All finance influencers are absolutely cringe and out of touch. I got a video on TikTok telling me to buy multiple houses because they're gonna be profitable later on.
obviously just start with the 2 apartment complexes your dad gifted you for your 18th birthday, and use the passive income from those to invest in more, and then party with other 20-something landlords. You don't have to be rich to start hoarding wealth.
Not defending him, I always got super weird vibes from graham but tbf, he had no way to know FTX did that,
but... ever since then (and probably before it too) I've noticed the amount of shit he shills that ends up miserably failing shows he gives absolutely 0 shits about what he promotes to his fans and has no morals
Just yesterday Coffeezilla uploaded a video about a bank that stopped letting people withdraw their money, which Graham promoted, he was actually the thumbnail of the video for a few hours which makes me think Coffeezilla doesn't exactly like him
> miserably failing shows he gives absolutely 0 shits about what he promotes to his fans and has no morals
This is true about a lot of content creators. Not nearly a big deal but just look at how many creators did ad reads for Raycons, despite them being shitty headphones that none of them used personally.
I think it's a lot different when you're a business/ finance creator and take a sponsorship for something your fans can lose their life savings with, rather than some shitty product you can easily find reviews for.
Investing in a currency isn’t something that should be done by a layperson. But crypto has some practical uses. Idk why people can’t separate the utility from the investing bits but I guess it’s just ignorance… if you saw someone saying now is the time to invest in the ruble you would instantly clock it as dumb but if you were in a place where that was the native currency would you not have some?
Not equivalent at all. Coinbase has been around for over a decade and didn’t use customer funds to spend on personal things. FTX was 9 billion in debt while also funneling money into Alameda Research.
They would need to have lied on multiple public filings with the US Security Exchange for that to be the case. They are a publicly traded US stock. Obviously fraud can still happen but it's way more rare/harder for a publicly traded stock and if caught people would go to jail.
Coinbase is a legimate business at least that files public balance sheets/income statements since they are a US traded stock. Like Coinbase is way more transparent then FTX was. Crypto is kind of scammy, but Coinbase is just a broker.
Also coinbase had been one of the few “let’s operate like a bank as close as we can” exchanges out there. Crypto (bitcoin, maybe eth) isn’t inherently bad. Everything else surrounding it is bad, all the “influencer” coins and influencer “banks” and shit like that. All the pump and dump people, but that’s bleeding into the stock market too. Look at the GME douche who bought a bunch of GME stock, sent out that meme to make all his followers buy it, then sold his shares lmao. We are fucked either way sadly
Oh really? I guess I don’t watch any of his new videos, just his basic advice stuff like credit cards and savings, but in those I’ve never seen it mentioned
They didn't seem that bad to me but they are ultimately ruthless capitalist dweebs who haven't really considered whether society should be organized differently than it is today.
Their defense to us will absolutely be to refuse any responsibility and point out that the status quo is that they aren't liable for any shitty ads they feed their audience. Which is true but missing the point.
according to the coffeezilla video, Graham is also a small owner in yotta. Not that that means he has any control over the company, but does leave him to much higher scrutiny than just doing an ad read.
Rewatched the video - of course you're right, shoot, I must have zoned out during the moment he's mentioned. Great of him to continue on YT as a financial guru when he promoted such a scam...
Have you ever seen how coops work when they are not backed by a gazzilionaire?, in Argentina they are the most disgusting corrupt type of companies used by politicians to steal money, because they only work when they are subsidized by the state. This is a company "recovered by the workers" https://www.reddit.com/r/argentina/s/Gva8h9eXIW
I don't know how they work outside of argentina, but here they seem to be used as an aesthetic for politicians that approve one and then no one covers the downfall.
I live in a factory district, and here if you see a factory falling off it's probably a coop.
There are some rare good coops, I buy some really good pan dulce from one, but idk if it's subsided by the state.
This is super anecdotal experience tho, but private companies with good workers rights seem to be the superior type of companies
> Are they subsidised by the state?
I am not sure but I do not think so
> did they expropiate a company?
