Great idea, would like to see more of this, but those with wealth tend to put their money where they can get the most return and least risk. I would like to see more CEO’s and corporations, like this one, invest in their employees as Henry Ford did. The solution to this problem is much bigger than a few companies or foundations can solve.
I have been watching your "Hard Reset" series and it's full of great ideas like this one. I find it interesting that none of these have required a "Hard Reset" and that they are often already functioning successfully, now, no "reset" required. Seems like if we focus on growing and adding to the good that we have now, like many of these ideas in your series, we will end up much better off than if we "reset" everything.
This is a excellent example of allowing people to pull themselves up rather than pulling people down. The core principal of capitalism is that you sacrifice something today so that you might benefit from it tomorrow. This is nothing socialist about this initiative, every player is making a sacrifice for a future benefit, its just that the sacrifices and benefits are not purely financial.
literally please! they are just a startup operating in one city. wait till you have someone a hundred or thousand miles away and they need a whole new kitchen operation just for them. I'm betting these guys will launch in new cities intermittently lining up several new franchisees and a kitchen location all at once. Otherwise they will never expand or just go bankrupt. If they ever lose their foundation support they are also fucked
@@mankind8807 Many positions don't require much god given talent. This isn't sports/physical talent. Work ethic and good business education can be taught and learned.
I know this is meant to be optimistic, but we have to remember that charities and endowments aren't reckless. There are still significant risk measures/controls in place to ensure capital preservation. If this had started a decade ago, the equity valuations would have gotten absolutely fkd during covid (I'm talking 8x multiples to 1.5x) and loans would have definitely suffered so there is a big question over risk/return Loans that are given to a small business which is likely not backed by any assets would prolly be a junior mezzanine loan which is an 8% plus interest rate. If due to be repaid in 5 years, this could mean the owner could get stuck with 1.5x the initial debt. I think this could be something interesting but probably not as optimistic as the founders try to present it
You are quite the pessimist, the video never said what the interest rates are, don't assume that they are 8%. Maybe they are but making that assumption is killing the idea before you even got all the info. You present a solid argument though. They just need to make sure they do an extensive vetting process in deciding who gets the low interest loans. This is a much better alternative than having angel investors or banks supply the loans with the intention of making money on the loans. It does not sound like they are interested in making money off these loans. As long as they have a solid business plan (which the video said little about) they should be able to easily grow this to compete with nationwide franchises.
In india there's a company OlA. Its like UBER. They provide the drivers with cars. And charge a fixed rate everyday. And after a certain period of time, after the price of the vehicle is paid. The car becomes the car of the driver. But, now the drivers are seeing that it would have been way cheaper to get a loan from a bank to buy their car. And since they are charged a fixed rate everyday, they are forced to go to work even on days they are sick. And moreover as they are not directly employed by the company, they donot even get any employee benefit or insurance. They say that, the company lures gullible poor people with zero downpayment promises. Later trap them.
@@abhigyanchakraborty5563 No one ever said pyramid schemes don't make the founder more money. Capitalism is built upon the idea of investing in part of a fleet of ships instead of the entirety of one ship. This means even though the captain is due to make a lot of money at port the investor, originally the dutch crown, makes a certain percent of that profit from the fleet of ships.
This business model is nearly identical to any franchise except for where the initial startup funding comes from. Don't get me wrong it's a step in a positive direction but once you grow so big and have so many franchises your company will ultimately lose touch with your employees/franchisees and the cycle of capital abuse will repeat (Look at McDonalds). Also, what if franchisees start buying multiple sites, well this takes away from new potential franchisees from joining in now doesn't it, and the rich and more fiscally able will take advantage yet again. Perhaps if the company limited their franchisees to a district or limited sites they could own or only allowed new franchisees to build new sites. Otherwise what's the point? This model is only a win for the company not the franchisees. Like a Casino, house always wins.
You present a very solid point, that would just lead to the consolidation of wealth that we see today. But if you already know that a person can run a franchise, it is a lot less risky to have them run another franchise rather than take the chance on someone that could fail.
that's how it should work but in modern and even old franchising policies they will take whoever has the money to support it. hopefully this company can revolutionize this. Because if companies did this 30-40 years ago it wouldn't have taken them 30-40 years to grow so massive.
I know Chick Fil A has a limit of 2 stores per franchise owner, they are absolutely killing it right now so I don't see why one person couldn't own more than one store.
It's a franchise network one person always owns a collection of stores that and the corporation own all the assets that must be used to produce the food.
