This is not just a problem among "elites", every class in society down to the bottom rung shows the shame characteristics of the elite that Giridharadas lays out.
The clearest example you can see is with NIMBYs, especially those in liberal leaning cities. These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have generally progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the wagons to defend their interests just like the billionaires do. Take a look at your local school board meeting or a city council session where some new development is on the docket.
>The clearest example you can see is with NIMBYs, especially those in liberal leaning cities.
I don't think it's accurate to classify property owners in some of the world's most expensive real-estate markets as "the bottom rungs of society."
And my experience with local city council and school board sessions aren't that different. It's usually the same sorts of people. They're not billionaires, but they're usually pretty materially comfortable. I'd categorize them as being "dream hoarder" types. (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/the-hoa...)
> These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have generally progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the wagons to defend their interests just like the billionaires do.
My favorite example in the Bay Area is the San Francisco Sierra Club fighting to preserve a parking garage [1], which is, by and large, the exact opposite of environmental advocacy.
> These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have generally progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the wagons to defend their interests
A specific example in the city of Seattle - a neighborhood group sued to delay increasing housing density (read: make housing more affordable). While the suit called for an environmental study, you can easily read between the lines and see that homeowners in the area do not want change, and view increased density as a threat to the character of their neighborhoods. The lawsuit has already delayed a significant increase to the housing stock for the entire city by 2 years. [0]
This is why I think much of Christian thought is actually quite intelligent.
(Summary by a very intellectually and spiritually deficient moron): I am pathetic, my desires are all almost certainly evil, I can probably not even think one good thought let alone have a good intention without divine help. God, please please please please have mercy and grant me some very much needed horror of self and conformity to your will and help me to not become a puffed up moron who is full of himself if one seemingly desirable thing happens to me, which is certainly what is going to happen unless the literal creator of the universe helps me to do it a little bit less.
Of course none of the American Protestant Christians I know will like it if you say that since they seem to think Christianity is about being a millionaire who gives 30% to charity and doesn’t have premarital sex too much
It's almost as if democracy is about balancing competing self-interests. It's also easier be more enlightened, as long as it's not impacting one's own self-interest.
False comparison because billionaire has a lot more money compared to your typical middle-class NIMBY. Even if quite a bit of the billionaire's wealth vanishes, it won't impact his lifestyle much. Not so with NIMBY.
Giridharadas talk is explosive in terms of its ideas. From what I can tell, he's not pulling any punches even though he's been invited to speak on a Google campus (Boston).
At 29:03 Giridharadas challenges his audience to demand that Google (and other Silicon Valley companies) generate an annual political disclosure to its employees, the very people in his audience. [0]
As a side note, Giridharadas is very clear and measured in his articulation, and I found that speeding the video to 1.5 times normal rate to be a good delivery speed (YMMV).
What Giridharadas says prior to the timecode I referenced is also provocative and politically risky. I can't yet comment on his entire talk, but the quality of the first half the video is superb.
It's one thing to issue a statement supporting LGBT+ rights (cost: $0) but donating $5000 to a Republican candidate is a much more significant action in terms of making the world worse for trans people.
I totally agree, he brings up things that challenge my ‘priors’ and shifted my views - in a 1 hour talk. Excellent talk.
Two comments: I think it showed real fairness invited him to give a talk at Google; someone probably read his book and wanted to promote change within. The second comment is trivial: watching this talk reminds me that arguably the best perk when I worked at Google as a contractor was the invited talks (yes, even better than the food: I can buy my own food but hearing very interesting people talk in person is an experience more difficult to buy).
I agree about watching it at 1.5x speed. Even slightly faster would be nice. Definitely a lot of food for thought. The question & answer near the end was fantastic, I loved hearing the Googlers responding positively and talking about taking action.
Ezra Kline interviewed Anand Giridharadas for the Ezra Kline Show podcast back in September[0]. Very interesting.