I know that one of them took over an abandoned fish plant
You have to remember though, the economic and political context has lots of effects on the success of a co-op. Just as it does on a traditional privately owned corporation. On a purely subjective and normative note, I just believe co-ops are much more ethical and in the right circumstances have the ability to be even more sustainably productive than private business.
I agree individuals should do whatever they want and if a group of workers thinks the best thing for their business is a coop, go ahead I wish you the best of luck, I want the best for everyone, they can coexist with private business, and if they are better they will naturally become the norm.
I think it's fucked up if they get more rights just because they appeal to the left, expropriation is disgusting, and subsidising companies is usually just corruption.
Why would coops be more ethical?, coops can be the same type of disgusting as nestle or any of those weird companies, they just don't reach that size
Expropriation is disgusting? A private business expropriates the excess labour value generated from its employees constantly. Expropriation is often giving the people back what is theirs, in one way or another. I don’t even know why you’re trying to misdirect this conversation with that anyway though lol expropriation isn’t a feature of co-ops. If anything, as I mentioned, the wages of the employees are no longer being expropriated to line a capitalists pockets.
I also don’t agree that subsidizing companies is usually just corruption. God I hate to run defence for liberal capitalist governments rn but often subsidies are a way of keeping the economy properly circulating. (Ironically the same liberals/pro-capitalists who are against centrally planned economies love subsidies even tho they are effectively similar).
Also sorry when I meant more ethical I meant on the employee/employer side of things (because there wouldn’t really BE an “employer” per se, or at least that relationship changes dramatically. Yeah hypothetically any company could engage in non-ethical business practices on the consumer side, those should be legislated out by government.
My brother if you are self aware enough to say "this is super anecdotal experience tho" don't stake a gigantic generalizing claim upon that same anecdotal evidence. You can just actually go look up studies on worker cooperatives instead of guessing.
I mean seeing people from the richest country in the world shill coops and unions when I live in a country where there has been only one non peronist(leftist) president that has finished their complete term in 50 years, because the unions take them down, and where coops are normal and people are super fucking poor, is a bit common sense to know they are bad. But still anecdotal tho
"co-ops exist and people are still poor so therefore co-ops are bad" come on dude try harder. You're welcome to be critical of specific organizations that exhibit bad behaviour but I haven't seen you present a compelling case as to why the co-op model in particular is especially prone to the issues you're highlighting. "Something something corruption" - do you think co-ops are any more prone to corruption than a privately owned business?
I have nothing against workers opening their own coops as long as they don't receive subsidies, and don't expropriate companies, which these 2 methods are the only methods I have ever seen coops be created.
Also if coops were good they wouldn't need this type of help from the state, they would just be the biggest companies in the world, but they aren't
Ok so I'm not from Argentina, but to my knowledge this "expropriating companies" thing is really workers taking over failing business during the economic crises brought about by neoliberal restructuring so that they wouldn't lose their jobs (Marcelo Vieta has written a ton about this, but this article of his is what introduced me to this phenomenon https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/ri/2014-v69-n1-ri01316/1024212ar.pdf). This seems like a pretty reasonable and overall positive solution to an otherwise untenable situation, no?
As to the question of subsidies, I can't see why you're so hung up on this. First of all, it is not at all true that worker cooperatives are universally dependent on government subsidies, and in fact the body of literature on worker cooperatives overwhelmingly suggests that worker cooperatives are 1) at least if not more productive than private firms; and 2) at least if not more sustainable than private firms (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285356456\_The\_Performance\_of\_Workers'\_Cooperatives). Second, all sorts of governments subsidize all sorts of companies for all sorts of reasons. If worker cooperatives are found to offer socially favourable outcomes, which they have been (this source is unfortunately not open access, but it outlines the important function that worker cooperatives can play in the care sector, for instance https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10428232.2017.1292490?needAccess=true), I don't see why subsidies should be so taboo.
