying campaign "Kiva Koulu" ("Nice School"), which was a complete flop. Most schools that participated in the campaign basically paid for the 1-2 PSA classes about being nice to each other and thinking about each others feelings. Then after that the schools assumed themselves immune to bullying since they had the "Kiva Koulu"-approval and brand behind them. So the "Kiva Koulu"-stamp gave the schools the ability to be in complete denial whenever bullying happened, basically making the bullying worse when schools refused to believe it happened.

[@ruben9912]

During my time as a student I saw this in action across several different schools and institutions. "Our school does not support such behaviours and there are protocols in place to ensure everyone's safety and dignity" *more nothing happens*

[@troyX]

I wrote a master's thesis on international CSR norms and worked a year as a CSR project manager. Most of what you do on the daily boils down to 'How can we get the most amount of positive press/recognition for the minimum amount of money?'. Nobody in a executive position cares about the environment, workers' rights or bringing more democracy to the workplace (governance). Only that they can boast about being the first to do X Y and Z. There's a well-known label called 'B-Corp' offered by an NGO, and one of the way you can get points to reach the certification threshold is setting up a good cause or giving 1% of profits to charity (if memory serves). When I asked my director if he was willing to commit to it, he deadass told me to 'further explore less costly options' 😂 I've been unemployed for a year and I DREAD going back to this job, it's the ultimate BS job and it'll suck your soul out of you. People for the most part either don't care or doubt it matters in the grand scheme of things: they're 100% right.

[@-haclong2366]

A lot of the time "charities" are just political lobbying groups that don't actually benefit anyone but a small group of people. When I was a fundraiser I eventually decided to drop all charities that don't support scientific research to help with the issues they're addressing.

[@airdavis4476]

It definitely matters in the grand scheme of things but in the long run we are all dead right? So the question is should it matter to us? Only if the future matters to us and apparently it doesn't. The future is going to curse us all to hell.

[@daysofend]

I don't care how wrong Karl Marx may have been about economics at large. Profits are theft.

[@remipoujoulat7759]

And conspiracy theorists are the "bad peoples" of course...🙄

[@nietur]

That's so sad. Like wouldn't they be more proud of themselves if they actually helped the world? I guess they'd be fired so they opt for the money.

[@DiversionG]

Great video, but you've got one detail wrong: Businesses do gain something from this, the large ones at least. As you mentioned, smaller entities will have a harder time breaking into a market because of these "ethics", a.k.a less competition for the big fish. And then there's of course the fact that it's a marketing stunt in order to cater to a segment of consumers who want to feel good about the brand they're buying from.

[@kcnl2522]

I dont give the slightest shxt honestly. They are selling to the lefties. Idc if 20 dinosaurs had to pollute the air for me to get what i want lol 😂

[@FutureCommentary1]

Exactly. All this CSR is BS thing and yet consumers will boycott a company that does things they consider "unethical" abroad even when that 100% legal in those foreign countries. Employees want to feel like they're working in an ethical company so all that front attracts employees. He also said in the video that when companies are seen to be involved in CSR activities they receive lesser fines than their peers. I thought we all understood that CSR was a PR stunt. Like we've all by now read about carbon credit/carbon capture and how it doesn't mean anything. Companies don't have a "soul", they don't "care". It's just people doing their job. They do what's good for the bottom line, and CSR is good for the bottom line.

[@scottabc72]

@@FutureCommentary1 The biggest companies can buy the laws they want in most countries.

[@achuthas2875]

Great articulation 🦾🔥

[@zaco-km3su]

@@FutureCommentary1 Pal, if your daughter got pierced in a foreign country and it was 100% legal in that country, will that be oaky with you. It doesn't matter if it's legal or not. What matters is if it's ethical.

[@ManCatCheese]

they teach this in my brothers university degree. He has mastered the art of calling out the bullshit of the subject. The lecturer couldn't really respond when he mentioned the fiduciary responsibility to make the shareholders rich, and the people working at the company can be fired at any time for any reason if profit goals aren't being met. The whole thing is an oxymoron

[@zacharysilver911]

Look at HMW’s video on shareholder value. The fiduciary duty thing is a bit of a myth.

[@brodriguez11000]

Fiduciary responsibility is one of those pleasant lies business people tell themselves. There are plenty of books and online resources that address the myth and what the law really says.

