Thomas Massie Asks Witness Point Blank Why Tesla Has Lower ESG Rating Than Tobacco Company 

Interesting thing about ESG, the concept comes from the CCP!!

Exactly right

@@WalterDempsey-bj6ut Can you prove that? I don't have a hard time believing it, but it'd be really neat to be able to point out the connection.

​@@Thalasaur, it is really similar, but has different origins. ESG comes from SRI which comes from a book called "silent spring" (an environmentalist horror book). CCP social credit system seems to be cooked up by Communists as a way to "gamify" conformity. So, it's the same philosophy, but one of them is driven by the party while the other one comes from the banking conglomerates.

ESG score is a measure how harmful to humanity it is. The bigger the score the more the harm.

But about as fiunny a a hole in a parachute

A joke, but that’s what’s happening. 😊

@@frankdesantis8078when it proves unprofitable it will be dumped into the trash bin of history with the rest of the detritus left behind in the wake of the machine.

​@@prague7706 it is about control and they're willing to lose profits in order to control

​their goal is to make it unprofitable to not do business without good ESG scores. It's a systematic attack on free markets and meritocracy.

The problem is almost every public company uses it. They need to in order to apply for bank financing. You will be hard pressed to find a company that doesn't use esg unfortunately.

The ESG has been forced on us, against our will.

Pension funds are part of this scam.

And every 401K and other investment should allow you to opt out of BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street.

Except he doesn't know how esg works. So I don't think he is all that smart. The lower the esg score the more sustainable and less risk the company is so Phillip Morris is double the score because it is twice as risky.

@@DeveloperChris Neither does Investopedia , ESG book, or 1000s of other sites OR your not all that smart.

@@DeveloperChris You're wrong or making stuff up. A higher score is considered better.

@@scratchpenny it seems it depends on who provides the score some go with letters (AAA,BBB etc), some go with numbers some go with reverse numbers (lower better). The one I looked at had PM at 85 and Tesla at 27 others have them neck and neck. However I'd still put Philip Morris substantially higher risk, even though they are trying very heavily to rebrand themselves as "smokeless" they still make all their money from tobacco. so no not green not friendly.

@@DeveloperChris Wrong again. Just give up and take the L.

ESG score is a measure how harmful to humanity it is. The bigger the score the more the harm.

​@@vorpalinferno9711 ESG itself says it's the opposite

@@themonsterunderyourbed9408 You believe in what things 'say'? do you believe in fairies and unicorns?

Bingo! You win.

That’s why he is doing well

Tell me you don’t know anything about ESG without telling me.

Mellow, dispute it with facts. My company is all on board with ESG/DEI. Promises a 45% diverse workforce by 2030.

​@@dr.emilschaffhausen4683 It's got nothing to do with who they hire. This isn't brand new, the ESG ratings are cooked. This is about money. They have been bought since I began paying attention (4 years). The concept is great; I think we should be holding companies responsible for their impact on the environment and society. But those ESG ratings are not genuine in the slightest. It's not some complex plot, it's just about the money.

Correct, just like Blacks aren't recognized if they hold conservative views.

The concept of ESG is not about the actual meaning of ESG. It is about radical leftism. And ESG is just a small but ultimately non-essential part of that, just like "women's rights" is part of radical leftism but ultimately a non-essential part of it (see women's right vs trans rights). So yes, it is precisely because Elon Musk is regarded as "right-wing" and believes in freedom, that they are screwing him and Tesla.

Elon is evil. You are blind. He is doing everything they are working on.

Much of the targetting of Elon Musk began after he denied use of starlink for military purposes in Ukraine.

Yep. One of the true good guys that are also unbelieveably wealthy. A rare combo. He actually CARES about the Human Race.

It's a criminal conspiracy

Except part of your fiduciary duty is to avoid regulatory backlash from your operation... Obviously if you break laws, then you might get hit with fines and other punishments. Nobody seems to understand what ESG is and they just assume it's a moral grading system and not a financial grading system, even though it's always been used in the financial investment context. ESG has never intended to score companies on their moral values, or real environmental impact. It has always intended to score companies on how likely they are to violate laws and get punished for that. If you have an oil company that obeys every law but still harms environment, then it gets a high ESG score because it has low risk. If you have a green energy company that breaks a lot of laws and isn't unionized, then it gets a low ESG score because there's a high risk of that company getting a fine or otherwise punished. The problem is that people conflated "conforms to environmental regulation" with "good for environment". But when you point this out, everyone realizes it's obvious that the regulation is insufficient and often counterproductive for the actual goals of minimizing environmental harm.