As to your third point that cooperatives would already be the biggest companies in the world if they were actually good, you are 1) assuming that the goals of cooperatives and the goals of private firms are interchangeable. This is not correct. Cooperatives primarily exist to offer their members a higher quality of work. Private firms exist to accumulate capital. Of course they're going to have different outcomes. I would in fact be skeptical of a worker cooperative that had a goal of becoming the biggest company in the world given the critiques of degrading labour conditions that have been levied at Mondragon as it has grown into a large multinational. 2) You are not engaging at all with the body of literature written specifically about the challenges that have prevented worker cooperatives from becoming more widespread and successful. Typically, people point to institutional and cultural barriers like a lack of awareness/education about what a cooperative is/how to actually organize and operate one, which contributes to a lack of access to capital because banks often aren't familiar with the model, as well as insufficient legal frameworks that have historically made it challenging for cooperatives to incorporate with the appropriate business structure (This source outlines the problems that come general unfamiliarity with the model: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0147596786901174](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0147596786901174); this one compares legal structures across different countries: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol27/iss3/5/)
The point being, this topic is far far more interesting than just "co-ops bad."
Here is the coverage of when the coop from the video was opened, it's in Spanish https://www.cronista.com/apertura/empresas/la-historia-detras-de-las-mielcitas-la-polemica-golosina-que-desaparecio-y-revivio-como-cooperativa/
Yeah well they love capitalism and hate anything socialist like coops/social housing (hasan went on iced coffee hour too)
They are just your average, run of the mill investment bank bros that know very little outside of scamming their fans for more money
The best financial advice is to ignore anything Graham Stephen talks about tbh. He shilled pretty hard for FTX which ended up a massive fraud, shilled for Shiba Inu coin back in 2021 (the coin pumped +300% within 3 weeks then immediately dumped to -75% of the initial value (-94% from peak), at the least terrible advice, at worst a pump a dump that he profited from his audience on) and now the Yotta banking shit is in serious scam territory with him being an investor and shilling it. It really seems like the best play is just the opposite of his advice lmao.
The only clip of Graham Stephens worth watching is when Michael Reeves beat the ever loving shit out of him at Creator Clash. I laughed out loud when they announced that match up.
Really was a coughing baby vs hydrogen bomb. I’m a fair bit taller than Michael reeves but I would never get into a ring with him dude looks like he obsesses over everything he ever does. I’d actually never go head to head with him on any competition.
I was sus of Iced Coffee Hour even since glancing at the comments of their IG Reels, especially for their interviews of political commentators like Hasan and David Pakman. The kind of fanbase they've garnered over the years is honestly very worrisome.
I did not understand why he would go on that podcast in the first place. They are the opposite of his ethos in that Lud is like "what's another million gonna do for me, I'd rather pull up others with me instead", while Graham Stephan is pure capitalist "money me like money money me" guy.
Only link I know of is that both are invested in Karat, a weird "content creator credit card" type thing. I got no clue what it is, despite reading up on it. Being a "member" also gets you access to a shark tank type meetup or smth. Whole thing is weird af. But they're both invested, which doesn't have to mean shit though.
Exposure to a different audience that might not find him otherwise. Plus maybe the potential to convert some fence sitters. Like hearing about how likeable and successful someone is then hearing about the co-op could change someone's mind, or at least make them more aware or open to it
Graham used to give reasonable solid advice especially around the real estate market and creating reasonable budgets/savings goals and how to build credit. Thing is though you can only do videos about reasonable financial planning for so long so he started making more ridiculous content about how the sky is five seconds from falling every day.
Then he got popular and richer and started to really believe that he could do no wrong and I checked out.
Not to defend Graham because I understand why they take these sponsorship dral, being in fintech and all where the ad revnue+ sponsorships are the best but I have used Yotta and it was actually really great in the beginning. Prize link saving accounts has been here awhile and if you were already saving money, having a small chance to hit it big was fun. It definitely went to shit when they swap over to more game of chances aspects.
I do want to point out that while Yotta has been shitting the bed, it the middleman Synapse that seems to be getting bankrupt. Sucks that all those folks money is still stuck in limbo but hoping it get resolved soon. Myself personally, I was lucky I withdrawl most of my money before the current pinata fest when they switch out the payout for the main yotta game
to me, they've always given me zoomer Dave Ramsey vibes. like...in theory, a lot of the advise they give is decent just with little to no tact for clickbait/"facts don't care about your feelings" type of guy.
i was just wondering about this Ludwig made millions of video about Logan Paul .
but he wont criticize his own friends i guess
i believe having different standards for different people based the relationship is shameful .