[@henghistbluetooth7882]

There has never been a fiduciary responsibility to make shareholders rich. Shareholders are just people who have bought an asset.

[@giantninja9173]

No but the shareholders can yank their stocks and destroy the company’s liquidity resulting in bankruptcy and subsequent job losses.

[@thegoodsmaster]

Not to mention Executive suite care packages being stock based. Elon musk didn't make 60bil by sweating in a lab.

[@who2u333]

Talk about two words that don't belong together. "Corporate Ethics"

[@donavanblack4347]

No. Corporations should do business in an ethical manner. No slavery, no exploitation etc. Profit is 1 dollar more than you need to survive. I own a corporation, from years of blue collar electrical work. I am obligated to be ethically responsible to my employees and customers. We do t let our technicians steal from your home. It’s our job to protect you and us. Ethically even if it means we do t make tons of profit. But that’s how I run my business. I can’t speak for every company.

[@shuwan4games]

@@donavanblack4347 what is sad is honest people like you are rare in large corps

[@Here4TheHeckOfIt]

​@@donavanblack4347 You're a complete anomaly. Years ago, small businesses like yours were more common.

[@blueeyedpunk]

Depends in my country in a lot years they have cared about my country. Now it's more americanized 😂

[@donavanblack4347]

@@shuwan4games thanks but we should be want we want to see in business not be greedy.

[@TWPO]

True ethics requires a company to offset the harm it does. And they'll never admit to those things.

[@Mlogan11]

The vid states this is bad for all: business, stakeholders, and share holders, but obviously this can't be true, or else it would be discontinued. It's obviously good for corporations in the following ways: 1) It creates a smoke screen that stalls actual government regulation so companies retain the power to break their own "Be Better" rules with no repercussions. 2) It costs far less than what would be required if government actually imposed true and adequate regulations and forced compliance. 3) It creates yet another barrier to entry for small business trying to enter the market so competition is reduced.

[@napoland9676]

Great points!

[@sznikers]

True, deception is crucial in life, from little bugs with fake giant eyes on their wings to humans waging wars, its little cost that on occasion gives big returns.

[@bonononchev634]

4) There are fees to be made all over the place by consultants.

[@sznikers]

@@bonononchev634 and christie from office can refer her friend from college for another office desk position ; )

[@scotteskridge7460]

You have to be well educated to be that stoopid mate. This mind virus is destroying companies and you should run screaming from anyone telling you otherwise

[@justinfowler2857]

Henry Ford tried to look out for his business and employees. He was sued by the Dodge Brothers. The Supreme Court ruled that Ford as CEO of a public company only have 1 responsibility. They are required to maximize returns for shareholders. We've been stuck with that crap ever since.

[@Pasta_Pirate]

"look out" yeahhhh totally... e.g. enforcing mandated lifestyles outside of work at pain of firing and more broad attempts to force his employee's to match his ideal. (keep in mind henry ford's 'ideals' were very problematic) To be fair he did do good stuff but Henry Ford's desire to 'look out' for his employee's wasn't necessarily a good trait of his.

[@mikesimms5750]

Context matters, Pasta. In a world where most employers would actively have you dragged out back and beaten for insubordination, Ford was a fucking godsend. Analyzing history through the lens of the present and refusing to contextualize anything makes you the dummy, here.

[@Pasta_Pirate]

@@mikesimms5750 Social inspectors spying on employees were not the norm even back then, he also went further when making his rubber plantation Fordlandia all of this is well beyond insubordination in the workplace this is literally compelling you to live the way Ford wanted you to live. Again I'm not saying he was a terrible employer in all-respects but his social-engineering attempts to match his political views were pretty messed up.

[@Pasta_Pirate]

To be clear, I do think he genuinely did care, and he provided well-paying jobs alongside certain social benefits to employee's. This is shown in the case OP's referring to he did want to expand employment to more employees at the cost of profits and the supreme court ruled against that (imho noble) aim. However this approach of him wanting to run his company based on what he cares about is where he got to push his bad social views as well which shows the dangers of what happens when companies get to set their own scope beyond just profits. Hence why its best to let companies do their thing and have the public use regulation/protests/boycotts to keep them ethical instead of hoping they'll decide to be 'good' as the CEO's idea of 'good' may be very divorced from the public's.

