Anand Giridharadas: The Charade Around Changing the World 

If more leaders understood this simple point, we'd all be better off.

@@sachinradhakrishnan4017 Amen.

Yes ... spot on. His ideology smells like a plausbile deniability cloak for the Neo lib crowd if you scape hard enough at its surface. While he does a great job of mixing in personal anecdotes to disguise it ... in the end he is advocating for big government and regulation with too much emphasis on the collective and government , not enough on the individual. If your solutions don't start at the bottom of the stack ( with the individual) and account for teh psychology there, they will suck in practice.

chris lane..LOL so says this RICH GUY!!

@@marykelly8408 Don't you think he should get paid the going rate for his labour? I think you missed the point. Check out Richard Wolff's Democracy at Work channel.

@Khaled Rapp Plato is more part of the problem than the solution. Socrates may have been a dissident, but the ideology that Plato attributed to him were often highly authoritarian, certainly not egalitarian.

"The rich will not change a world that benefits them." - Neither the poor, who aspire to achieve the position of the rich. It's an aporia.

None of his idea's were unknown to me...But I have not seen anyone putting them all together is such easily understandable, still very intelligent, fashion.

It conflicts with Millenniums worth of indoctrination and domestication.

Why can't you believe it? There's a plethora of people that have a feeling that something is taking place but can't articulate it nor have the wherewithal to sit outside the box of the rat race to even put all the pieces together. Thank God for people in the literary world. The proletariats are too busy trying to catch or keep up with the American Dream to contemplate on matters such as these

That's almost too predictable, I think. By not bringing up Bernie I think he powerfully shows that critique of capital and the billionare-donor classes doesn't just lie with one American politician. It can be expressed from different angles and voices and be just as relevant to the current moment

Don't forget that this event happened in November 2018 - a whole year ago. Bernie was (still is?) being ignored by the MSM and a significant minority of people do not think that Bernied will be successful. Arnand has been much more overtly positive of Bernie since then.

I think he's better not endorsing any one political party or candidate. He endorses the TRUTH! It's up to the rest of us to change our country for the better.

This book mentions Bernie twice and in passing. As a diagnostician of the problem, maybe Anand has something to say. As an architect of solutions, no.

@Patricia M Silly Pat! That's a made up lie. We're red, white and blue slaves of all Corporate billionaires with diverse names. Some are even called Smith or Jones. But when you're their slave who cares what last name they call themselves

Here is how I understood that story. Anand felt that some of us non white Americans take this "where are you from?" question in a negative way and his exchange with the manager made him realize that everytime he felt insulted because of this question, he missed an opportunity to bond with another Citizen.

.whitey it get not still to seem you but shut hole pie your keep white your if said He

It's not what you say, but how you say it.

You may feel differently if the question was addressed to you by an individual that you suspect feels is in a superior position, because of race or class.

Ask yourself: where do YOU stand? Never mind where anyone else stands, Cartoon Man.

@Manny Santiago too out of date.. this is like steam punk carl sagan

Very True

I literally just said the same thing out loud.

Check out Amazing Polly who investigates what they really get up to behind the scenes. That they get to virtue signal at the same time via so called Charitable Trusts with names like Health, Mankind in the title

Jeffrey Gold Yep, and in a way its a kind of bait and switch: "changing the World" really means "to transform what is not yet like us to what is more like us". So rather preaching status-quo. Kind of to polish away the problems caused by the system... with the cause of the problem.

George Kraft I just found this guy today! N I couldn't agree with u more! He is quickly becoming my new hero!

Actually, he's a big liar. He claims the rich get rich by stealing from the poor. nonsense.

Surprised that you folks haven’t heard of this guy. He is right on many fronts. Read some of his books. He talks about “his” country from a common man’s perspective. Makes a lot of sense.

@8alot4t You guys like his promise to tax the incomes of the high earners (the more productive) and redistribute to the less productive, which simply indicates you are most likely among the "less productive", right?

@@clarestucki5151 u r 100% right. Most if not all whom you interact with on youtube in your entire life time are "underachievers", compared to the likes of Bezos or Zuckerbergs. And what you are hearing in this video is not a call to rob the productive and redistribute it to the unproductive. Its about how we have made the fundamental mistake of allowing annomalys or abberations resulting from our systen to dictate how the game should be managed and changed so that we can collectively all become like them. Shared.prosperity. Instead, what they had done is not only change the system in ways where the rules no longer apply to them, but they have now become so productive that they compete for the taxation dollars paid by the rest as bailouts and tax cuts at the expense of reducing funds for basic fundamentsl rights of the others like schools, public hospitals etc etc. But it was not enough productivity as far as they were concerned so they bought out the institutions where a common man is chosen to be the representative of the rest. But than that was not enough either. So they decided to control the chances of someone coming into office ans reversing the changes they had made for their benefit. So now the common mans chances of choosing someone who will advocate for them was also closed by ensuring that only corporate groomed and sponsored candidates get into the highest office of the land. In the words of one of the members of the 1% club, " I really cant understand what is it that a person does to justify being paid a billion dollars." Even a member of the 1% club realised that no matter how productive a person is, the current level of imbalance and monopoly cannot be justified.

try naomi klein

I really enjoy listening to him speak. Really captivating man and funny!