Anand basically argued that the global elite spends a lot of time looking for ways to help the global impoverished, but fails to make an impact because they never consider solutions that would erode their own wealth/status.
"Anand basically argued that the global elite spends a lot of time looking for ways to help the global impoverished, but fails to make an impact because they never consider solutions that would erode their own wealth/status."
That explains why everybody is talking about philanthropy, LGBT, women's rights, diversity, racism and whatever instead of maybe paying their janitors and other low ranking staff a living wage.
I don't want to downplay the issues at hand, but when we talk about poverty and wealth, we should always be aware of the definition. AFAIK poverty is often defined as a relative ratio, leading to very different absolute conditions in different countries. For example, in the US or Europe, it is presumably something very different than in Africa.
For my taste, Anand Giridharadas mixes those things a bit too loosely. One moment he is talking about the elite that is fighting for a better future in Africa and the next minute he talks about how the funding of public schools in the US is organized.
Sure, his point is that the US elites are helping Africa because (it is cheaper and) it doesn't endanger the system of their wealth in the US, but I wonder if helping the people in Africa isn't more urgent than the ones in the developed part of the world.
That said, I like how he presents and explains his view to the audience at Google.
> Anand basically argued that the global elite spends a lot of time looking for ways to help the global impoverished
I have a hard time believing this. The elite spend a lot of time looking for ways to help themselves. The elite spend a lot of time looking to enrich themselves. The elite didn't become the elite by being charitable or caring or thinking of others.
Also, I don't think this "nature" is just confined to the elite. Everyone is selfish.
> but fails to make an impact because they never consider solutions that would erode their own wealth/status.
People who love wealth and power don't want to diminish their wealth and power?
I basically agree with the guy but nothing he said is new or insightful.
We are living in another "Gilded Age" whether we realize it or not.
And when populations hit a tipping point, the elite will start a big war to thin out a few hundred million people or maybe 3-4 billion this time.
It is the same as it ever was.
Google, Facebook, and all the other big tech companies could have helped liberate humanity--we were talking about privacy and open government in the late 1990s. It was all set to be implemented, then 9/11 happened and a new Iron Curtain fell on the US. All by design by those who can't allow the rabble to have any true freedom.
When I look at what Google and the others have become now, I just feel ill--this is a major power play where they are aiding and abetting outright tyranny in China and will happily aid and abet the same crimes in the West as long as it suits their goal of power consolidation. Worse, they are now aligned with the far left, which makes utterly no sense except from a "gaining total domination" mindset. It's sick. The left is not "for the people." Show me one historical example! That talk was always a false front for naked brutality.
Before you downvote me, realize what is at stake here. Read some damn history books and come to understand what happened to the Greeks and the Romans and why.
See: Facebook's Free Basics, where they offer "free" "Internet" to developing countries, limited to Facebook properties and a handful of non-competing websites like Wikipedia.
I heard this guy on "Your Call" which is produced by NPR yesterday. One of the things he said that really got my attention is that he said to get a seat at a TED talk, you need to pay $5000, which really limits the attendance at TED talks to the wealthy. Another thing was, the speaker is censored--he or she cannot use the word "inequality", but can only use the word "poverty". That just blows my mind. Inequality is one of the ways economics is changing with Thomas Piketty who points out how inequality has increased way more in United States than in Europe since the 1970s. To not be able to point to that as one of the problems facing the world and to claim you want to change the world is madness.
I'm not saying there's no valid criticisms of TED, or even really endorsing it, but the claim you report clearly can't be strictly true - there are TED talks with "inequality" in the title.
People tend to only care about the inequality where they stand the most to gain. Most US citizens would benefit from wealth redistribution in US, but unhappy with a global redistribution since they would average down.
In some ways globalization is causing both increasing economic equality for labor and increasing inequality for capital providers.
