Here a short profile of a reluctant businessman and reluctant billionaire who was himself inspired after a climbing trip to Scotland!
This is an interesting article that I think gives a contrast by which we can judge other billionaires (I mention no names so please don’t take it personally 
) and I think our own attitudes to capitalism, wealth and inequality, and why those are IMO wrecking the ecosystems we - and our children - depend on.
Recommended read:
If it took him 50 years to reach such enlightenment, today’s billionaires have a lot of time to get to the same level of altruism.
It didn’t take him fifty years and you suggesting that is a rejection of the information in this article which looks like an attempt to whitewash billionaires who don’t measure up to his example.
It’s obvious that people are different including billionaires, but you try to make out this man is not different in spite of the article being entirely about why he was different!
Dismissing this man’s values and approach because it makes others look bad is a problem IMO.
Simmer down for Pete’s sake, man.
“. . . the company he founded almost 50 years ago with a mission to help fellow climbers. This week he achieved that aim, announcing that he was giving away all of the shares in Patagonia to a trust that will use future profits to “help fight” the climate crisis.”
No need to be patronising.
Your comment ignored the differences which are the whole point of the article.
How about acknowledging that, or just not commenting? Why do you feel the need to dismiss what to me is an exceptional commendable act and the man and the values behind it?
Don’t mean to minimize his generosity. It’s commendable, but not really all that unique. See Roger Staubach, Chuck Feeney, Yu Pengnian, Mackenzie Scott, Manoj Bhargava, Sara Blakely and the Giving Pledge. If you look beyond the public glare of many of today’s notable billionaires you will find similar philanthropic endeavors, even by the Unmentionable One.
My point is not about his philanthropy which is often used by the wealthy to whitewash their activities. In his case it is obviously not that. The article describes a man who didn’t seek wealth or use it for a lavish lifestyle.
He appears to have found a niche rather than sought to enrich himself, and profited by applying his values in a way that is strikingly different to most business billionaires, which is why I posted it with the comment I made.
All your comments ignore these obvious points
As I said, commendable but not unique. There are more genuinely caring people in the world than most people are willing to recognize. This gentleman appears to be one of them. It’s not a good idea, though, imo, to generalize too much about someone from one article, especially when testimonials from employees, suppliers and competitors seem to be lacking. Also, it should be noted that it’s easier to transfer your wealth to a trust when you’re 83 than it is when you’re 43.
Harsh, but fair
This guy lived his life differently, but it is not as I said about philanthropy.
It’s fair to point out the lack of testimonials from his employees, but that only highlights that we do have testimonials and other evidence about the billionaire which you have made a habit of defending.
I deliberately avoided a specific comparison because I wanted to focus on the qualities highlighted in the article rather than have another slanging match about Musk, but you’ve made the comparison and in all your comments you’ve tried to minimise the particular qualities described in the article by suggesting this billionaire is not that different from any other. I’m not saying he’s unique, but that he is remarkable and worth reading about.
Like certain leaders, some arrive at a place of prominence but still live differently from the majority of their peers. I can think of others like this (not just billionaires) and I’d put David in that bracket.
I think we should acknowledge and celebrate this when we find it because it is rare and valuable.
Agreed, wholeheartedly.
Usually a tax dodge involved 
I see this a lot
Not paying tax is complex. It seems to fall in 2 camps.
“2.” is what many avoiders do, but 1 is somebody giving everything to charity and not paying tax, because they have no income from the sale and the beneficiary is a charity.
I am not sure how folk giving to charities do though avoid tax, I presume you can. What I do know is that giving to charity seems to be something the general finance sector seems to hate. When somebody gives everything to a charity there should be no tax.
In my opinion, you should only pay tax when you have an income, but the system works in more complex ways.
It keeps control of the company within his family but avoids taxes from traditional inheritance or ownership transfer. Been going on for years and most of the billionaires have trusts to keep the money for themselves and their family 
I am a little confused here, whomever wrote this article seems more so.
You don’t sell the 3 billion dollar company to save 700 million in taxes.
So he gave away 2.3 billion to save 700 million?
Over simplifying but his rationale is screwed.
Skip to about 2:40 I know this is for tv but explains why they use trusts. Don’t pay a cent in tax and a billionaire so poor that on paper could claim milk tokens from the government.
The Ekatrinburg Solution needs to be applied more widely.
Yeah, rich people are in a real conundrum. What is the honorable thing to do with your wealth when you’re at an advanced age? Is it better to go the trust route, just pass it on to children and, maybe, let government take a bigger chunk (taxes on moderate sized estates in the U.S. are not all that bad, no federal estate taxes when current value is less than 12 million I believe) or use some hybrid method. Oh, the worry money brings on!
Legal and accounting fees though, whichever way you go, will probably be as onerous as government overreach.
Pay yer effing taxes -all of them throughout your life. Then you wont have to worry so much that the rest of us will come and eat you.
Nothing like making yer point using a Motorhead song as a metaphor. 