IQ Squared
The Revolt Against The Rich, with Anand Giridharadas and Anne McElvoy


This is an example transcript with key editing/copying tools.

  • Click the eye/folder button to switch between VIEW and EDIT MODE.
  • Click the text in VIEW MODE to be taken directly to that point in the video.
  • Click the text in EDIT MODE button to make changes. 
  • Click COPY to copy the transcript (with any changes) for pasting elsewhere.

 


«00:00:07» HANNAH KAYE: Is it on now? 

«00:00:23» Can you hear me now? 
I'm just going to shout.  Sorry about this, everybody; I'm Hanna Kaye, and it's absolutely fantastic to have  Anand Giridharadas with us tonight.  We’ve reading his brilliant new book, Winner Takes All,  and if you want to buy a copy he's going to be doing signings later on.  Now, we’re very busy organising our autumn season;  we've got lots of events lined up already with people like John Humphries, Jeremy  Paxman, Mary Beard, Yvette Cooper, (UNCLEAR) Jancis Robinson  and Andrew Roberts; and we're going to be rolling out a lot  more events over the coming weeks.  So look out for our forthcoming mailers, and if you don't already receive them,  you can sign up at intelligencesquared.com. 
Now, if you come to a lot of our events or 
you'd to incentivise yourself to come to more, you might be interested in our membership.  Membership guarantees you a seat at all our events,  and you get six tickets for the price of five; and again you can sign up in the foyer  with one of my colleagues on our website. 
«00:01:55» But that's enough from me: I'm now 
going to hand over to our chair.  She is a well known, Senior Editor at The Economist and head  of The Economist Radio.  Please give a very warm welcome to... 
«00:02:31» ANNE MCELVOY: Thank you very much. 
(UNCLEAR) 
«00:02:45» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: I think the billionaires have hijacked the sound system. 
Or the Russians. 
«00:03:02» ANNE MCELVOY: Hello and welcome to our event. 
Tonight it’s the revolt against the rich.  At glitzy gatherings - from Davos and Aspen to spin-offs all  around the world - former heads of state,  Silicon Valley bosses and Hollywood A-listers champion philanthropy as the  way to solve the world's most pressing problems.  But scrutiny about how much money is spent and how much influence it buys is growing.  How effective is the do-gooding of the Davos class,  and might those dollars be better used elsewhere, perhaps in paying more taxes while  they're getting rich?  My guest today argues that in fact, the top 1% of earners have little  interest in social change when the status quo has served them so very well. 
«00:04:22» Anand Giridharadas is a McKinsey man gone 
rogue, now tearing down his former idols in the  bestselling book “Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World”.  He says he hopes it will encourage the few enlightened phi to become traitors to  their class, and the rest of us to stop handing over  our future to the elite, one supposedly world-changing initiative at  a time. 
«00:05:39» In his day job, 
he’s editor-at-large for Time Magazine and a political analyst for MSNBC.  Welcome, Anand. 
«00:05:52» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Thank you so much. 

«00:05:55» ANNE MCELVOY: This elite that we’re talking about 
here, you are a graduate of Oxford and Harvard,  done very well for yourself; are you a member of it? 
«00:06:11» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: I’m a member absolutely of a 
certain kind of elite; not necessarily the elite that I  described in my book.  The way I think about this, there is a group of people I certainly belong  to, that have been on the happy side of the  major changes in the world of the last 30/40 years;  a group of people who tend to be more educated; tend to be computer-savvy;  tend to live in the right places - tend to live in cities rather than the country  - tended to have families that gave them  good education by where they lived, the schools they went to;  those kinds of people- And we’re not talking about 50 or 80 or  a thousand people, we’re talking about millions of people  who've been on the right side of globalisation, the right side of technology,  and have done reasonably well.  And when you walk around a city like London, you realise there's many, many,  many of those people. 
«00:06:30» ANNE MCELVOY: A broad elite? 