[@paulb5571]

Anyone who thinks of well of Henry Ford has never taken a Michigan History class. He spied on his own workers, and his views were considered "inspirational" by Adolf Hitler. He was pretty much strong armed into the wage raising and more reasonable shift schedule by the high ranking people immediately under him. He had a number of his workers murdered for various reasons, such as if they were thought to support unionization. He refused to step down despite declining physical and mental health, essentially being barely coherent and still trying to run his company. When his son Edsel developed stomach cancer from persistent ulcers, Henry blamed it on his sons diet and smoking. Which is ironic considering it was likely a combination of his father's constant humiliation of him and disease from unpasteurized milk from Henry's farm. Henry Ford stands as a reminder that being a great man and being a good man are not the same thing.

[@spicymemes7458]

This is how social movements are co-opted

[@vytah]

This is how Occupy Wall Street was neutralized

[@Masterdesstruct]

Sadly most of social movements are co-opted from the start. Most of the stuff we focus on wouldn't really benefit society and ultimately benefit companies. Instead we should focus on how the financial system is destroying our society, how the fed has destroyed the value of dollar. But nobody wants to touch the problems that make the economical powers uncomfortable, it's all about "diversity" and some other BS

[@custos3249]

Careful. Risking the BLM people hosing you down with their metric tons of denial.

[@custos3249]

Lol gotta love YT censorship. Anyway.... Careful. Risking the Bee El Em people hosing you down with their metric tons of denial.

[@chrisnuk]

Utopia means both the perfect place and the place that can never be. It only coopted ideologs.

[@tren-y2m]

As an ESG analyst in Canada, I'd say the insistence of fund managers to blindly use ESG scores as an inclusion criterion is bad too. Just last month I was reviewing a company that had poisoned indigenous lands and waterways and were fined billions of dollars, and yet, they were AA rated on MSCI...

[@LJinx3]

Hard agree. This is why the U.K. regulator is looking into these models. The lack of knowledge of ESG in the AM industry is also woefully low, especially around metrics.

[@yl5821]

Tell me that’s not rio tinto lol

[@Lonovavir]

It's too easy to game the system to get a good rating without doing anything ethical.

[@Erowens98]

Thats the entire reason SG was added to ESG. Companies can offset their environmental harm by virtue signaling hard enough. Thankfully, at least in the EU, it seems it will no longer be ESG, rather, E and/or SG. Separating the scores will prevent greenwashing with political activism. This is why in the passed few years almost every major company has started to engage in political activism.

[@onrean]

I am very glad I went to school before DEI, ESG, and other agendas got big. My business ethics class didn't look like these those. It was more about giving the students a very practical framework on which to make ethical decisions and then reviewing case studies and analyzing them. It was very eye opening and actually one of my favorite non-technical classes.

[@oafkad]

Any large business ends up indistinguishable from government. So the question becomes do you want to be controlled by governments that self declare their only interest is money and that you literally 100% have no influence over? Like I know voting can suck but this is leagues worse.

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

Well its basically roman empire vs holy roman empire. One is way worse then other, and its not an OG roman empire.

[@georgerafa5041]

I remember my ethics class in my master's tried to convince us that workers don't care about money they care about 'making a difference' and I was the only person in the class that publicly disputed that virtue signalling BS

[@stevenhenry5267]

You're another person who is part of the problem

[@TheSmartcartridge]

@@stevenhenry5267how is he part of the problem?

[@Erowens98]

​@@stevenhenry5267he's right though. Almost nobody is out there working for free just because the company is doing good things. A pay cheque is the prerequisite.

[@zaco-km3su]

@@stevenhenry5267 No, he's not. Workers care about money. Some workers in some fields might want to make a difference but that's another issue.

[@0ovidio0]

​​@@stevenhenry5267 no, you are delusional if you deny what is human nature. Selfish and greedy.

[@whi8204]

Man its weird to find a video less than a minute after it's posted, it doesn't feel right...

[@cl7max]

No life?

[@aubreyleonae4108]

You had no ability to do otherwise. 😊

[@aubreyleonae4108]

@@cl7max Now we all feel bad. 😉

[@PaballoKobe-xh9ve]

Worse when youbdont follow them and they are a really small channel

[@cane6074]

ESG is a means in which insecure, status obsessed rich people with too much time and money on their hands deal with their own existential angst, usually when they're 10th yacht or Learjet no longer brings a buzz to them, or they find their young trophy wife or mistresses no longer exciting. It's also a way of which underperforming CEOs can get better job security by making the standards of which they're judged become more subjective and fuzzy, who would in normal circumstances would have been fired long ago. It's also the same thing with worthless middle management types, they're initiating mission creep in order to avoid being cut by exaggerating or manufacturing problems at what state offers so-called solutions. ESG is nothing more than parasitism, it's what happens when you have a bunch of money concert in the hands of two few people who have nothing left to buy or strive for. Decadence 101.