Wrong, it’s the exact opposite, talent is unequally distributed, but opportunity is. Millions of dollars of government innovation funds/grants and scholarships go to waste every year because people are not , claiming, applying or even looking for them. Some there are numerous funding opportunities for start ups, even for the ones with no prototypes yet. Opportunity doesn’t chase you, you chase the opportunity. You will never succeed as an entrepreneur if you come in with a victim mindset and thinking things need to be handed to you on a silver plate, this world is not fair, and you are entitled to nothing. On the other hand, talent, especially rare talent that will make you competent and stand from competition is very hard to come by. But if you have new innovative solution that will shake the market, there is opportunity for you, but if you are just another restaurant or hot sauce, these markets are saturated and have no more growth, so there isn’t as much opportunity there. Also, this dude was working as a hedge fund, he claims he doesn’t want to make money for the rich while he is the rich himself, f**in PR bs.
That concept is really interesting, and touching at the same time. I imagined companies around the world implementing the same funding model as this one...
"We're expecting that we'll get a return on investment that we can then plow back into providing additional loans to other programs" - You know. Like what banks did before we let them gamify the stock market.
@@nntflow7058 No, because banking was initially a political affair and the crown doesn't care about the peasants and how they can make money. This is the realm of semi-nonprofits and is a great way to add local chains.
While I'm glad you said "Like what banks did *before we **_let them_** gamify the stock market,* this comes off as semi-sincere at best. It sure doesn't seem like you're trying to start a discussion around the concept that we don't have to accept what banks, or indeed _ANY_ authority *figures* tell us. & yet if we don't discuss it, how will it ever change? Not by itself, that's for sure.
Because if the money was just given away the charity would run out of money. Starting a business is not cheap and no charity can support the creation of so many business through just donations. You have to first make money so u actually have enough to give away and make a difference
@@Knee-Lew no it's from the 5% of 1 billion from assets which are liquidated to charity so that's 50 million per year. And then they give out a loan to these location owners. The thing with franchises though, is that each franchisee is supposed to be competing with other franchisees in terms of innovation but I don't see that happening here, or for a matter of fact in fast food restaurants like McDonald's etc. But speaking of McDonald's, I have noticed that the menu in Europe is far different than USA and even India. I ate a pulled pork burger in Montreaux and it was the best frigging burger I have eaten in my life. But yeah coming to the point, I don't know how franchises like this make much sense especially when they are gonna make everything at once place then ship it to 8 locations lol.
5% is the yearly donation, 95% gets invested to recoup the 5% for the next year. Loans are a form of investment since you get interest, hence low-interest loans. All this is is just investing in people instead of Wallstreet
2030: thanks to the health food from every table the average North Korean is as healthy as the average South Korean, outside of the radiation poisoning of course.
and putting other small businesses out of business? No thanks, capping their own growth would be the best thing for them to do if they really want to practice what they preach and just aren't in it for the money.
Im still trying to figure out how this is something unique. This is pretty much how every franchise business starts whether its a for-profit or otherwise. How is this "concept" of lending money so a person can start a franchise business new?
I was thinking the same. I'm no expert at all, just a regular guy thinking and here's how I think it's unique. The loan is going to someone who has little to no capital. No bank or investor would normally give such a HUGE loan to a person like Dorsia. It's so beautiful it could work by picking the right kind of people. A person who will work their butts off to manage and make it profitable, but also someone who doesn't have a job/career they can't easily say good bye to.
@@sebastiaosalgado1979 - So the Franchisee isnt taking out a loan as a down payment? The franchise themselves are carrying the risk by supplying capital to build a store front and stock it with tools/materials? If thats the case then the franchise is simply hiring a manager to run the store with the expectation of eventually buying it. I suppose that COULD eventually lead to a community where a larger majority of residents are producers instead of simply consumers. Its not a bad idea if thats true.
@@__-pl3jg yes, it is like you said, the franchiser "hiring" someone (in this case, the franchisee) to be like a manager who has the intention of buying the business in the future. But if this business model really works, that's another story...
Normally, poor people never get the opportunity to become owners. Franchises require owners to have "X" dollars in "liquid assets" to purchase a franchise. This plan offers startup loans to poor people. That is the unique aspect. That's why the endowment funds were discussed & explained. "Big money" doesn't normally invest in "little people". They are starting slowly to see if this plan will actually work. If so, they will increase their funding.