«00:06:32» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: It’s a broad elite, 
but it's broad enough that I think things have been kept cool.  If the world was working for 50 people, the revolt would have happened;  the world is working for many, many people, but I actually think it's not working for  many, many more people that that broad elite.  The elite that I described in the book is a much smaller group - not the 1%, the  0.1%, the 0.001% - and this is a group of people that  hasn't just benefited from the age by maybe waking up on the right side of  certain historical trends, but a group of people who have reached  extraordinary fortunes from this era of change and churn; and who have, in many cases  - not all, but in many cases -  fought to protect economic and political systems that absolutely keep them on top;  lock most people out of opportunity essentially allow them to monopolise the future  itself.  Tax policy, competition policies -  policies that essentially keep regulation away from the most important  institutions on earth, tech companies - and various other policies;  that have not allowed them to just generally benefit from the age,  but actually rig the age and milk it for their near-exclusive benefit. 
«00:07:09» ANNE MCELVOY: (UNCLEAR) 

«00:07:34» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Very much so; 
so this fellowship, we have more billionaire-  microphone hijacking. 
«00:07:43» ANNE MCELVOY: Doesn’t like me, does it? 
I can't believe you were so polite; you hadn't heard a word,  and you’re like ‘She's just going on and on about something.’ (UNCLEAR) ,  and I hope that will be the end of the gremlins.  It is a lot better, isn’t it?  Bit more Marlena Dietrich. 
«00:08:06» As a younger man, 
you are awarded a Henry Crowne fellowship at the prestigious Aspen Institute;  doesn't get much posher, in U.S.  Terms.  Are you impressed by what you see and you meet this group,  that you're going to come to call (UNCLEAR) ‘market world in full  fake?’  What's it like? 
«00:08:25» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: It was a fascinating thing. 
I am - and have been for 14 years -  a full-time writer, and I got this invitation to join what I  call a benevolent open secret society, the Aspen Institute,  that had a very specific purpose; and the purpose was,  to solve the biggest problems in the world.  Pretty ambitious purpose, but this is how Americans talk;  and the idea was specifically, that the biggest problems in the world somehow  now- the theory behind this was,  the biggest problems in the world now are no longer solvable by government;  they're no longer solvable through traditional actors.  The biggest problems in the world can now only be solved by entrepreneurial  business leaders, that's the theory;  so this fellowship arose, and Davos is a similar thing,  there's many variants of this. 
«00:09:16» The theory was you take young 
business leaders - CEO types, entrepreneurs -  and you get them in this fellowship.  They meet four times over two years, for a week each;  they read some deep books, Plato, Aristotle -  they also read Jack Welsh, which should have been a clue -  and they talk about their lives, we have to talk about our relationships, it's  very deep; and you push each other to not just be  the person you're being, but to take on some of these big issues.  As you might imagine, 20 business people in a room is  essentially a sleeping pill; so in every class of 20 people they  would always add two or three non- business people,  just so people wouldn't fall asleep.  This could be artists, activists, philosopher's different people;  so I was the Indian spice of my particular class.  You say ‘was I impressed’?  I was very impressed, and I was actually first of all impressed-  these are not the kinds of people I normally interact -  someone who owns an aviation repair company in Oklahoma,  that’s not someone I run into in my normal life in Brooklyn;  I don't think there’s be space - and it was interesting.  As at a wedding or a bus that breaks down; you’re trapped with a group of people,  you bond with them.  You connect, you understand something;  and that was very nice, that intimate experience. 
«00:10:39» ut as I got into that broader Aspen Institute 
world; they're having the Aspen Ideas Festival,  sponsored by Pepsi and Monsanto.  We're having deliberations about the future of democracy in the Koch Seminar Building;  named after the brothers, not the beverage.  It started to occur to me - and I'm ashamed, frankly,  that it took more than three minutes - it started to occur to me that all these  people who I was in this fellowship with, the business people that I was not,  were actually part of the institutions, in many cases,  that were causing the problems we were then meeting in Aspen to try to solve.  As beautiful as Aspen is, at some point, it occurred to me that it may be more efficient  - because business people love efficiency -  to just not cause the problems, and then not have to go to Aspen to solve  them.  But Aspen is very beautiful. 
«00:11:34» So there was this peculiar ritual in 
this Fellowship where they asked us to sit on panels with each other;  they didn't actually invite that many outside speakers,  the idea was ‘learn from each other’.  So one time they made the mistake of trying to learn from me,  and they asked me to give a talk; and this irritation -  which I wasn't alone in; there were some of us back benchers in this  thing - a lot of the other journalists and  artists and weirdos that they probably shouldn't have let in -  were complaining, griping for years - and finally,  I was asked to give this talk.  I pretended to give a talk about a book I'd written;  I did not do that- 
«00:12:04» ANNE MCELVOY: That little trick. 