[@nietur]

normal people buy ESG funds, they want to do good with their money

[@skyworm8006]

@@nietur Normal people invest in what's already popular and what they think will be a good investment. Their decision-making is much simpler. ESG wouldn't exist or wouldn't be relevant in investment without what is described in the above comment and this video, so normal people would not spontaneously buy them. They wouldn't even care at all without the accompanying 'shilling' for it everywhere and in everything.

[@anonymousqaz95]

Finally a clip calling put the bull...on ESG. The first thing that I thought when I heard about ESG was...this sounds like market consolidation for big corporations and the death of smaller companies.😢

[@nietur]

check out ben felix

[@jimbojimbo6873]

I would respect a company more if it was just honest and said we are here to make money and don’t care about the rest.

[@chieftain5571]

Liars don't lie merely to evade. They lie because it's become who they are, for no reason of gain. Its just part of how they communicate.

[@ilikebudlite]

Boeing business ethics is to off their actual ethical employees

[@PowerboatTraining]

I never voted for any company to determine standards for me. ESG is highly undemocratic.

[@yl5821]

And there are so many different standards all across the world. Who’s to say one standard is better than the other. These standards are not recognised by anyone else but themselves and the companies who use them. How do we make sure that these standards are actually good? How do we compare one company to another when the standards are different? In short, ESG is all bullshit. Unfortunately I am in a university degree that forces me to say that ESG is good

[@altrag]

Companies are determining standards for you every single day, and mane of them are far more detrimental to you than ESG could ever be. ESG is only "big news" because the political left decided that "doing the right thing" with respect to environmental and social activities is important to their platform, and therefore the right decided "doing the right thing" must be bad for no better reason than "pwning the libs." It's little more than political theatre but companies like Blackrock have found ways to abuse it nonetheless.

[@henlo1910]

ESG is highly undemocratic, which makes it exactly the same as the rest of the business world.

[@GrannyReplica]

The company I work at added CSR to employees' yearly objectives. I used to love volunteering for tree planting initiatives, but ever since CSR& volunteering became unofficially mandatory, I feel like I don't want to do it anymore. And all the brain-rotting, dumb trainings they force on employees, oh my god... 🙄

[@raymond_luxury_yacht]

I'm forced to do exclusion inequality and division training every two years. I am working on getting ai to do this for me.

[@xelaxander]

Holy hell. As contractor, I usually have to do our trainings (The contents of which are: Don’t bribe anyone, don’t commit sexual assault, don’t put stuff in front of the emergency exit) and our customers’ with almost identical content.

[@vladmilosteanu321]

That tiger animation was fire 🔥🔥🔥

[@spoonikle]

"Our company is committed to sustainability. this is why, we have decided to cut worker compensation and donate to my cousins NGO, they are doing the real work anyway."

[@Erowens98]

The problem is, that "ethics" is subjective. A lot of these companies engaging in "ethical business" believe ethical business is forcing society to behave in a way they deem acceptable.

[@ri3sch]

Privatization of oversight

[@Lonovavir]

I investigated myself and pronounce myself innocent.

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

To put this in context, Boeing just killed their second whistleblower

[@cowboy4378]

i believe that this this is a way to keep competition out. I recently took part in a university challenge to develop a start-up from an idea and pitch it, the best idea would go on to receive additional funding and support. One of the questions we were asked was "How will your business work towards net zero emissions". Not will it, but how it will. Like im still figuring out the "How will your business make money" part. on one hand though i cant help but laugh watching socialists be tricked into protecting massive companies by keeping out competition for them.

[@luisfilipe2023]

The main problem is that pretty much all “ethical” companies have a pretty fucked up idea what ethics is

[@brodriguez11000]

That's why "A Business Tale: A Story of Ethics, Choices, Success and a Very Large Rabbit " was an interesting read both in personal and business ethics.

[@patricklippert8345]

Even if there was some metric for ethical practices, big companies could either make a charitable donation to the company to tip the scales or min-max the rubric so they get the "Certified Not Evil" seal of approval.