It’s funny how social economy seems like this revolutionary concept in America. This is happening since decades in Belgium and other social democratic countries. Except the money isn’t borrowed from private interests and foundations, it’s the government’s that provide. You know like they are supposed to ?
Only problem is, that Everytable’s wage system needs to be regulated tightly. Otherwise u might raise some ppl to franchise owners, but at the same time turn them into the ‘oppressors’ and leave their personnel to be underpaid. So since we can’t expand forever (and u’d have an impossible-to-fulfill exponential growth, if u tried to make every employee their own franchise owner) there need to be high wages, or better a partition in the franchise’s business. However, that would make it an equitable community solution that wouldn’t stand up to the capitalist branding anymore. Additionally, when Everytable would become as successful as other brands, not every employee would want to make this their life’s foundation, so that’s a big problem of this solution. I see, that Everytable’s mission is in their best intentions, but probably a bit naive, with no actual control over its outcome, when franchises are still held at a rather loose capitalist standard. The idea with foundations as capital givers is great tho.
agreed, that's why I would suggest 0% loans with the obligation to be a coop in which employees get a fair share ! otherwise you're just perpetrating the capitalistic unsustainable delirium with a little touch of of social marketing !
Someone who offers others a paid job at the rates or society determines, is not an oppressor. (Well, no more an oppressor than any other active participant in the same society...)
What if the business fails, especially such as a restaurant during a pandemic. Who pays that loan back? Dorcia the previously homeless woman? What protections are given to protect the person trying to make the business run? Also, are they given any education or training and mentoring for the first few years? On the flip side for the foundation, motivations are they given to protect the foundation’s investment if someone they choose decides to not put the work in or runs into unexpected setbacks? I’m all for it,but there are some critical things left out here in this video.
It's not supposed to benefit you. The idea behind everytable is supposed to benefit you. If this started to happen in other industries, you could run a shop of whatever you are good at. But again, this is not aimed at someone content with a 40 hour week job, it's aimed at people willing to "run as fast as they can", to help them get ahead without capital.
Only a tiny portion of the global population has the opportunites to create sucessful businesses like this due to lack of capital. Imaine what humanity can acomplish if these barriers are removed! Love this.
Yeah that's not 'hacking' capitalism, that's just capitalism and that's how its supposed to work. All this oligopolic behaviour is _"Corporatism"_ and is akin more to the evils of Fascism than anything else. Capitalism is just "private ownership of the means of production." No where in the definition does it discuss policy. If a company wants to be ecologically minded or profit focused, they are still both STILL capitalist because they are both private, policy has nothing to do with the definition.
There should be community gardens in every neighborhood in every city and small town in America. There should also be a gov program to help everyone grow there own vegetables at home.
It's putting a spin on the way businesses were started years ago. Still I applaud those who are willing to invest in hard working people like Dorcia White-Brake. This woman has what it takes to be a successful business owner. God bless you Dorcia. If I'm ever in your area I will gladly give you my business. One hand washes the other does it not?
It’s confidence in yourself to do these things. Just marching on blindly and going for it whether it’s the promotions or quitting a disliked job to start up on your own. Whether this scheme works or not depends on the people doing the training/ the support and the new owners themselves. It’s a great scheme. I hope they find the right people/ give the support needed to make it work.
Dorcia -Probably had a hard childhood if she was raised in Compton. -Divorced twice -Single parent of multiple children -Works 2-3-4 jobs for multiple years -Studies on the side -STILL signs up for voluntary work -Keeps chin high, spreads love and hope, takes care of family Truly, truthfully the pinnacle of perseverance and wonder that a human being can become. She, and others like her deserve everything good in life that can possibly come to them, they're the real heroes of our societies! I love her already
So Chick-Fil-A… this is very similar what Chick-Fil-A does. They fund all the capital, it’s just very hard to be selected because there are only so many stores that an economy can support. Same is true here. Not everyone will be selected but if you do, and work hard, it’s like winning the lottery.
How about a productivity comparison to the nations/groups who have employed UBI to help the disavdantaged? That nebulous ‘loan’ process will keep a lot of people from taking risks, while the security of UBI encourages them to do so.
A start up can't provide a UBI. This is completely irrational. The private sectors can't provide a UBI like governments can. Where would they get the money from? They don't receive taxes.