​@@Pehz63 I think people get the sense that the likelihood a given firm has of being scrutinized by regulators and legislators has become kinda arbitrary and political, and that ESG has even become relevant is just a reflection of the fact that government is picking winners and losers for political reasons that are increasingly vague, incoherent, and unjust. Am I wrong? In a way it is a morality score - but morality according to a political class that seems to think and behave more and more like some new version of 20th century communists. It's like ESG is just a measure of how likely a firm is to run afoul of the central planners who seek to shape the economy to fit into their very particular vision of what an economy should be. If you're not on board with the program, you'll get a low score because you're likely to get the eye of sauron turned onto you, and I gather that laws and regulations these days are so complex and vast that the regulatory enforcers and the courts have a lot of discretion as to who they spend time scrutinizing. It seems like it's a tool for central planning economies and that (rightly) raises red flags for people. Even the way you describe it makes it sound that way. Could it not be the case, as well, that the cart comes before the horse? That firms assigned low ESG scores (for whatever reason and by whatever mechanism that happens) are then pursued by the state because of that, as opposed to the ESG scores simply being reflective of the likelihood of that happening? I'm just a worker I don't really know shit that's why I'm asking.

You are rhe only person here who mentioned this. ESG is, at its heart, a massive fiduciary duty law violation.

​@@gregorymalchuk272 What do you mean? Do you mean that having a low ESG score is a violation of fiduciary duty? I don't necessarily agree. Not all outcomes are a choice, and some choices have tradeoffs. Incompetence isn't illegal, and some noncompliance is due to incompetence. For example, you could be noncompliant with environmental regulations because the regulation changed suddenly and it takes time to align with it again because your company is bloated and took bad gambles. If Trump was elected president, the environmental regulations would be a lot more relaxed, so there's some unpredictability of policy. Another example is you might be deliberately noncompliant because the benefits outweigh the cost of compliance. I'm no law expert but I would expect these are both legal in terms of fiduciary duty unless you make assumptions to the contrary. Also, ESG is one of MANY MANY different stock price measurement tools. A more commonly used one is p/e ratio. If hypothetically a company decision increases earnings at the cost of ESG, then if anything I think it's their fiduciary duty to make that decision.

It may, but the Governance aspect is exactly supposed to look at things like the long-term health of the company.

Cause he ain't stupid.

@@Unknown-rb3ipNo, he’s a legacy investor. If you think he has the kind of pull that a Larry Fink-type does, you’re absolutely deluded.

@@Unknown-rb3ip I’m not saying it’s blissful or beyond Buffets capabilities, would you mind dropping a company or some keywords or dates so I can look this up for myself? I’m not a buffet-simp.

Buffet was a key player in getting keystone XL killed. That he owned stock in companies involved in train based crude transport is purely a cooincidink.

He was in his 80s when the woke revolution kicked off.

He is a walking contradiction. He lives his personal life like a tree hugging hippy and has the political persona to the right of a MAGA conservative.

@@josephhobbs4754 You do know that the overwhelming majority of "MAGA" conservatives want government to be shrunk by like 80% right?...the same way tree hugging hippies using do too...

@@josephhobbs4754sorry, I'm not American, can you please explain why being labeled a "MAGA conservative" is a bad thing? Your comment seems to imply that

@@BobWithHat MAGA from a government sense is doing Trump bidding, usually at the expense of the country. Decades of court precedents have been undone by a MAGA SCOTUS. MAGA Legislators vote as a block to appease one man who is not the president. Trump doesn't share the same motivations as his MAGA supporters. Trump is running to get tax breaks for the billionaire donors and to stay avoid jail. Trump's MAGA campaign is about job growth, guns, and securing the border. He will not pass any laws he campaigns on.

seems like the only good politician right now

honest*

And he runs his house with offgrid solar system

Wish he was going to be our next President with Rand Paul as Vice President and RFK Jr as Attorney General. We would have this country on track again really fast.

Trump calls him a RINO and supported his primary opponent

I wish I could!