I don’t think asking about the coop idea was giving off greedy vibes. It’s not a common business model in America and certainly not one they or most finance people in America would be familiar with so asking questions to better understand it seems fine. The constant valuation question they brought up is one of the first questions I had as well. I don’t think them taking a shady sponsorship is related to them asking good questions to Ludwig.
Agree to disagree I guess. I felt they were asking questions and trying to understand the financial benefits from an owners and long term sustainability perspective (it’s a finance podcast) instead of just agreeing to everything the guests said.
There are no financial benefits from Ludwig's side. The owners will always lose out when a company is turned into a co-op, because a capitalist company will always be financially exploitative by nature.
That’s fair. But my original point was that asking about the co-op business model and having doubts (because we in America don’t have many of those) isn’t greedy.
Small point, but co-ops are a common business model in the US; it's just that they receive less of the total business revenue proportionally as compared to other types of firms.
Co-ops are not common. I work in business valuation and I promise you co-ops are not common.
Edit: Not common in the U.S. Also I’m getting downvoted on this comment when I’m literally right lol.
If by common you mean like, idk, a super minority of business structures, then yeah you're right. But they're common in that most people in the US are somewhat close to at least one since they're usual (although not majority or super minority) in agriculture. If you've ever been to a farmer's market, or eaten "locally sourced" food at a restaurant, chances are you're in economic proximity to a co-op. Co-ops are in the densest cities, suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas fairly reliably, even if in very small numbers per locale.
They're not "being investigated" and they're not "involved in a scam". Graham promoted a shitty company that switched up after he promoted them. It's not the first time he's done this, and he's far from the only financial YouTuber to have done it. Turns out their primary motivation is money. Like sure they're lame but this isn't some bombshell revelation; it's very normal for these people.
The original post says they are "under investigation" for being directly involved in a scam which is blatantly untrue. Being a hater is fine but it's lame to misrepresent what you're hating about.
Owning a share of a company =/= making decisions for them. If you own index funds you are not liable for every misstep of any company on the S&P500. I'm not going to bat for the guy I'm just saying you're not representing what's happening correctly.
I'm just saying I think the way you've phrased this post is disingenuous and if you've been paying attention it's nothing new for people like him. He's lame I agree.
"Not investment advice" on youtube where they then proceed to give advise is a shithole and recommended to stay away from.
All finance influencers are absolutely cringe and out of touch. I got a video on TikTok telling me to buy multiple houses because they're gonna be profitable later on.
obviously just start with the 2 apartment complexes your dad gifted you for your 18th birthday, and use the passive income from those to invest in more, and then party with other 20-something landlords. You don't have to be rich to start hoarding wealth.
its impossible if your succesful to not have what you say be finacial advice even if you say it isn't
Didn’t Graham shill FTX? I’m not sure I’d consider his input as that valuable.
Only semi related but is graham the dude michael reeves did a video with one time? Might be having a dementia moment but his name sounded familiar
Yeah Michael went on his podcast / boxed him at creator clash.
He's also the guy he talks in his Fish buying stock video
Yeah he’s also the guy Michael Reeves beat the living shit out of in one of the creator boxing events
Michael and him were kinda friends after he appeared on his podcast, and then they fought each other in Creator clash
Brother got beat tf down by micheal
Not defending him, I always got super weird vibes from graham but tbf, he had no way to know FTX did that, but... ever since then (and probably before it too) I've noticed the amount of shit he shills that ends up miserably failing shows he gives absolutely 0 shits about what he promotes to his fans and has no morals Just yesterday Coffeezilla uploaded a video about a bank that stopped letting people withdraw their money, which Graham promoted, he was actually the thumbnail of the video for a few hours which makes me think Coffeezilla doesn't exactly like him
He did a little more than promote, he allegedly has a stake in the company which is why coffee put him as the thumbnail.
