Winners Take All | Anand Giridharadas | Talks at Google

If you're genuinely curious, a few suggestions that I personally found incredibly enlightening: Anand Giridhardas, Winners Take All: The book is fantastic, there's also his now infamous google talk where he talks about dismantling google: ▶ this video Thomas Piketty, Capital in the 21st century: Probably the most comprehensive (but at times also longwinded) outline on how wealth inequality comes to be, why it's not good for society and how it could be adressed

> This is, in effect, one of the most common ways wealth is redistributed in the US. Why is it so bad? Because the government could simply tax those with wealth more and use taxation as a means of redistribution. Like most western countries do. Anand Giridharadas dissects this topic rather convincingly in his "Winners Take All", see also his infamous google talk: ▶ this video

There's a talk[1] by Anand Ghiridharadas about his book[2] - ironically, given at Google - which has many excellent insights, among them that local news has been hollowed out and destroyed by Google and the bigger fish are struggling, leading to this race to the bottom for clicks. [1] ▶ this video [2] link

"These new philanthropists bring to charity an “entrepreneurial disposition”, Hay and Muller wrote in a 2014 paper, yet one that they suggest has been “diverting attention and resources away from the failings of contemporary manifestations of capitalism”, and may also be serving as a substitute for public spending withdrawn by the state. Essentially, what we are witnessing is the transfer of responsibility for public goods and services from democratic institutions to the wealthy, to be administered by an executive class. In the CEO society, the exercise of social responsibilities is no longer debated in terms of whether corporations should or shouldn’t be responsible for more than their own business interests. Instead, it is about how philanthropy can be used to reinforce a politico-economic system that enables such a small number of people to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth. Zuckerberg’s investment in solutions to the Bay Area housing crisis is an example of this broader trend." [1] Although with your "in excruciating detail" it sounds like you've been presented with the evidence before, yet you are somehow unwilling to admit the failings of the system. This last part is meant as an observation and not as a negative value judgement. This video with Anand Giridharadas is also great: ▶ this video , as well as his book 'Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World'. [1] link

Public schools work well throughout the majority of the developed world - the US seems to be a notable exception. Anand Giridharadas addresses this in his infamous google-talk quite nicely I think: ▶ this video (I'm linking this talk on HN way too often, but it just seems perfectly fitting so very often)

> It's way nicer on our side, where we do win-win deals, and know to be happy, the people around us need to be happy. If you would like this world-view to undergo some critical analysis, I strongly recommend Anand Giridharadas' take in "Winners take All" (condensed in this google-talk here: ▶ this video ). He specifically addresses the negative points of the "win-win"-mentality, and in my opinion, makes a strong point that a society built on a "win-win" culture is bound to be doomed.

Anand Ghiridaradas' Book "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" is very insightful in that regard. He held a google talk ( ▶ this video ) about it that got a bit of notoriety since he apparently ruffled a few feathers there.

> And finally, the word “censorship”. This is an accusatory word used by people who think it relates to their non-existent “freedom of speech”. The first amendment applies to the agreement between the US government and its citizens. It does not apply to your relationship with YouTube. > YouTube is a corporation that has an entirely separate agreement with its users, which does not include freedom of speech. Therefore, it’s not censorship — by definition. The first amendment and freedom of speech are not synonyms, quite obviously because there can be freedom of speech outside of the jurisdiction of the US government; and similarly, Youtube is a trans-national corporation with more than just US citizens using it. Even if it were wholly within US jurisdiction and Youtube only served US citizens, the first amendment is still not a synonym for freedom of speech. The word censor comes from a Latin word for a governmental position in ancient Rome but it does not follow that all censorship is therefore only possible or enacted by government. Not only is there no supporting logic for that, it's not evident in practice . Companies like Twitter[1], Facebook[2] and Google[3] remove things from their platforms for political convenience (or, as Anand Giridharadas points out[4], for any convenience): > When you look at the ways in which the winners of our age give back, help out, make a difference, they are often designed to protect the system - above all - that the winners stand on top of.

VOC (Dutch East India Company) was more powerful than most nations at the time. I asked this question on Quora once and got interesting answers [0]. VOC was an incredible enterprise, and there are a few today too, imo, they exist as conglomerates (Samsung, P&G, Amazon), political entities (CIA, CPC), monopolies (Maersk, Google), syndicates (DeBeers [1], NeoAristocrats [2], BigPharma, BigBank, BigSugar, BigOil), and cults (ISIS). These select few have an immeasurable and uncontrolled sway over the globe-- its environment [3], its inhabitants [4], its future [5], its past [6], its present [7]. The greed unrelenting [8], the game rigged [9][10]. -- [0] link [1] link [2] ▶ this video [3] link [4] link [5] link [6] link [7] link [8] link [9] link [10] link edit: links

For those interested, he held a Talk at Google about this topic: ▶ this video I thought it rather interesting that he was able to hold this kind of talk at Google - after all, his audience there probably consists of people that are probably part of the "winners" he is talking about.

> But a system of philanthropy is inherently biased insofar as since donors can and do choose charitable causes that match their own preferences. Anand Giridharadas goes pretty deeply into that idea in this talk that he did at Google. I highly recommend watching it, I thought it was elucidating. ▶ this video I want to read his book "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" but I haven't gotten to it yet.

One of the best explanations why "philanthropy" and "novel (disrupting), win-win solutions" for systemic problems is highly anti-democratic (and inciting class warfare) is Anand Giridharadas's recent talk[1] at Google[2]. I strongly encourage everyone - especialy anyone employed at Google - to watch it. [1] ▶ this video [2] Google is the perfect venue for this talk.

> Just because some billionares use their money in good faith, how many of the >5.000.000$/year behave the same? Also billionaire philanthropy probably wont tackle the problems or solutions that will help society but hurt billionaires. ▶ this video

I read this book and, to be honest, did not enjoy it very much. It consists largely of profiles of people involved in this sort of philanthrocapitalism. The main theme seems to be that the ultra-wealthy have coopted the work of social institutions in such a way as to undermine efforts for truly revolutionary change, that is change that might threaten them. The premise is interesting but the content is pretty boring. I got tired of reading about people whom the author believes to be mislead or malicious or otherwise on the wrong path. For those interested he gave a talk at Google in Cambridge that was pretty good. ▶ this video

> “win win” (company gets subsidy, area gets jobs) Anand Giridharadas recently gave an a great talk[1] (at Google!) in which he explains how "win win" is a charade used to set the framing of the conversation. Framing a plan (like a subsidy) as something that benefits everyone has good optics, but it implicitly creates a framing that only considers that plan. (it's either this plan or "you get nothing"). Without the restricted framing, the choice isn't a binary "subsidies or nothing"; there are many ways that money could be spent. (e.g. maybe going without that business and investing in education or infrastructure would provide a greater benefit). [1] ▶ this video

I think you'll like this talk by Anand Giridharadas [1]. He makes the point that the tech industry still thinks they're the pirates and don't realize that they're the navy. [1] ▶ this video

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. [0] ▶ this video