Well maybe if they provided the questins in advance he would have an answer. There is a detailed report on how the figure came out which could be explained. Im guessing the tobacco company hires women, has a diversified board that doesnt pay the ceo 50bn

It's basically aflirbative yackshun just with a little softer enforcement. At the end of the day just forcing them to hire based on skrin color rather than content of character/credentials. And sensual orientation as well

Yep. It’s all about control.

People only pay attention to headlines. That one line would have killed that argument in any rational argument.

Ostensibly, Massie was pointing out the ESG score discrepancy between a company that focuses on electric vehicles, and arguably had the most global impact on adoption of electric vehicles after proving it was financially viable, and releasing their patents freely, and a cigarette manufacturer (with a side business in some food brands). Additionally, he could not explain how ESG was calculated, so either he was being deceptive, or is incompetent. To your point I did find it funny when the witness said that they own Tesla, and not Philip Morris, but I think the point still stands.

You are confused. Higher scores are better. So Tesla is ranked poorly and Phillip Morris is rated well despite EVs being far better for than environment than cigarettes.

@@NateDecker1982how is he confused, fuckin dope?

Underrated comment.

Why don't you do it?

That wasn't his intention though..

Nobody seems to understand what ESG is and they just assume it's a moral grading system and not a financial grading system, even though it's always been used in the financial investment context. ESG has never intended to score companies on their moral values, or real environmental impact. It has always intended to score companies on how likely they are to violate laws and get punished for that. If you have an oil company that obeys every law but still harms environment, then high ESG because it has low risk. If you have a green energy company that breaks a lot of laws and isn't unionized, then low ESG score because there's a high risk of that company getting a fine or otherwise punished.

​@@Pehz63 False. What do the letters "ESG" stand for?

@@themonsterunderyourbed9408 Feel free to Google it if you're curious. I have a better question for you, what's the difference between single and double materiality?

ESG is non-governmental. ESG ratings are done by companies, for example: MSCI, Sustainalytics, Refinitiv, Moody's, ECPI, Sensefolio, and Inrate

@@UnlikelyToRemember yeah and Twitter was non-governmental... But then Elon exposed what they were doing.

He has NO AIPAC minder!

Not the goat, the horse's ass.

@@ohger1 Why would you say such a rude remark?

@@bls5160 Because it's true. Only a horse's ass would pay attention to "ESG" ratings or believe it has any relevance in the legitimate business world. A company that runs it's company based on ESG is doing a disservice to its employees and investors.

@@ohger1 Well you are entitled to your opinion and I don't know anything about this topic anyway. I just think if you disagree with him caring about this issue you don't have to call him something like that. I recently listened to the interview he did with Tucker Carlson and came to admire and respect Mr Massie and where he stands on many of the issues this country is facing right now.

ESG scores may start out unreliable, but as bad actors game the ESG scores it may become a reasonably reliable indicator of leadership's sliminess.

Governance is bad? So they shouldn’t emphasize long-term growth versus short-term? They should only look at short-term shareholder gains above even the long-term health of the company? Governance?

@@Zed_Oud - long term thinking and the health of a company is great. With time ESG scores may become a reliable counter-indicator for that, but currently these scores are not fully reliable.

He’s kind of my hero, honestly. The last honest man in the US government.

Which is exactly as it should be. Anyone is free to set up a rating system and rank companies on it. Any investor is free to ignore or use those ratings as they see fit (presumably based on how well the rated factors align with their investment strategy). Thus, in my mind this hearing was a complete waste of everyone's time. Like ESG, OK use it. Don't like it, OK don't use it. If I create a company rating based on how much I think the CEO is pompous d-bag, do we need a Congressional Hearing on that??

So good corporate Governance is a sham idea? Maximizing short term profits and short term shareholder returns first and foremost?

Investment companies represent the investors.

@@somuchfortalent Not anymore. They only represent their own interests or political views.

They know we see it. They also know we wont do anything because we are weak and dumb cowards. Which they are right about

@@CarlCarlson-jq3xr Shalom Rabbi Sheckleberg, how's the weather in Tel Aviv today?

Agree, hatred and jealousy would cease to exist because everyone would live in the same shithole.

The fact that he doesn't know how it's calculated or what it means is a good indication that they ignore it. He just doesn't want to come right out and say so. If he was asked about return on net assets, he could give a nice summation of what it is, what it means, how they use it, and what other factors they balance that against.

Technically correct, and dead wrong. Since you haven't actually watched the video, they weren't actually raising prices.

I don't see why that matters. It could or couldn't.

based, thanks for the insight