Winners Take All
groundbreaking investigation of how the global elite's efforts to "change the world" preserve the status quo and obscure their role in causing the problems they later seek to solve. An essential read for understanding some of the egregious abuses of power that dominate today’s news.
Stats for nerds
17recommend
37mentions
32people
2018–2026years
54% recommend43% neutral3% critical
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- 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: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM
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
- Anand Giridharidas's book, "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" is an excellent commentary on this state of affairs. He particularly takes on the act of massive charities (Gates, Buffet etc) because the acts by which a few individuals make a lot of money are precisely the ones that have screwed up society so bad. We should not look at philanthropists so kindly.
- > 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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM
- They've effectively poisoned the terms "effective", "altruism", "longterm", "rational", and "utilitarian".
Because it was all a hustle to continue doing exactly whatever they wanted to do. Here is a good book that talks about the mindset:
https://www.amazon.com/Winners-Take-All-Charade-Changing/dp/...
It's easy to say you're doing things "longterm" for "future generations". The non-existent are the easiest people to advocate for. They demand absolutely nothing of you. And if your projected "altruism" will only really be felt well after you're dead, you aren't on the hook to show results now. They claim this is utilitarian, but it's not. It never was.
What is known is that small real changes now can affect large changes later. Doing things to improve today will improve tomorrow, next year, next decade, etc. If you are looking to be effective with your altruism, the most rational, utilitarian thing you can do is solve the problems of today. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to separate you from your money.
- > People need food and places to live.
Yeah, and under capitalism, these are linked to some capitalist idea of productivity.
We're getting a little far from the original point of this thread, but I'd argue that food & shelter & healthcare shouldn't be linked to "productivity".
I think the way that this is applicable here is that when the private sector gets involved in an issue, it can be a lot harder for the issue to be addressed by the public sector. That's a really big topic, I'd suggest reading Winners Take All[0] for a more in-depth look at this.
I'll leave this at: some things shouldn't be monetized (and this is one of them).
> I would say your incentives don't align.
I'm not sure what you mean. What are my incentives here?
> But app creators should just do it for free?
There are plenty of consumer spaces where I don't complain (publicly) about app-creators getting involved. This, being a "mental health" app, is an area where the public sector getting involved could be detrimental (see my comment elsewhere where I ask if this could be harmful in the long run).
[0] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/539747/winners-take...
- "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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM, as well as his book 'Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World'.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/24/the-trouble-wit...