«00:12:06» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: It's a great trick- 
and I surprised them by essentially raising the question,  in concerned and loving terms, about what happens when you have a room  full of people who think - and these are millionaires in the room,  billionaires in the room - what happens in a room full of people  who think they are changing the world, but they may be the thing actually  preventing change? 
«00:12:27» ANNE MCELVOY: So let's talk about what that looks in 
practise; Aspen haven't let me in,  so I can't trade stories with that one, but with Davos I can.  The good thing about being a journalist is you get to go all these high-end, or disreputable,  depending which way you look at it, places; and what I see is a bit of what you describe.  I see a lot of showmanship - changing the world, philantrophy,  as a means to an end for corporate purposes - but I do meet,  in the middle in the night, people who don’t really have to stay up  and talk about what they want to do; about girls education in Africa,  about alleviating poverty or curing malaria.  I do see very engaged people, and they could just spend their money  and sit on the yacht and take the full holiday the year.  So if I can take you up that Magic Mountain to Davos,  what do you think's wrong with the solutions that they're proposing,  as well as the oddity in perhaps turning up to alleviate the problems,  which you could say are so in deeply ingrained in capitalism,  but we're all in it anyway? 
«00:13:32» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: First of all, 
I have a feeling- I've never taken a survey,  but I have a feeling that girls in Africa are tired of being empowered by men  in Davos.  (LAUGHS) I think girls in Africa have this figured out;  and I called this in January while Davos is going on,  I called for it to be- well, right before it went on I called for it to  be cancelled; that did not happen.  I called for this to be the last; we're not sure that's going to happen -  it probably won't, as you can imagine -  and the reason I did was…  I think your question is the perfect question about Davos.  Is this merely- I think nobody, maybe not many people,  would agree it's a bit of a spectacle; it's not doing maybe as much good as they  pretend, but is it problematic or is it just an  irritating sideshow?  That's an interesting question, and I think probably the default  assumption we have is it's an irritating sideshow; they're going there to perform,  and they're not necessarily doing the things they say they do.  There are many sincere people there also; a lot of good human rights people and  whatever go there because they have raised money from the plutocrats.  But I actually started to think that these things are actively problematic,  and let me explain why. 
«00:14:45» If you are a very, 
very wealthy person who benefits from some of the policies I talked about earlier  - austerity, low taxes, deregulation, not having competition enforcement;  so you have one company for shopping, one company for search,  one company for this and that - if you benefit from those policies-  and you there's a lot of public pressure out there in a lot of places to actually  reverse those policies, question those policies.  If you, as a rich person,  just sit in your velvet robe in your English country house or your house in Greenwich,  Connecticut, and just go on Twitter and make videos  while smoking a cigar and drinking brandy about how you really think taxes  should be kept low, I don't think your opinion is going to help;  I think that's actually going to backfire.  I think people would raise your taxes as soon as they saw that video. 
«00:15:36» ANNE MCELVOY: You're not much of a loss to the PR 
industry on that one. 
«00:15:40» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Correct. 
So I think what it becomes very important to do is first, as a plutocrat,  acquire a respectability on social questions; that gives you the authority when  talking about your own interests, to sound someone who should be listened to.  And that takes work. 
«00:15:59» So what does that? 
Empowering girls in Africa does that; because suddenly,  the hedge fund manager on the panel in Davos is not a hedge fund manager on a panel  in Davos, he is a man who cares about girls in Africa.  That's now what you see when you see him, because that's what he's been talking  about for the last hour.  Or Michael Dell sitting at Davos is not a guy who's actually trying to shoot  down one of the more interesting new tax proposals in the United States,  he's a philanthropist; he's someone who's here to change the world.  And as soon as they acquire the moral glow -  that's simply the giving, but also just being part of those Davos conversations,  those Aspen conversations - that moral glow becomes very useful to them.  I talk to people in this world about it, they understand that;  and it allows them when they then go to the same senator or congressman who they  were hanging out with in the Bahamas or wherever else,  and they say “So great to see you at that Empowering Africa Girls thing; hey,  I want to talk to you about the carried interest tax loophole.  Could you guys go easy on that?”  It's a much, much easier conversation. 
«00:17:05» ANNE MCELVOY: But nonetheless - 
and I'm going to play devil's advocate, here in my velvet robe;  no luxury was spared by Intelligence Squared -  let me just take the other side of this.  Something comes out of the other end of it; and as much as you say girls in Africa  might have had enough with their being empowered by men at Davos,  or indeed by other well-meaning NGOs, all those being a bit of a fashionable cause.  But actually, girls do need to be educated,  and actually government's not very good at it;  and actually you do have quite a lot of solutions, technology know-how,  locked up in these companies.  Part of the reason they got rich was tax breaks, part of the reason was they're quite  smart at what they do; and you know that,  because you work at McKinsey and you probably had to do a lot of analysis of  what was going right with companies before you did what you think is going wrong.  So the end product, if you say ‘I think this is all for you  dressing yourself up in it, and you have perhaps ulterior motives’,  is that nothing or less comes out of the tap at the other end, what do you say? 
«00:18:07» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: What I say is that this analysis 
relies on an accounting system, that only counts the gestures of do-  gooding that they do, and then they come home with those bracelets.  You can tell how rich a hedge fund manager is in New York by how many  Africa bracelets he has; watch on this hand,  Africa bracelet collection on the other hand.  The billionaire hedge fund managers- 
«00:18:31» ANNE MCELVOY: There's about 30 people sitting on their hands right now. 