Love it! 🌻Since companies must have an endowment to give money away, I feel that they should be required to LOAN 1/2-1% of their money to a hardworking indigent person. In doing so, they are helping support the regular people, who helped them become industry juggernauts in the first place. Plus, the companies will still benefit from the interest of the loan, contribute to helping a hardworking poor person’s ability to support themselves and their families, strengthen the neighborhood’s economy, and fight generational poverty, which will, in turn, improve education levels, drug addiction, and homelessness.
One of America's biggest economic problems is that Reaganomics changed an economy which had been "a rising tide lifts all boats" to one where 99.9% of the people stay on shore while the .1% get all the new GDP produced. New ways for people to get investment capital can raise a lot of boats by simply putting them in the water where the system works for them as well. Most investment capital goes to the two coasts and fly-over country gets a lot less.
as a communist i would say this is actually a great step in the right direction to actually fight capitalism and slowly return to a socialistic system without collapsing the economy of the communities or mass organizations which actually seem pretty damn effective than even communist mass organization and revolution. the process seems slow albeit if done correctly this could effectively compete the façade of capitalism by making more people richer and someday just closing the wealth gap completely
Since capilism is still the best economic system but is uncool now because of trends of propaganda, people gotta pretend they're breaking the system as they work entirely within the system.
First, yes he rocked the pink jacket. Bravo. Second, there's nothing new here. It's about how much risk investors are willing to take on. In this case, they are willing to take on more risk. The interesting part of this is that it's more risk based on an established system that has become so risk adverse that they are only lending to the rich. It's very much a case of the free market seeing the risk and seeing this risk as acceptable. This is going to happen more and more, as it should. Wall Street does not own the capital market and they have left this gaping hole of acceptable investments under serviced.
Isn't lending to make a profit to enable further lending exactly what a bank does? In everytable's case, you can only get a loan to open a franchised restaurant, which seems rather limiting....
This is what the world needs more of. People, everyone, does better when they have Equity. When you Own your own Home and Work, it transforms your way of thinking. It changes the choices you can make in your life. Providing options that would not have been there before. Inspire more learning and growing. Wage Slaves and Renters are just Slaves. Systems built that for the Rich. But Systems are not all bad, we can benefit from them too. We live in a World of Systems. Systems Serve everyone one way or another. Why can't we have Systems like this one helping people provide for themselves and their families. These Systems, like the one used here, is a perfect example and I want to see more of it!
wow talk about social justice, this should have been happening long ago, but hay, it's never too late. Whaat a wondefulr thing to see. Changing lives for the better. Empowering and humbling at the same time beautiful and Hi from Australia
Franchises in Australia do something similar, they prey on immigrants (usually from India) looking to get into a business venture, such as 7/11 subway, pizza hut. They get these people into big loans to pay the franchise to fit ovens and put a name up, and on top have to pay a % of the profits. A lot of these businesses go bust, and they're stuck with the debt, and the franchise moves onto the next victim. Now watching this video with that in mind, $150k loan for some unknown brand, to sell meals in lunchboxes. The business model for this guy is finding a "mark" that this foundation will acknowledge person who needs the money for venture - take the money (putting her into debt), rinse and repeat. The off-chance its a success, well hey, win-win, like any pyramid scheme he's at the top. All the best to her though.
This was my first thought. I'm really skeptical about this model. I've seen "charitable loan" systems in the past more generally and there is always something scummy about them.
Well, you can also present this same issue differently - people who are faster get access to capital by proving that they are fit to use it, so changing that will break the economy IMO the issue is with people inheriting that capital without proving they can use it properly
Seems like a good idea initially, but once Dorsia pays off the loan and starts pocketing that profit and maybe even opens more stores, how is she then different from "the rich", or the people who are being looked down on a bit in this video. I mean you can make the argument that other people will just be able to open stores too, but you can only open so many stores, there is after all a finite amount of real-estate available in a certain area. I think this idea is great for the "firs generation" of people who partake in it (like Dorsia), but I don't see the long term strategy for this concept. Also, don't forget, restaurants are always a risky business, one recession and you aren't paying off those loans so quickly anymore, then what? Is Dorsia then stuck with a loan she cannot pay off, putting her further in debt? Or does the investment company pull the loan and sell of the restaurant location? Either way, Dorsia isn't getting any more income then. Like I said, great idea at first, but definitely some risks involved. Would be great if they follow up with her in a year or 3 and make an updated video.