[@andrewnixon5872]

I was listening until you brought up Milton Friedman. I whole heartedly agree that industries should not self regulate.

[@Here4TheHeckOfIt]

Self-regulating companies are like addicts at a drug buffet.

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

Well at least before we build a real functioning decentralised society (without it turning into centralised dictatorship in a decade or two as it usually happens). At this point humanity will be well past profit margins, shareholders value and all other bs.

[@jonaskeepauthor1935]

“Brought to you by EA Sports, YOU’RE in the game… Dave”

[@cajonesalt0191]

The worst outcome of this stuff isn't even the deregulation of business. It's that people look at all of this and think the scam is caring about ethics or regulation in the first place, and somehow arrive at the conclusion that none of this would have happened had businesses not been pressured to behaving ethically in the first place or that somehow de-regulation would have prevented this.

[@LesageSinging]

My favorite quote from my economics professor, "ethics are expensive."

[@4RILDIGITAL]

Corporate ethics are often just a smokescreen for appearing righteous. Self-regulation can never replace actual regulation as a company's main goal would always be profit. The focus should be on creating standard regulations for all.

[@VernonJettlund]

Ethics and profits don't have to be at odds. Ethics and MAXIMAL profits are at odds.

[@agsbxnskqbwjakq]

I feel like a major point was missed in the last section. One of the most important reasons big companies, especially ones with obvious and well known environmental downsides are paying this "voluntary tax" as a way to let them make their own decisions while reducing pressure for regulation that would force them to do it. Its an opportinuty cost play, self imposed guidelines are cheaper. They know theres pressure to be more climate friendly, and they want to retain control over how that happens to LIMIT the impact to their bottom line that goverment imposed rules would create.

[@MrStonee09]

I currently work at a ESG consulting firm and maybe it is a bit different in Europe but we consult small to medium firms and kickstart our presentations always with climate changing facts from scientists and most of them sincerely wanna change something. Even our big banks here in Austria at least seem to show their stakeholders , that some things need to change

[@intensivecarebear1938]

Ready for your weekly dose of crushed hopes and dreams?

[@joshuamensah1025]

That’s Last Week Tonight for me

[@ammigk254]

Great video as always!!

[@HowMoneyWorks]

Thanks again!

[@nd1106]

Great video,, I’ve recently attended a CFA dinner speaking about ESG investing and I was impressed with how the speaker did not burst out laughing with all the hot air being spewed the food was nice though

[@X9523-z3v]

There's nothing more valuable than a good environment

[@suave5692]

Regulators can be bribed, and people can be misled and distracted with bread and games. Profit was the real problem all along, allowing the already powerful to grab everything else for themselves.

[@screwstatists7324]

Machiavelli was right. The main pillar of political ethics is to maintain your status. In business, the means continuing to make the best returns possible for shareholders. This requires being feared I the sense of a respect we have for thoe qe are responsible for. If we can be loved by stakeholders this is good and will likely make us more secure and profitable, but we should never put it above maintaining the state because then we can loose the key thing. Above all we must avoid being hated because of scandals and bad policy. We must do anything that is legal, ethical, and moral by these standards.

[@admiralkaede]

i want nothing to do with ESG or the world economic forum they told us we would own nothing and be happy nahh

[@GlizzySan]

I just took business ethics last semester and I liked it😭

[@chieftain5571]

You'll realize its like a child's bedtime story. You'll become almost ill knowing the realities of business.

[@huntermiller2474]

Its simply a way for companies to legally purchase social and political influence.

[@zaidifamily1357]

Great Video! Weird to find it so quick

[@chemquests]

To be fair, for the corporations it’s a genius idea. Extra investment & credit without doing anything substantial

[@notequalto5179]

The conclusion sounds about right. Just let the lawmakers, influenced by the people in the democracy regulate. Let the businesses keep chasing profits.

[@owlegrad]

Great video but I would go even further. It’s a scam.

[@gyurmarajzfilm]

I work in an environmental dep. of a larger company. We have to use so many hours on obligatory sustainability reportings, to achieve all kind of sustainability certificates, and to comply with some not particularly progressive government regulations, that we don't have much capacity to actually do something that has a measurable impact. At this point I feel like these ESG reports and certificates are just a lot of smoke on little fire, and this time that could be better spent setting up projects that do make a difference.

[@profdc9501]

Yeah, ethics like "don't be evil." Until you can get away with it.