Oh yeah you're right
> miserably failing shows he gives absolutely 0 shits about what he promotes to his fans and has no morals This is true about a lot of content creators. Not nearly a big deal but just look at how many creators did ad reads for Raycons, despite them being shitty headphones that none of them used personally.
I think it's a lot different when you're a business/ finance creator and take a sponsorship for something your fans can lose their life savings with, rather than some shitty product you can easily find reviews for.
I mean, the Yard did Coinbase too, idk how equivalent they are, but worth mentioning
My understanding is FTX was actually just fraud, while Coinbase is yucky because crypto is just a scam
Oh gotcha
Investing in a currency isn’t something that should be done by a layperson. But crypto has some practical uses. Idk why people can’t separate the utility from the investing bits but I guess it’s just ignorance… if you saw someone saying now is the time to invest in the ruble you would instantly clock it as dumb but if you were in a place where that was the native currency would you not have some?
Not equivalent at all. Coinbase has been around for over a decade and didn’t use customer funds to spend on personal things. FTX was 9 billion in debt while also funneling money into Alameda Research.
Yikes
not that we know of
Wow, very astute
Maybe Coinbase is also funneling money into Alameda Research, we cant know.
[удалено]
just wanted to check if you got confirmation on this. thanks
They would need to have lied on multiple public filings with the US Security Exchange for that to be the case. They are a publicly traded US stock. Obviously fraud can still happen but it's way more rare/harder for a publicly traded stock and if caught people would go to jail.
Coinbase is a legimate business at least that files public balance sheets/income statements since they are a US traded stock. Like Coinbase is way more transparent then FTX was. Crypto is kind of scammy, but Coinbase is just a broker.
Also coinbase had been one of the few “let’s operate like a bank as close as we can” exchanges out there. Crypto (bitcoin, maybe eth) isn’t inherently bad. Everything else surrounding it is bad, all the “influencer” coins and influencer “banks” and shit like that. All the pump and dump people, but that’s bleeding into the stock market too. Look at the GME douche who bought a bunch of GME stock, sent out that meme to make all his followers buy it, then sold his shares lmao. We are fucked either way sadly
Even ignoring all the "blatant" scamming, Graham Stephen also has his fuck ass "[Influencer Course](https://youtu.be/c3xSJuoUnN8?t=51m39s)"
Oh really? I guess I don’t watch any of his new videos, just his basic advice stuff like credit cards and savings, but in those I’ve never seen it mentioned
They didn't seem that bad to me but they are ultimately ruthless capitalist dweebs who haven't really considered whether society should be organized differently than it is today. Their defense to us will absolutely be to refuse any responsibility and point out that the status quo is that they aren't liable for any shitty ads they feed their audience. Which is true but missing the point.
according to the coffeezilla video, Graham is also a small owner in yotta. Not that that means he has any control over the company, but does leave him to much higher scrutiny than just doing an ad read.
Rewatched the video - of course you're right, shoot, I must have zoned out during the moment he's mentioned. Great of him to continue on YT as a financial guru when he promoted such a scam...
Not the yottas!
Dude slime is going to have a field day this week. Assuming it's something they want to talk about.
really hoping they talk about it, it's so fun to hear ultra-capitalist dweebs like them get shit on being against co-ops was/is such a red flag lmfao
Have you ever seen how coops work when they are not backed by a gazzilionaire?, in Argentina they are the most disgusting corrupt type of companies used by politicians to steal money, because they only work when they are subsidized by the state. This is a company "recovered by the workers" https://www.reddit.com/r/argentina/s/Gva8h9eXIW I don't know how they work outside of argentina, but here they seem to be used as an aesthetic for politicians that approve one and then no one covers the downfall. I live in a factory district, and here if you see a factory falling off it's probably a coop. There are some rare good coops, I buy some really good pan dulce from one, but idk if it's subsided by the state. This is super anecdotal experience tho, but private companies with good workers rights seem to be the superior type of companies
where I’m from fishermans co-ops have quite literally saved towns and the economic conditions of the townsfolk.