How is this different from any other lending based franchise, or charitable foundation? If the franchisee fails, or interest rates go up, the franchisee is still on the hook, right? The safety net of those born ahead comes from where they can fall back to to recover and bounce back. How is this salad bar changing that? I was hoping for details.
this only works if interest rates are low. Good luck getting a loan below 7% today. If it still works for them then ok but that's a big risk they're taking relying on loans so much
There's an idea what if the companies running these "foundations" pay their taxes and people would get these loans directly from the government with laws in place to disperse these found in a fair way.
I live in a small, poor, town and it seems to me that sometimes some of the poor people here make bad life choices...how would they fix something like that??
Nobody makes those choices because they wanted to, but because they felt they had no other option. Bad, life choices stem from a lack of opportunities. When urban areas are deprived of the resources for education, health, and job access that wealthier neighborhoods are privileged with, then the options left for poor people are reduced to theft, drug-dealing, sex-work, or some other illegal activity that funds well in a shorter amount of time (but with greater risk). I don't think you can criticize people for making choices that stem from a need to survive. When a community is provided a quality education and job infrastructure, this reduces the barrier to opportunities and allows poorer people to meet their most basic needs. Once people have food, shelter, health, and social support, then their options to succeed in life become accessible, because they're not wasting time and money just to fulfill their most basic needs, which is itself mentally draining. Privileged communities have a head start, their ability to make good choices is easier because they don't deal with the same mental, emotional, and financial burdens. Expecting people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, when the system is greatly stacked against them, is unfair. There's no equity for those who have to start from the bottom.
A good example about the unfairness of our system can be summed up by this anecdote: Trump once went bankrupt with millions in debt, and during this time he pointed to a homeless man and told his daughter "he's richer than me right now". Except that Trump still had assets, a network of connections who could get help him an inside track to a new biz opportunity, the credit worthiness to get a loan to start over, and the collateral to mitigate his risk. The homeless man might've been richer in dollars, but Trump was wealthier in a number of other ways. A homeless man doesn't have a cell phone, access to a shower or a suit for interviews, nor the shelter to sleep properly or access to a computer, nor does he have family or friends who could provide a network of support. Not to mention poor mental and physical health reduces one's ability to move past their circumstances. There are other barriers besides these, but you get the gist of what I'm saying. And that's the problem with the idea that "poor people just need to work harder". Most of them work 2 to 3 jobs and go to school, you won't find harder working people! It's a myth that wealthy people worked hard to get to the top. In reality, they just gamed the system and took advantage of opportunities they already had easier access to. Even so-called "geniuses" like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Bezos, came from wealth. Plus their technology isn't even theirs to begin with. Every advancement from internet, wifi, bluetooth, GPS, smartphones, electric cars, solar energy, AI, medical devices and breakthrough medicine, and so on - ALL came from government research, which is publicly funded by you and me. That's right. We're paying twice. First, by funding the technology into existence with our taxes and then again when we pay out of pocket for the tech that we think the elites "invented". No, the research is free and publicly available, so they get to invest $0 and profit 100% because WE'RE paying the upfront costs. So let's stop acting like the rich are working harder or smarter. They're simply exploiting our shitty system.
It seems like the core aspect of this is that foundation is loaning money to people that traditional institutions won't lend to. The reason is likely risk. So this is basically a small form of charity. If it ends up being net positive over all, that's a market opportunity for all lenders to join in. If not, it will remain charity. Its a nice story, but the economics don't fully add up. Perhaps its a very effective form of charity, and that would be great. But perhaps its giving a somewhat large amount of charity (in the form of lower interest loans) to a small number of lottery winners who then get rich from it. That might also be good - teach a man to fish and all. But that really isn't well explored in this video. Its intriguging, but without more information not fully convincing.
As a socialist, this seems like wealth redistribution but where the purse strings aren't controlled and conditions set by anyone but the institutions that are currently very rich and powerful i.e. the status quo is preserved.
Bruh, the problem is the system. A system that forced dorcia to have to work 2 -3 jobs while being a single mother, while attending school. What happens to all the other evertable location that doesn't make it. O Oh, now the franchisee owes A LOT to a private entity. A franchisee that became an everytables franchisee bc they couldn't afford to get a location without that. It's TARGETING lowerclass people and giving them loans. 2008, but for private coorps. This is fcked.
I totally believe that Wall Street has the brightest minds in the world and I genuinely wish to see more good people like the CEO comes forward with helping others with lesser opportunities. Loved the video, project, business model, and everything in between. Good luck Dorsey!!!!
