3 ms·
Exactly. It's negative because Shaich acted without doing any research, purely trusting his "gut" about how he, a rich white man, thought food insecurity could
by Lowkeyloki 8y ago
Exactly. It's negative because Shaich acted without doing any research, purely trusting his "gut" about how he, a rich white man, thought food insecurity could be "solved" despite being the last person in the world who would know anything about it.
It's negative because it was a waste of time and money that could have been applied much more effectively to help the problem if some research was done first instead of trying to swoop in like some Ayn Randian super hero.
- rossdavidh 8y agoHmmm...I don't see much Randian about this effort. I'm not sure Rand would have approved of a CEO trying to help the poor at all. His point about soup kitchens being depressing places to have to eat, whether it is accurate or not, is at least evidence of thinking about the psychological need for respect of the recipient. Anyway, again, I'm not saying this was the right approach, I'm just saying the article should be more "let's learn what we can here", and less "look at this dumb rich guy being a jerk for trying to help people in a way that didn't work well".