«00:18:33» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: It’s okay, they're, 
not hedge fund manager bracelets if you're not a hedge fund manager. 
«00:18:39» Just to take one issue that I talk 
about in the book, there's this whole issue with banks at  Standard Chartered was involved in; enormous Western banks in this country  and the United States, that wreak havoc on the countries those  African girls live in through what they do with sovereign debt,  through what they do with commodities trade, through what they do with any number of them.  Sovereign debt’s a particularly fascinating issue where it's really zero-sum;  it's really preying on countries that have mismanaged their debt,  and banks profit hugely.  If then, some of those same people are same  networks of people are on the side of creating an economy that doesn't serve those  people - or, frankly, tanking their own economy at home,  which reduces the amount of foreign aid available for those countries -  and then they turn around and they want to save a village.  It's noble, but it's not the full story,  and it's very hard to do the math on which is greater;  but a lot of what I'm trying to suggest in this book -  whether it's this example or any type of others -  is that the plutocrats in our time are fighting on both sides of the war, on many,  many issues.  So, yes, their hearts may bleed for helping  immigrants in this country against the backlash, I'm sure that's a cause many people donate  to; wonderful.  But I'm not sure there would be the backlash against immigrants in this country,  if the economy had been working better for 50/60/70% of people over the last 30/40  years.  So that shift you all did to the dynamic scheduling system at your company;  the decision to outsource, the decision to actually route things  through tax havens- 
«00:20:17» ANNE MCELVOY: Well, we're coming to the point where your 
list of alternatives, there's quite lot in there,  a bit of (UNCLEAR) . One of the reasons immigrants come is  because your economy is perceived as being productive and well-managed. 
«00:20:28» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Well, 
it’s better than where they come from; but it could work better for the people who  are here, and it doesn’t - and it often doesn't,  because a lot of people want to make extra money -  and I spent three years reporting on those people and understanding in great  depth how they do it, which they explained to me.  I had people sitting there, explaining to me on the record all the  philantrophy stuff; ‘Can we go off the record now?  So here's the tax trusts that I've set up for my children.  I feel very bad about it, but I want to talk to you about it,  because it helps me to talk (UNCLEAR) ’. I have become the receptacle for the  confessions of these people, because actually many of them understand  that they are standing on an indefensible mountain. 
«00:21:09» ANNE MCELVOY: Well, 
that's actually what I was about to ask in terms of personal response;  perhaps before we get deep into some of the arguments and alternatives,  what response did you get?  Because it's spectacularly rude and very entertaining, your book, in this way;  If you like to see elegant cream pies being flung in the face of the rich and entitled,  you’ve come to the right author. 
«00:21:30» ANNE MCELVOY: I’m gonna use what you just said as 
a blurb on the cover. 
«00:21:33» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: I’ll take that; 
we all take our fame where we can get it. 
«00:21:37» I see you've got interest from Bill Gates; 
you've had engagement from a lot of the very people that you seem to be taking a  really big poke at.  How does that work out?  Just tell us a bit about those conversations. 
«00:21:51» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: It's interesting; 
Bill Gates shocked me by writing a blurb for this book -  maybe the first person which I was shocked by -  and then he shocked me a year later in Davos; when he was asked about my book he  insinuated that I was a communist, so that was a significant shift over the  course of those four or five months, or year. 
«00:22:18» To be totally honest, 
in the writing of this book, I walked a line that I think you  probably think about in your columns and other writings,  where there's a certain level of pungency and ferocity;  where you may feel it, you may think it,  you may have the evidence for it, but you'd lose people.  Then there's a certain level of care and caution where you may have everybody  listening to you, but you're not saying anything;  and you got to walk that line.  That's what the editing process is for; there are a couple chapters, entire chapters,  that didn't make it into here of my own choice, because the payoff was meanness more  than substantive criticism of how this world works.  That wasn't what I was trying to say. 
«00:23:03» ANNE MCELVOY: You see that danger in this kind of argument 