[@gabrielespindola4461]

Busines ethics is the greatest idea ever. You can justify annyting, get lots of free monney and marketing from the Trust funds and when everything crashes down you get a large severance package and let the retail investors to foot the bill.

[@EcomCarl]

It's crucial that real authorities step in to ensure ethical standards are truly enforced. Balancing profitability and ethical impact remains a challenging but necessary endeavor. 🌎

[@ObIitus]

It is not about business. You've missed an important part: censorship. It is pretty universal to have in constitution that censorship is bad. But it is also very tempting... And legal for a business. And now all you need to censor something is to make it a part of "ethical" behavior.

[@Celrador]

"The real solution to all of this is to let regulators regulate, businesses seek profit, and for the people to decide what businesses should and should not be doing." Casually ignoring the fact that this requires: 1) An uncorruptable body of regulators. 2) A people that can't be manipulated. (e.g. PR industry, commercials/advertisements, virtue signaling, propaganda model, and so on)

[@kandaimai9944]

Would you rather have a board of potentially corrupt regulators, or CEOs who will definitely regulate themselves "properly"?

[@Celrador]

​@@kandaimai9944 The question you pose is too narrow. How about the following: More democratic institutions and democratic checks of those in power (the regulators) combined with different business structures and ownership, which lead to other incentives than just increasing shareholder value (like an economy dominated by worker cooperatives).

[@nietur]

ESG isn't the real solution, either. So we're just doomed.

[@Celrador]

@@nietur Nah. ESG might be crap, but there are alternatives. Just read my reply to the other comment in this chain. (Of course that solution isn't flawless either, but it tries to account for the problems I mentioned.)

[@scooterman30]

@@kandaimai9944 honestly the issue is human corruption in general and incentives. self regulation, state backed regulation, or anything in between based on your world view is still subject to human nature.

[@isaacnewton3514]

The editing is insane on this one 🔥

[@CMVBrielman]

10:03 Thank you! Burying the lede by saying that part last.

[@TheChannelofOrange]

The only thing these companies need the get ESG funding is DEI, not real change in governance, worker rights and real sustainability

[@ktbmk]

DEI is ruining gaming rn

[@Zed_Oud]

This is what taxes and regulations are for. Like the Land Value Tax.

[@LG-pt5kt]

Farmers offset those costs into your food. Renters see in their rent. It's just another incentive not to buy land, and stretches the cost even when adjusted for your income.

[@Rochrikqv]

@@LG-pt5ktTaxes and regulations don’t typically have as much of an effect on prices as some people make it out to be. Many goods are sold at their optimal price that was determined using the vasts amounts of data available. If they raise prices any significant amount, people will stop buying goods. If this happens, total profits go down more then they would have if they just absorbed the costs. If a good has an inelastic demand, then it may be a factor. However, even with those types of goods, they can raise prices without any sort of major reasons as people will still need to buy them. I’m also not sure farmers was the best example to use. They already are subsidized for most of what they produce. The farmers themselves don’t have much control over what price they sell their goods at.

[@theMichaelMelo]

@@Rochrikqv Don't give the government any funny ideas.

[@nietur]

I like a wealth tax more because why only focus on land and therefore advantage other assets?

[@nietur]

@@Rochrikqv Farmers and groceries don't have high margins. Food is pretty inelastic, maybe people would buy less meat as it'd be over-proportionally effected. Taxing what you subzidize is silly indeed.

[@skateata1]

I just took a grad course about making employees happy at work. Like, the entire course focused on supporting staff and reinforcing good behavior. It painted a picture of a perfect world.

[@neverendingparty2060]

Can you do a video on the value of comunity service? Pewresearch values a hour of comunity service at little more then $30/hr. Where I live minimum wage is $10, over time is $15 and double time is $20. No time at work will amount to the value we add to our comunties and each other.

[@pearlsstephen]

People don't understand that the prices of things are never going back down. This inflation is deeper than we think. Those buying groceries are well aware that the real inflation is much over 10%. The increments don't match our income, yet certain investors still earn over $10,400 in stocks and assets. Wish I could accomplish that.

[@Victoria_10249]

The crypt0 market is bringing a different revolution in the world economy. People who are optimistic investor will earn consistent why the others will sit back and watch.

[@Lisa12696]

I think to combat the negatives effect of inflthinkation, it's a good idea to diversify your portfolio across different asset classes, since this can help protect your portfolio against inflation.