So this is just an ad? This is just normal investing with higher risk tolerance under the disguise of helping people. This is not in any way a reimagining or innovative change to society. It's just McDonald's with better PR. Helping 0.01% of the poor join the top 1% is just a good way to distract from the fact that everyone else is still poor by dangling a lottery ticket and dropping some pennies, while using those new members of the rich to get richer, given that these are still businesses which care about profit above all given they are privately owned and not coops or community run, etc.
We used to have small community banks who loaned to small businesses, but they all got pushed out by Wallstreet and the big banks who refuse to invest in the little guy. As a result, the wealthy made so much money and put it into endowments that now they don't know what to do with it. The end result? Use endowments to give loans to small businesses just like community banks used to. I have to say that this is a terribly hack job solution to a problem, but at least it would seem that capital is finally swinging back to those who want to do better for themselves and who aren't already fabulously wealthy, so I'm all for it.
And once that capital is in the hands of the most irresponsible individuals in the country, they start making more babies, quadruple their population, overcrowd the job market, become poorer, and blame it on the wealthiests again ♻⌚
@@SP95 What dystopian bullshit are you on about? This isn't socialism or a handout. It's giving people a second chance who show the motivation to work their ass of to the point where it looks like they might deserve that second chance. It is in fact a loan if you bothered to watch the video. And what's wrong with small business owners instea of having a McDonalds on every block? Not to mention there's so many things wrong with your statement I think I'd need a sentence for every other word to clear up every misconception you have. First of there's a high corelation between being educated or wealthy and having fewer children. Second even if they did have more children the United States is not over crowded and in fact would benefit from a larger economy which would allow it to maintain it's dominance globally. Birthrates are falling across the globe and in the vast majority of developed countries it's fallen well below replacement rate and those countries are absolutely fucked going forward. Just look at Europe, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and others. Next, the idea that the job market becomes "overcrowded" is just completely false; yes there are short term fluctuations, but if there's more people to work, more jobs will be created to give them employment. They may end up working for lower wages, but you need a whole lot of unskilled labor if you ever want mid end manufacturing to return to the United States. We've kept the high end manufacturing and can automate the low end, but if you want the industrial base of America to return you should want a lot more people to come to or be born in the US. I could go on, but I suspect you haven't even read this far.
@@coulombicdistortion1814 That dystopia is called "today". Unless you think the amount of worthy hardworkers is scarse of course but you can't even think "this far" Who said there was something wrong about small business owners ? Who said i didnt watch the whole video before bringing your feet back down to planet earth ? The amount of shitty low paid jobs that caused the rise of socialism in the US too is an other proof of overpopulation in a saturated job market causing near slavery. The amount of overqualified workers is growing globally proving once again that education is far from a solution to avoid poverty and overpopulation. The european birthrates are not dropping fast enough causing a rise of poverty and socialism again even less than 100 years from the latest socialists world war. Birth rates are not dropping fast enough. How come is that a good thing ? With your logic every Mexican, every Indian and every African citizens should be millionaires. You just love modern slavery isn't it ? Or socialism so those modern slaves could "avenge" themselves. We now even have a "bullshit jobs" category growing. Unskilled labor does not have to come cheap, otherwise those low paid unskilled workers keep voting socialism again and cannibalize what's left of their nation. And as proven during the past decades, you can't keep so many low paid workers unless you are ready to see your country betrayed and your neighbors stolen.
I am interested in looking at the other side(the foundation side). I mean, there's no free lunch right? So, what's there for the foundations to make for their investments?
Good Question! To clarify, as per the video, it seems like the foundations give loans and receive interest as payment. Given the support these entrepreneurs are getting it seems like a low risk investment for these foundations, and their fund also increases to give to charitable causes.
We could have this single big foundation where every one of us could donate, let's say, annually and/or a small donation in every purchase. A single entity to govern all this money promoting society's development where it needs the most. We could even call it... I don't know... government.
Omg, I knew this will pop out! Stop it! Please, read little bit about competition and how it makes products and our lives better. Monopoly (whether it's a private company or government), especially government is a terrible idea.
Or you could put the money in better places, like the companies trying to automate food production. If we could feed people using only robots repaired by robots, food could be free.
Encouraging people to take debt to build up your brand is a genius strategy by everytable. But it is extremely hypocritical and vicious considering they don't have money and they take such a big financial risk.
But having an opportunity to get a loan in the first place is something that not many people have... Most banks won't even get you a loan if you have ever lived on the street. It's not perfect but if you want to stay in a capitalist system that's the best way to build wealth... But if you want to build a social safety net for everyone that's a whole other conversation