The host's questions are insightful!

"Never has so much hatred been filtered through so much incompetence". Wow!!! 👏

@Steve I dont recall Anand denigrating everyday people for not being intelligent.

@Steve The big difference is that he doesn't believe common people who may or may not have a low IQ should be screwed over and be deprived of dignity.

its a great line aaand, Trump has a lot of very smart people around him who are really pulling his strings so I am not sure Anand's description is totally accurate.

I actually thought u we’re talking about the speaker! Lmao pretty funny

Beth Sanchez The Trump administration is so incompetent they couldn’t add a question to the census or rescind DACA due to procedural mishaps. That’s incompetence.

david lievanos still beat hillary. Now that’s incompetence. Lol

Sidney Pagart not sure I follow that “logic.” Hillary was hated by many plus a horrible candidate. Truth is, Hillary would’ve been a horrible President w the neoliberal policies but that doesn’t change the fact that trump has been extremely incompetent.

You’re confusing him for a independent thinker, He’s not that kind of thinker. He make great points and it’s intelligent but it’s totally indoctrinated and brainwashed. At least he admitted to that when writing his book. Hopefully he can get rid of the brainwashing so instead of bringing the elite solution, he can have one of his own. A more authoritarian government is not the solution to a corrupt government + system

@@arod1766 Are European countries with higher taxes and stricter regulation more authoritarian?

We should have seen Obama for what he actually was in 2008. It was out there for the world to see, we just didn't want to see it. He took more money from Wall Street than even the Republicans, which should have tipped us off to who he was. Want to stop being burned in electoral politics? Stop voting for ANYONE who takes money.

He said Beto is an amazing guy BUT.... and then he began saying it needs to be someone who speaks to the ones who are awake while simultaneously speaking to those who are slowly waking up. He said Obama was good at politics, not that he was "good". Remember, he said Trump was also good at politics, so it's not a testament of moral character, but rather one of cunning and methodical strategy. Make sense? In any case, I believe he supports Bernie but isn't ready to endorse him out loud just yet. Especially bc he wrote an article stating that Bernie has a hard time connecting to people. Bernie's a reserved and private person, and he's not a self-absorbed narcissist like Trump, so although they seem like good character traits on the surface, they don't allow Bernie to appeal to the kind of people who make emotion-based decisions. Bernie has taken that to heart, I think, bc he's been opening up more lately which is great.

He’s like AOC political beliefs with Obama intellectual speech...

Evan Harris It's not about GOP vs Democrats. It's an ideology. It's a class issue. The main issue for the mass of Americans is the "haves vs have-nots". The "New Democrats" have the same economic ideology as the GOP. Obama never indicted a single banker. He adopted Citibank's cabinet recommendations in full. And to cap it all off he championed the TPP as his final project in office. He is not a progressive. You have to go back to the FDR administration to understand the essence of progressive ideology. Obama is a neo-liberal (global capitalist.) He was simply charming and smooth. He said all of the right things, but fought hard for nearly none. It wasn't only the GOP who was the problem. It was also many Democrats who were bound to their corporate donors. And Obama was just as bought off. Many will not acknowledge this fact, but it is a fact nonetheless.

@Evan Harris He was bought,end of story. So was \is Hilary. So have all Dem leaders been post Kennedy and even some pre. Repubs are no better. Traditional parties need to be torn down and corporate + special interest $ needs to be removed from politics if you want meaningful change for the better. End of.

You are exactly right. That "look forward, not backward" theory of criminal justice that Anand Giridharadas was condemning-- that is Barack Obama and Eric Holder in a nutshell, pretty much a direct quote in fact. But for some reason he did not explicitly point that out, and he should have. And Beto O'Rourke? Get out. Lot of good stuff here, otherwise, though.