[@LCurley]

That is true my dear, Investment is the best idea presently and without it, human struggles are worthless.

[@DaveRondon]

*I would really love to know how much work you did put in to get to the stage..what are the strategy*

[@pearlsstephen]

*Laura Ferguson method is the best. Got her info on BBC news.four Years ago and i started following her lead and it's favoring me.i Lost my job early last year and right now, I am back on top again.*

[@SpaTelliteAM]

I would never upload to KZbin after they FIRED many employees OVER MAKING A RICH PROFIT. Do you have your own site you upload exclusively to? Google-YT-Alphabet doesn't deserve their creators or power. I am typing this to spread awareness on the dangers joblessness does.

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

Well, that's relatively minor thing comparing to their every day political censorship...

[@nietur]

KZbin pays a lot to their creators. You also gonna stop using Google because they had layoffs? They could employ so many more people with these huge profits they take in. Like logically, you should boycott companies that make lots of profits instead of hiring more people if you dislike firing. Anyways, they don't seem to be on Nebula or Patreon, else they'd link it.

[@chrisnuk]

This is the video I wanted from you. I was expecting something longer and more savage. It was concise points made by an insider, I've not thought myself guilty of what I'm going to say, but I think I try too hard! You're a portal into another world 😊

[@funniguy2967]

only 10k views in a hour, the algorithm is against us

[@moritz7179]

thank you for making clear that we need actual government and must not let corporations run our society and "control" themselves!

[@thescaarbo8652]

So that explains all the companies that decided to go/insist on being woke.

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

Pretty much. It also turned pretty reasonable movement into another corporative asset, with all its characteristics. Same with green stuff, its all brands and corporations, and big big funds, not caring people.

[@sor3999]

@@alexturnbackthearmy1907 Was it all that reasonable when some simple corporate pandering to them works?

[@Lonovavir]

They get a good reputation without having to be ethical. Great deal for them and exclusively them.

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

Schwab is obviously a super villain

[@RYXPfan]

With the references to Bill Gurley and showing Chamath in one clip, looks like How Money Works is a fellow All In Podcast listener 😉

[@doujinflip]

If we want corporations to be responsible to stakeholders, the law has to mandate such, defining and prioritizing said stakeholders. From what I understand, that should be the customers first, then overall public interest, then employees starting from entry-level and ending with executives, then passive shareholders last.

[@nietur]

If you prioritize customers over shareholders, you'd have to give shareholders some kind of minimum return. If that's fixed because all other money goes to customers or employees, there's no profit incentive.

[@Pasta_Pirate]

That wouldn't really work, there needs to be some incentive to invest. Fundamentally business's need motive to strive for efficiency or else they'll be outcompeted. Owners being prioritised is a good method of this as owners have incentive to achieve that. The broader issue is that ownership of companies is dominated by the elite the problem at least in terms of social equity is that businesses are incentivised to serve their owners that are predominantly elites and a minority of the public. The best solution to this is a wealth tax e.g. 1% of all assets yearly as a substitute for income tax and other things then the rich's wealth will be slowly redistributed via taxes to the nation's that make them rich via taxes, meaning more common people as investors meaning companies will have more representative stakeholders. (could be progressive as well with lower rates for poorer and would suggest a Georgist land-tax as well) Incidentally this would mean lower income taxes meaning there is more reward/incentive from work, and would over time reduce inflation and the cost of assets e.g. houses, stocks etc which would be good for an overinflated asset market as people would need to convert assets into liquidity. This also is a better system to account for how capital increasingly is capable of creating capital e.g. robots/AI meaning forces these productive forces to also contribute to the tax-base opposed to just tax's on human productive effort (e.g. income) However yes absolutely it is necessary to fulfil the contracts they make and those contracts should be fair & earnest (enforced by law) with employees/customers. The only frustration is capital flight however with international tax cooperation and other efforts that is increasingly manageable. TLDR while law should ensure good company employee/customer contracts a wealth tax is good for society and a better solution to increase common investors share of companies incentivising them to act in the public interest.

[@Tri6Oraxus]

Can you answer what if there was no new money? Not no money, just money could only be replaced and no new money could be created. I'm very curious what the effects on the world economy would be.

[@thelammas8283]

If you think of long term profit, then the conflict disappears. You can’t misbehave and exploit without it diminishing your long term profits.