Ted started off great and has turned into a complete joke. Got the money? Come and talk. Have a controversial idea - sure, it's worth spreading. I've come to accept TED as entertainment more so than anything factual. If facts are there, they have to be checked.
What about hiring minorities in the US from HBCU's? I came here on an HB1 myself but they are so many talented diverse candidates that could be hired in the US.
I don't think he was trying to make them feel guilty, rather just pointing to the awkward fact that the situations and people he is talking about are the ones like those in the audience. I haven't read the book but I reckon he talks a lot about Google based on how many times he mentioned monopolies and anticompetitiveness.
[+] [-] 40acres|7 years ago|reply
The clearest example you can see is with NIMBYs, especially those in liberal leaning cities. These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have generally progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the wagons to defend their interests just like the billionaires do. Take a look at your local school board meeting or a city council session where some new development is on the docket.
[+] [-] naravara|7 years ago|reply
I don't think it's accurate to classify property owners in some of the world's most expensive real-estate markets as "the bottom rungs of society."
And my experience with local city council and school board sessions aren't that different. It's usually the same sorts of people. They're not billionaires, but they're usually pretty materially comfortable. I'd categorize them as being "dream hoarder" types. (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/the-hoa...)
[+] [-] electricslpnsld|7 years ago|reply
My favorite example in the Bay Area is the San Francisco Sierra Club fighting to preserve a parking garage [1], which is, by and large, the exact opposite of environmental advocacy.
[1] https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/the-sierra-club-fi...
[+] [-] mshenfield|7 years ago|reply
A specific example in the city of Seattle - a neighborhood group sued to delay increasing housing density (read: make housing more affordable). While the suit called for an environmental study, you can easily read between the lines and see that homeowners in the area do not want change, and view increased density as a threat to the character of their neighborhoods. The lawsuit has already delayed a significant increase to the housing stock for the entire city by 2 years. [0]
[0] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/queen-ann...
[+] [-] internet555|7 years ago|reply
(Summary by a very intellectually and spiritually deficient moron): I am pathetic, my desires are all almost certainly evil, I can probably not even think one good thought let alone have a good intention without divine help. God, please please please please have mercy and grant me some very much needed horror of self and conformity to your will and help me to not become a puffed up moron who is full of himself if one seemingly desirable thing happens to me, which is certainly what is going to happen unless the literal creator of the universe helps me to do it a little bit less.
Of course none of the American Protestant Christians I know will like it if you say that since they seem to think Christianity is about being a millionaire who gives 30% to charity and doesn’t have premarital sex too much
[+] [-] goatlover|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brookhaven_dude|7 years ago|reply
(For the record, I don't like NIMBY's)
[+] [-] wycs|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mistersquid|7 years ago|reply
At 29:03 Giridharadas challenges his audience to demand that Google (and other Silicon Valley companies) generate an annual political disclosure to its employees, the very people in his audience. [0]
As a side note, Giridharadas is very clear and measured in his articulation, and I found that speeding the video to 1.5 times normal rate to be a good delivery speed (YMMV).
What Giridharadas says prior to the timecode I referenced is also provocative and politically risky. I can't yet comment on his entire talk, but the quality of the first half the video is superb.
[0] https://youtu.be/d_zt3kGW1NM?t=1743
[+] [-] pjc50|7 years ago|reply
Even disclosing to their employees who they're giving money to as campaign contributions would be a start. At the moment they have to find this out from @pinboard: https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1053804655602528256
It's one thing to issue a statement supporting LGBT+ rights (cost: $0) but donating $5000 to a Republican candidate is a much more significant action in terms of making the world worse for trans people.
[+] [-] mark_l_watson|7 years ago|reply
Two comments: I think it showed real fairness invited him to give a talk at Google; someone probably read his book and wanted to promote change within. The second comment is trivial: watching this talk reminds me that arguably the best perk when I worked at Google as a contractor was the invited talks (yes, even better than the food: I can buy my own food but hearing very interesting people talk in person is an experience more difficult to buy).