@Evan Harris Dems and Repubs DID _work together_ - on the things that _served their common Big Donors_ and the war machine. - The stonewalling of the R's was only about things that were potentially good for the masses or would make the Dems popular with voters. Like good healthcare - they even feared the watered down ACA bill that was a gift to the industry. The racist attacks on Obama let the base circle the waggons - almost no one paid attention what a sellout and willing push-over Obama was and how he strategically ! dragged his feet to DEFLATE the energy ** of the base. ** blue wave 2006, Obama campaign 2008. In case you have wondered what happened in midterms 2010 and 2014. The oligarchs fear a fired up base the most. It is all well for shoving some of their servants into a position of power - but then it has to stop. The U.S. has 250 million people that have the vote - that's the sleeping giant. Obama already sold out in 2008 never mind the campaign _rhetoric._ - The Dems had a window of 60 days in spring 2010they had a filibuster proof majority then - so they passed ACA despite the tantrums of the Republican party. Then they could have passed any bill that was ready. (And the Tea Party was also a reaction to what more conservative voters saw going on with bank bailouts, millions losing jobs and homes while the banksters were protected. And a dragged out process to get an immensely complitcated healthcare bill that was no good. That right grassroots movement was immediately hijacked by some rightwing oligarchs. There would not have been anything to hijack if the voters (even those leaning to the right) had observed their president fighting FOR them. That is why mainstream media got the green light from the oligarchs / party establishment / Big Donors = big advertisers to cover Obama in a friendly manner in 2008. (As long as they make up b.s. about Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard they are a save bet for the voters). Supporters of Obama paying attention got their first shock early in 2009 when Obama (well not him !) picked the cabinet members. (Thanks to leaked Podesta emails we KNOW citibank made the proposals - they were followed). He appointed 2 Attorney Generals that carefully avoided prosecuting the banksters. (but they were people of color, bravo !) Obama EXPANDED the wars and started new ones. Went after the whistleblowers like no other admin. (Bush 2 had also run on a platform to keep the U.S. out of wars. That was a lie, he and Cheney absolutely WANTED to start wars). Later in 2009 there was a Senate hearing about healthcare. The industry was invited. Experts on single payer *** or the nurses or doctors organizations that are pro single payer were NOT invited. *** the successful system of the other wealthy nations since the 1950s or longer - to have at least ! a dominant non-profit public insurance agency. You know what FDR did when he got attacked ? He sidelined the bullshitters in the media and had another fireside chat. First thing when he was sworn in: they had a banking holiday of 5 days to sort out the banks and passed deposit insurance. The first fireside chat as president was listened to by approx. 60 million people, on Sunday late evening. The U.S. then had shy of 90 million people. FDR STRONGARMED the opponents in his own party. Right from the beginning. The first measures that did pass (fixing the banks when a nation-wide bank run was looming) worked well - it gave FDR more leverage. Then it was talk about having jobs programs that could be quickly implemented (it takes time to plan streets, bridges, even National Parks or to electrify the remote areas - that came for instance in 1936). He talked about INTRODUCING social security and unemployment benefits. he communicated the issues in a manner that the voters knew: the president meant business. And he did not shy away from exposing Democrats that stood in the way of getting those bills passed. FDR was also for implementing things quickly, and try them out. And then either course correct, give them up, try something new. One jobs program was to send young unmarried men to the woods of the North to do logging and take care of damaged forests (stroms, beetles). That program had the advantage that it was easy to set up as it did not need a lot of planning and securing of right of passage (streets) and it was easy to sell to the voters as being worthwhile work. It unexpectedly turned out to be very popular. The restless unemployed city boys were under the leadership of some ex-officers, isolated in the North. They had less opportunities to get girls pregnant, start revolutions, let themselves be recruited by the mob. They got food, sunshine, good air, an intense workout to vent off their energy and earned some money. You bet their relatives liked that combination of summer camp / military boot camp with a wage. There was not one family (outside rich circles) that would not have vastly benefitted from SS or unemployment benefits or a jobs program. That increased the political leverage of FDR even more and ESPECIALLY in his own party. Admitted the Dems had higher majorities in the houses then. But that is an issue that the voters can fix in 2 years if they know what they can expect to get. Democratic representatives then were also wealthy and rich people. Many could easily resign themselves to the suffering of the masses. Obama had inspired the base with the "hope and change" campaign. He could have leveraged that energy - but he never had the intention to become the next FDR. FDR talked about concrete measures like Social security, jobs programs - the voters KNEW he meant business - and so knew the politicians in both parties. It should be mentioned that the UNITED LEFT movements (several left parties, unions) gave FDR the political power to push for a New Deal. FDR's historic achievement is that he intended to make good on his campaign promises and that he put that leverage of the united left movements and communication (outside of corporate media) to good USE. And always had the firm intention to do so. While Obama needed and WANTED the enthusiasm of the sheeple only to get himself into the White House - and then he colluded with the special interests (or could not be bothered to stand up to them and to the war machine). The masses never got a chance to support their president or to give him a more supportive Congress and Senate (see the disapponting midterms 2010 and 2014). He - and the Democratic Party "leadership" did not give them anything to support or to VOTE FOR. (on the contrary the carefully avoided to support candidates that would have rocked the boat. when a a lot of upset would have been necessary because the "system" had failed twice in a spectacular manner. Going to war over a lie, torture, rendition - and capitalism failed completely with the GFC. After 1929 there were corrections. The oligarchs were spared those inconveniances between 2007 - 2010. Under FDR the minimum wage was challenged up to the Supreme court. Which in the 1920s and 1930s was also a right wing tool of the oligarchs. Well, FDR _talked_ about court packing. The minimum wage was found constitutional. If the court had any intention to reverse engineer another opinion - they thought better of it. The Dems saw a blue wave coming in the midtems 2006. Emmanuel Rahm (buddy of Obama) then chair of the DCCC saw to it that the primaries were packed with Wallstreet Democrats, conservative pro-gun, abortion-sceptic Democrats, etc. They were showered with money (go figure - Big Finance certainly was generous, they had an inkling the bubble was about to burst and that they would need "their" guys in Congress and Senate. They just could not assess how bad the downturn would be. If a working class type opponent still won the Democratic primaries despite the financial disadvantage they were abandoned by the party in the GE (no money, no support). A few made it nontheless. Those Wallstreet Democrats could not hold on to their bought and paid for seats. The voters were fed up with the Bush admin and the Republican party in 2006 - but they soon found out that their Democratic "representative" did nothing for them. For a Big-Donor-serving politicians losing an election does not matter: many enter Congress only as a stepstone to becoming a lobbyist, anyway. The Big Donors and the party establishment honor their obligation to provide a cushy job or contratcs for obedient ex-politicians. (That is also necessary so that the shills that are still holding a seat and are still needed by the oligarchs are not getting ideas: like that their job would be safer if they worked for the constituents instead of working for the special interests. The bought and paid for policitians must be certain that THEY will be doing fine even if they lose their seat. Likewise the progressives and FDR type Democrats must be convinced that they will never ever get a good job if they want to end their political career or are voted out of office (with the help of Big Donors and mainstream media smears).