[@foozballguy]

Think you're slightly missing the point, it is about exerting external pressure to force companies to behave well in instances where there isn't and cannot be regulation. E.g. a manufacturer sending their operations overseas. Totally allowed but in stakeholder activism you would pressure the company to keep operations domestic, despite the fact it means the companies will see lower profits. As long as the company is still in the black, it is justifiable.

[@miraadi97]

CSR a lovely power dynamics.

[@absolutechaos13]

Ethical question. Is deforestation bad even if it is to put up solar panels?

[@MrTrollTheMadGamer]

I'd be curious to see if this applies to ethical super funds in Australia. It'd be cool if you could make a video on it but it wouldn't have that much appeal.

[@visceratrocar]

Corporate ethics are simple: profit at all costs. Anything else is unethical.

[@ghastlypompano2]

I wish there were links for all this stuff. I would like to look into it more for my government classes.

[@kezia8027]

lmao have you got a new editor? The dancing tiger was a... surprising addition lmao

[@armorbearer9702]

(3:37) This tiger seems trustworthy.

[@EmmanuelWestra-eo8wx]

It helps take away corporate responsibility by suggesting that what is being done is ethical or plans when it is often not the case. Greed can hide behind the guise of ethics.

[@nicholascreates]

That’s why I want to be self employed

[@xLTxFire]

I was going to bring up that valuing stakeholders is effectively illegal, but you already brought up Friedman and ended with a link to another video on the topic. Presumably that goes into the Ford v. Dodge and Friedman + Welch debacles.

[@D00Rb3LL]

Interesting, i completed my bachelors degree in business a while ago and we were taught this. Didn’t really question anything because I’m just trying to get the grade

[@attila2246]

Yep and businesses don’t really question anything because they just want to tick the box and continue making profits.

[@TheChrisaige]

Got it create a index that only invest in unionized companies and measures how "democratic" a company is (aka how mich workers have a say in its operation) and how much money goes towards their employees and how the wage gap between lowest, median, average and higherst earners looks like. I would invest tbh, sounds way better than ESG and should be easy to measure

[@hyndriandelmundo6855]

To be honest is all about gain tax cut . U can add company expenses so have alibi to ask government some tax exemption

[@dosmastrify]

I mean I think that the company should go after this but that doesn't mean that the government should change how they regulate the companies. You still need to be somebody at the switch

[@TheFriendOfLucifer]

Interesting video, however, it only shows the perspective from the USA. Meanwhile in the EU, regulators are actively working on ESG-related regulation. There's two interesting things in this: 1. Companies will have to report environmental issues based on a given framework, which means they will have to report them without things such as Carbon credits (they can still report their offsets etc, but they have to report the original numbers) 2. Companies will have to report the ratio between entry level salary and minimum wage. As somebody who needs a job, I'm really looking forward to the second one.

[@paial]

People respond to incentives, companies are just a group of people, so they respond to incentives. The relevant incentives for a company and ESG just don't align...

[@calmman32]

So this is a huge statement of regulating companies as companies are not capable of doing it

[@deohenge1865]

It's an easy bet that if big companies are willing to dump money into self-regulating to begin with, and that regulation moves externally, they'll just find a way to funnel funding to the external regulators to swing decisions in their favor. "Let regulators regulate" seems like it'll only work at all if regulators aren't being subsidized by the very businesses they're supposed to regulate.

[@lucalavagnino5258]

I just wrote an essay at school today about the subject. The guideline was "Corporate social responsibility". It took me 5 pages to explain it was all bullshit.

[@RacecarJ0hnny]

lmao this editing style is insane 😂😂

[@MikhaelHausgeist]

Oldman refuse to pass out and left a way for Young one... This is essential of big businesses nowadays.

[@michaelpaliden6660]

Credit for saying the right thing more then doing the right thing.

[@jancowell]

Remember that this isn't saying that a transition towards more sustainable business practices isn't possible, but that CSR, one many possible approaches, is significantly flawed.

[@conodeen3588]

It can absolutely be more environmentally positive to invest in an oil company increasing lower-carbon gas and no-carbon wind/solar in its portfolio compared to investing in an EV taxi manufacturer whose fleet will ultimately run on electricity produced from burning coal. The unintended consequences of incentives is complicated and ethics is complicated.

[@PatrickKellyLoneCoder]

"stakeholder capitalism" sounds a lot like the writings of a prominent bearded man who hated capitalism. What an oxymoron.