3 ms·

"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 ne

"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.

yourbandsucks 8y ago
Or, in between lamenting the state of politics, maybe taking a look at the polarization machine they've built with youtube recommendations, facebook/twitter feed, etc etc.. But that might impact revenue.
CM30 8y ago
Yeah. Though it's just about how they avoid talking about liveable wages, but also how issues related to economic inequality in general seems to have quietly shuffled away by lots of politicians and political figures, or how so much political talk in general seems to be about 'social' issues now. And I'd say the reason for this is twofold: 1. Making social issues the big topic of discussion means millionaires, celebrities and companies can pretend to be 'progressive' while not actually doing anything meaningful to make the world better or help people escape poverty. 2. Stuff like Occupy likely scared the hell out of those with power/property/whatever, which led to a mission to get people fighting among themselves rather than against those with actual power.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago
  The wake of austerity spawned both Occupy here in the US and nationalist groups like Golden Dawn et al in Europe. Today, nationalist groups and media in the US receive millions of dollars in support. I can't help but think someone took a look over at how Europeans neutralized dissent and thought they had a good thing going.
Viliam1234 8y ago
It's okay if the top 0.1% own the whole planet as long as we make sure that all ethnic groups and sexual minorities are represented among them. /s

yourbandsucks 8y ago

Or, in between lamenting the state of politics, maybe taking a look at the polarization machine they've built with youtube recommendations, facebook/twitter feed, etc etc.. But that might impact revenue.

CM30 8y ago

Yeah. Though it's just about how they avoid talking about liveable wages, but also how issues related to economic inequality in general seems to have quietly shuffled away by lots of politicians and political figures, or how so much political talk in general seems to be about 'social' issues now. And I'd say the reason for this is twofold: 1. Making social issues the big topic of discussion means millionaires, celebrities and companies can pretend to be 'progressive' while not actually doing anything meaningful to make the world better or help people escape poverty. 2. Stuff like Occupy likely scared the hell out of those with power/property/whatever, which led to a mission to get people fighting among themselves rather than against those with actual power.

darpa_escapee 8y ago
The wake of austerity spawned both Occupy here in the US and nationalist groups like Golden Dawn et al in Europe. Today, nationalist groups and media in the US receive millions of dollars in support. I can't help but think someone took a look over at how Europeans neutralized dissent and thought they had a good thing going.

Viliam1234 8y ago

It's okay if the top 0.1% own the whole planet as long as we make sure that all ethnic groups and sexual minorities are represented among them. /s