Why the big focus on only Obama.. No other examples to prove your point.. Better yet.. What are the genius ideas you're contributing and by what vehicle, cause I will get onboard.. Post your website

yeah, bestselling author doesn't mean what it used to.

I wish more non-Americans were smart enough to invent stuff like the personal computer that you're typing your whiny, bitchy comments on. Or maybe you're using a SMART phone to do that--also invented by Americans.

profd65 America is a great country, we have freedom to a point we can live the way we want that mostly puts us in debt 😂

@@MrGross-nm6dl You're an American? Really? Your handle on English is pretty shitty. You should maybe work on your language skills before you attempt to solve the world's problems.

@@profd65 I guess you are perfect example of what I was talking about. My comment was about ability to understand people. You sound so immature my friend.I hope your mind will open up one day.

@@user-sd7dm2zg7b You wrote what you fucking wrote, dimwit. You insulted Americans by calling them (in effect) stupid and immature. YOU ARE NOT THE VICTIM HERE, DIPSHIT.

theres always a call for sociopathy, regulating stress and diet cannot be discounted.. you sound vegan tho... one the world goes vegn, then things will change.. theres no way to end slavery without war tho, from what ive seen... but war is over, the modern war we face isnt with bullets, but its none the less the most important and dangerous war ever, ironic huh!!! of course, it seems it will be fought with guns and bombs on some fronts... its kinda like slavery, except instead of white people not wanting to die for slaves, its people not wanting to put their lives on the line to eat animal exploitation... its the impossible ask- make their lives as importnt as your own, and billions of peoples livelyhoods depend on it.. this idea of "thinking only about oneself" is a more religious ideology, one that says humans are more important than anything else, because they are in the image of god.. without value, the justification loses its validity, and thats a huge challenge to peoples world views... even people who give up religion often pretend that they think there is some other force... this idea that we are different is the bases for much of our conflict, and inables all this plutocracy etc... we refuse to close the door to exploitation, even literally with religious leaders getting away with molestation, but what drives that molestation of innocent creatures? the master/slave dynamic encouraged by religion, exploited by those in power, perhaps even believing in it.. you see the same problem with hunters, theres some evidence of counties with more hunters having more incidence of child molestation, with the master/slave dynamic being highlighted.. its an inherent power dynamic projected from the universe that is acted out in biology, and we struggle with living in a society where we are trying to remove the worst of those dynamics.. our maturity/evolution if you look hard enough you can see how we could have a more mature complete society, and why and how we didnt get there... its very "physical universe-power system"-esque, the way we learn is through example, theres just no coming back from learning from the example of self extinction

Kamra ? Seriously!The fact that u could put an clueless Indian troll in between those names means u clearly don't get the ideas

or Cheeto-Orange Mussolini

Cheetolini

@@zackamania6534 this is a great example of what we can come up with if we work together!

God bless you, Crystal. God bless you!

Wholeheartedly agree.

Tamilan Here....Your always welcome...