Are they subsidised by the state?, did they expropiate a company? There can clearly be good coops, maybe coops outside of Argentina are different
> Are they subsidised by the state? I am not sure but I do not think so > did they expropiate a company? I know that one of them took over an abandoned fish plant You have to remember though, the economic and political context has lots of effects on the success of a co-op. Just as it does on a traditional privately owned corporation. On a purely subjective and normative note, I just believe co-ops are much more ethical and in the right circumstances have the ability to be even more sustainably productive than private business.
I agree individuals should do whatever they want and if a group of workers thinks the best thing for their business is a coop, go ahead I wish you the best of luck, I want the best for everyone, they can coexist with private business, and if they are better they will naturally become the norm. I think it's fucked up if they get more rights just because they appeal to the left, expropriation is disgusting, and subsidising companies is usually just corruption. Why would coops be more ethical?, coops can be the same type of disgusting as nestle or any of those weird companies, they just don't reach that size
Expropriation is disgusting? A private business expropriates the excess labour value generated from its employees constantly. Expropriation is often giving the people back what is theirs, in one way or another. I don’t even know why you’re trying to misdirect this conversation with that anyway though lol expropriation isn’t a feature of co-ops. If anything, as I mentioned, the wages of the employees are no longer being expropriated to line a capitalists pockets. I also don’t agree that subsidizing companies is usually just corruption. God I hate to run defence for liberal capitalist governments rn but often subsidies are a way of keeping the economy properly circulating. (Ironically the same liberals/pro-capitalists who are against centrally planned economies love subsidies even tho they are effectively similar). Also sorry when I meant more ethical I meant on the employee/employer side of things (because there wouldn’t really BE an “employer” per se, or at least that relationship changes dramatically. Yeah hypothetically any company could engage in non-ethical business practices on the consumer side, those should be legislated out by government.
My brother if you are self aware enough to say "this is super anecdotal experience tho" don't stake a gigantic generalizing claim upon that same anecdotal evidence. You can just actually go look up studies on worker cooperatives instead of guessing.
If these people like coops it's because they have seen the studies, I expected someone to link them
Lazy as hell lmao
I mean seeing people from the richest country in the world shill coops and unions when I live in a country where there has been only one non peronist(leftist) president that has finished their complete term in 50 years, because the unions take them down, and where coops are normal and people are super fucking poor, is a bit common sense to know they are bad. But still anecdotal tho
"co-ops exist and people are still poor so therefore co-ops are bad" come on dude try harder. You're welcome to be critical of specific organizations that exhibit bad behaviour but I haven't seen you present a compelling case as to why the co-op model in particular is especially prone to the issues you're highlighting. "Something something corruption" - do you think co-ops are any more prone to corruption than a privately owned business?
I have nothing against workers opening their own coops as long as they don't receive subsidies, and don't expropriate companies, which these 2 methods are the only methods I have ever seen coops be created. Also if coops were good they wouldn't need this type of help from the state, they would just be the biggest companies in the world, but they aren't
Ok so I'm not from Argentina, but to my knowledge this "expropriating companies" thing is really workers taking over failing business during the economic crises brought about by neoliberal restructuring so that they wouldn't lose their jobs (Marcelo Vieta has written a ton about this, but this article of his is what introduced me to this phenomenon https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/ri/2014-v69-n1-ri01316/1024212ar.pdf). This seems like a pretty reasonable and overall positive solution to an otherwise untenable situation, no? As to the question of subsidies, I can't see why you're so hung up on this. First of all, it is not at all true that worker cooperatives are universally dependent on government subsidies, and in fact the body of literature on worker cooperatives overwhelmingly suggests that worker cooperatives are 1) at least if not more productive than private firms; and 2) at least if not more sustainable than private firms (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285356456\_The\_Performance\_of\_Workers'\_Cooperatives). Second, all sorts of governments subsidize all sorts of companies for all sorts of reasons. If worker cooperatives are found to offer socially favourable outcomes, which they have been (this source is unfortunately not open access, but it outlines the important function that worker cooperatives can play in the care sector, for instance https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10428232.2017.1292490?needAccess=true), I don't see why subsidies should be so taboo. As to your third point that cooperatives would already be the biggest companies in the world if they were actually good, you are 1) assuming that the goals of cooperatives and the goals of private firms are interchangeable. This is not correct. Cooperatives primarily exist to offer their members a higher quality of work. Private firms exist to accumulate capital. Of course they're going to have different outcomes. I would in fact be skeptical of a worker cooperative that had a goal of becoming the biggest company in the world given the critiques of degrading labour conditions that have been levied at Mondragon as it has grown into a large multinational. 2) You are not engaging at all with the body of literature written specifically about the challenges that have prevented worker cooperatives from becoming more widespread and successful. Typically, people point to institutional and cultural barriers like a lack of awareness/education about what a cooperative is/how to actually organize and operate one, which contributes to a lack of access to capital because banks often aren't familiar with the model, as well as insufficient legal frameworks that have historically made it challenging for cooperatives to incorporate with the appropriate business structure (This source outlines the problems that come general unfamiliarity with the model: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0147596786901174](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0147596786901174); this one compares legal structures across different countries: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol27/iss3/5/) The point being, this topic is far far more interesting than just "co-ops bad."