[+] [-] fouc|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edraferi|7 years ago|reply
Anand basically argued that the global elite spends a lot of time looking for ways to help the global impoverished, but fails to make an impact because they never consider solutions that would erode their own wealth/status.
[0] https://www.vox.com/2018/9/5/17821522/anand-giridharadas-win...
[+] [-] maxxxxx|7 years ago|reply
That explains why everybody is talking about philanthropy, LGBT, women's rights, diversity, racism and whatever instead of maybe paying their janitors and other low ranking staff a living wage.
[+] [-] JacobJans|7 years ago|reply
https://www.gatesnotes.com/2017-Annual-Letter?WT.mc_id=02_14...
> the number of childhood deaths per year has been cut in half since 1990.
> Extreme poverty has been cut in half over the last 25 years.
> In 1988, when the global campaign was launched to end polio, there were 350,000 new cases each year.
> Last year, there were 37.
[+] [-] arendtio|7 years ago|reply
For my taste, Anand Giridharadas mixes those things a bit too loosely. One moment he is talking about the elite that is fighting for a better future in Africa and the next minute he talks about how the funding of public schools in the US is organized.
Sure, his point is that the US elites are helping Africa because (it is cheaper and) it doesn't endanger the system of their wealth in the US, but I wonder if helping the people in Africa isn't more urgent than the ones in the developed part of the world.
That said, I like how he presents and explains his view to the audience at Google.
[+] [-] qubax|7 years ago|reply
I have a hard time believing this. The elite spend a lot of time looking for ways to help themselves. The elite spend a lot of time looking to enrich themselves. The elite didn't become the elite by being charitable or caring or thinking of others.
Also, I don't think this "nature" is just confined to the elite. Everyone is selfish.
> but fails to make an impact because they never consider solutions that would erode their own wealth/status.
People who love wealth and power don't want to diminish their wealth and power?
I basically agree with the guy but nothing he said is new or insightful.
[+] [-] ataturk|7 years ago|reply
And when populations hit a tipping point, the elite will start a big war to thin out a few hundred million people or maybe 3-4 billion this time.
It is the same as it ever was.
Google, Facebook, and all the other big tech companies could have helped liberate humanity--we were talking about privacy and open government in the late 1990s. It was all set to be implemented, then 9/11 happened and a new Iron Curtain fell on the US. All by design by those who can't allow the rabble to have any true freedom.
When I look at what Google and the others have become now, I just feel ill--this is a major power play where they are aiding and abetting outright tyranny in China and will happily aid and abet the same crimes in the West as long as it suits their goal of power consolidation. Worse, they are now aligned with the far left, which makes utterly no sense except from a "gaining total domination" mindset. It's sick. The left is not "for the people." Show me one historical example! That talk was always a false front for naked brutality.
Before you downvote me, realize what is at stake here. Read some damn history books and come to understand what happened to the Greeks and the Romans and why.
[+] [-] Jedi72|7 years ago|reply
Although he meant it in terms of philathropy, this is the Google business model in one sentence.
[+] [-] the_snooze|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] titzer|7 years ago|reply
ftfy
[+] [-] ctchocula|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dllthomas|7 years ago|reply
I'm not saying there's no valid criticisms of TED, or even really endorsing it, but the claim you report clearly can't be strictly true - there are TED talks with "inequality" in the title.
[+] [-] zawazzi|7 years ago|reply
People tend to only care about the inequality where they stand the most to gain. Most US citizens would benefit from wealth redistribution in US, but unhappy with a global redistribution since they would average down.
In some ways globalization is causing both increasing economic equality for labor and increasing inequality for capital providers.
[+] [-] woogiewonka|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frafart|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ada1981|7 years ago|reply
This is will be a small subset of the species.
The planet is fruiting.
[+] [-] pl0x|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] eriken|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woogiewonka|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jesus3000|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baal666|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]