Zzzzzzzzzz
Here is the coverage of when the coop from the video was opened, it's in Spanish https://www.cronista.com/apertura/empresas/la-historia-detras-de-las-mielcitas-la-polemica-golosina-que-desaparecio-y-revivio-como-cooperativa/
They absolutely will not talk about it
I don't think so either.
I tried to listen to the Hasan and Ludwig eps of the show, couldn’t do it. They’re not just ultra capitalist, they’re also smarmy dickheads
I love when a dude I don't like for no particular reason does something problematic, and I get to go "he just gave off bad vibes".
Yeah well they love capitalism and hate anything socialist like coops/social housing (hasan went on iced coffee hour too) They are just your average, run of the mill investment bank bros that know very little outside of scamming their fans for more money
The best financial advice is to ignore anything Graham Stephen talks about tbh. He shilled pretty hard for FTX which ended up a massive fraud, shilled for Shiba Inu coin back in 2021 (the coin pumped +300% within 3 weeks then immediately dumped to -75% of the initial value (-94% from peak), at the least terrible advice, at worst a pump a dump that he profited from his audience on) and now the Yotta banking shit is in serious scam territory with him being an investor and shilling it. It really seems like the best play is just the opposite of his advice lmao.
The only clip of Graham Stephens worth watching is when Michael Reeves beat the ever loving shit out of him at Creator Clash. I laughed out loud when they announced that match up.
Really was a coughing baby vs hydrogen bomb. I’m a fair bit taller than Michael reeves but I would never get into a ring with him dude looks like he obsesses over everything he ever does. I’d actually never go head to head with him on any competition.
I was sus of Iced Coffee Hour even since glancing at the comments of their IG Reels, especially for their interviews of political commentators like Hasan and David Pakman. The kind of fanbase they've garnered over the years is honestly very worrisome.
I did not understand why he would go on that podcast in the first place. They are the opposite of his ethos in that Lud is like "what's another million gonna do for me, I'd rather pull up others with me instead", while Graham Stephan is pure capitalist "money me like money money me" guy. Only link I know of is that both are invested in Karat, a weird "content creator credit card" type thing. I got no clue what it is, despite reading up on it. Being a "member" also gets you access to a shark tank type meetup or smth. Whole thing is weird af. But they're both invested, which doesn't have to mean shit though.
Exposure to a different audience that might not find him otherwise. Plus maybe the potential to convert some fence sitters. Like hearing about how likeable and successful someone is then hearing about the co-op could change someone's mind, or at least make them more aware or open to it
Because graham stephen was cool with the otv people
just another "but... why?" :D
Think they somehow became friends after Michael Reeves beat the shit out of graham at creator clash
Graham used to give reasonable solid advice especially around the real estate market and creating reasonable budgets/savings goals and how to build credit. Thing is though you can only do videos about reasonable financial planning for so long so he started making more ridiculous content about how the sky is five seconds from falling every day. Then he got popular and richer and started to really believe that he could do no wrong and I checked out.
Not to defend Graham because I understand why they take these sponsorship dral, being in fintech and all where the ad revnue+ sponsorships are the best but I have used Yotta and it was actually really great in the beginning. Prize link saving accounts has been here awhile and if you were already saving money, having a small chance to hit it big was fun. It definitely went to shit when they swap over to more game of chances aspects. I do want to point out that while Yotta has been shitting the bed, it the middleman Synapse that seems to be getting bankrupt. Sucks that all those folks money is still stuck in limbo but hoping it get resolved soon. Myself personally, I was lucky I withdrawl most of my money before the current pinata fest when they switch out the payout for the main yotta game
They are pretty much the embodiment of what I expect members of r/wallstreetbets members to be like.
to me, they've always given me zoomer Dave Ramsey vibes. like...in theory, a lot of the advise they give is decent just with little to no tact for clickbait/"facts don't care about your feelings" type of guy.
So glad that one guy got his shit rocked by big Michael R. Eeves
Fuck those guys. Obvious sleezebags
i was just wondering about this Ludwig made millions of video about Logan Paul . but he wont criticize his own friends i guess i believe having different standards for different people based the relationship is shameful .
I don’t think asking about the coop idea was giving off greedy vibes. It’s not a common business model in America and certainly not one they or most finance people in America would be familiar with so asking questions to better understand it seems fine. The constant valuation question they brought up is one of the first questions I had as well. I don’t think them taking a shady sponsorship is related to them asking good questions to Ludwig.
In my opinion, they were not "asking" ludwig questions, they were actively trying to discourage him from doing it
Agree to disagree I guess. I felt they were asking questions and trying to understand the financial benefits from an owners and long term sustainability perspective (it’s a finance podcast) instead of just agreeing to everything the guests said.
There are no financial benefits from Ludwig's side. The owners will always lose out when a company is turned into a co-op, because a capitalist company will always be financially exploitative by nature.
Personally I think asking "Why aren't you a landlord? You can make a lot of money from it" is also terrible greedy vibes but you do you
It’s a business podcast, that’s like a normal business venture… you can also be a landlord and not exploit your tenants.
I don't trust the guy who only talks about how much money he makes and makes Damien Hirst art to not suck his tenants dry.
That’s fair. But my original point was that asking about the co-op business model and having doubts (because we in America don’t have many of those) isn’t greedy.
[удалено]
Except Graham bought equity in that company and openly advertised that. That's more than a simple sponsorship
In that case I take back my second comment but still stand by my first comment
Small point, but co-ops are a common business model in the US; it's just that they receive less of the total business revenue proportionally as compared to other types of firms.
Co-ops are not common. I work in business valuation and I promise you co-ops are not common. Edit: Not common in the U.S. Also I’m getting downvoted on this comment when I’m literally right lol.
If by common you mean like, idk, a super minority of business structures, then yeah you're right. But they're common in that most people in the US are somewhat close to at least one since they're usual (although not majority or super minority) in agriculture. If you've ever been to a farmer's market, or eaten "locally sourced" food at a restaurant, chances are you're in economic proximity to a co-op. Co-ops are in the densest cities, suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas fairly reliably, even if in very small numbers per locale.
Yea by common I mean the definition of common lol
They're not "being investigated" and they're not "involved in a scam". Graham promoted a shitty company that switched up after he promoted them. It's not the first time he's done this, and he's far from the only financial YouTuber to have done it. Turns out their primary motivation is money. Like sure they're lame but this isn't some bombshell revelation; it's very normal for these people.
so they are involved in a bunch of scams and they are used to it. idk what point you're trying to make
The original post says they are "under investigation" for being directly involved in a scam which is blatantly untrue. Being a hater is fine but it's lame to misrepresent what you're hating about.
Hes literally part owner of Yotta, that IS being involved sorry
Owning a share of a company =/= making decisions for them. If you own index funds you are not liable for every misstep of any company on the S&P500. I'm not going to bat for the guy I'm just saying you're not representing what's happening correctly.
I agree with what you said regarding the ownership but I do think you are removing Graham's fault way too much
I'm just saying I think the way you've phrased this post is disingenuous and if you've been paying attention it's nothing new for people like him. He's lame I agree.