- indeed, in polemic, full stop - and particularly in a time where people  like to be a bit mean? 
«00:23:11» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Yes, 
but here's what I did that I think is different from a lot of polemic out there.  This is a polemic in which the microphone in this book is almost 80% of  the time in the hands of the people I'm criticising.  I went- I did what actually is very rare to do, frankly,  in the Twitter age; which is when you disagree with someone,  go to their house and ask them about it for 10 hours.  So yes, I have strong opinions and yes,  I can be a little flip on Twitter; but the reality is I actually practise  an ancient profession here, where when you actually disagree with someone,  you go listen to them for 10 hours.  Or if they'll give you 20 hours, 20 hours; or if they'll give you 3 weeks, 3 weeks.  You ride along with them in their limos and you sit in their offices,  and you read about their past and you try to understand them. 
«00:23:55» That's what I did with everybody I wrote 
about, and the people I wrote about are all in this  world.  Of course, they all chose to speak to me;  so they are people who, I think, were having some level of a crisis of  confidence in their own world and assumptions, just to be able to let me in.  By the way, I had given that Aspen speech that I  mentioned to you before I started writing the book,  so they all knew where I was coming from; and so the reaction to the book afterward,  I think, has reflected the way I went about  reporting the book.  Which is: sure, there are some people who said,  ‘This is terrible and I can't engage with this’; but actually,  I have been shocked and humbled and actually wished that I would sometimes  be as open as these people. 
«00:24:33» People in this world, 
who have used the book publicly, privately to me, secondhand,  I hear through rumours and gossip; said, ‘I’m going to use this book to look at  my life again.’  I have people emailing me saying they've changed their profession;  I don't know if that's real or not, but they say that they've done it.  I have 22 year olds about to take this job offer or that job offer,  and they say they’ve changed their mind; so what I tried to do was intervene in a  culture and intervene in a set of stories, and have people just ask themselves  harder questions which sometimes might leave them in new ways. 
«00:25:06» ANNE MCELVOY: And how much do you feel you should 
be upfront about your own politics?  You’re on the (UNCLEAR) ‘progressivising’ left end of the  Democratic Party spectrum, at a time of great turmoil in American politics;  but some of the things - and we've heard a few of them already  along on the way tonight - make certain assumptions that come from that  position.  So if you look at something like ‘What's the role of the state?’, would you say-  along with someone like Rutger Bregman; who has argued, I think,  in a slightly different way to you, but you're in the same territory of  criticising the elites - that the big missing question is tax?  Are you a high tax seller?  Because I think we need to know a bit more about what your alternatives are,  before we can be sure that we want to throw out the baby with the bathwater -  get rid of the philanthropists - and maybe find that maybe Bill Gates was right.  What do we take from your own politics? 
«00:25:59» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: The simple answer is yes, I think, 
on taxes specifically; but we have to understand when it comes  to taxes or any of these other issues, that the people calling for high taxes  are not high taxers.  They are people merely restoring normalcy, after a 40-year war on government that  happened in this country and happened in the United States and happened elsewhere.  So when you are simply trying to undo an enormous ideological mistake,  it is easy for the people who are living and dwelling and enjoying the mistake -  believe in the mistake - to cast those ideas as radical. 
«00:26:30» ANNE MCELVOY: So you mean that a period of high 
taxation after the Second World War - when societies have been reconstructed,  after the terrific shock material in otherwise - is the norm,  but that's not that long a period, really. 
«00:26:41» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: It lasted til the late seventies 
in the United States; and the reality is,  the US didn't have an income tax until early in the 20 century,  so we don’t have as much history as you guys do.  But the reality is, the 1%- if you look at all the American indicators  - everything was in a certain way until 1979,  1980; and suddenly all the graphs change,  and it was the Reagan era, the Thatcher era over here.  It was ‘government is the problem’, ‘there's no such thing as society,  only men and women’; it's also Democrats in the United States  who end up playing in Ronald Reagan’s stadium; even if on the other side of the field, Bill  Clinton, ‘The era of big government is over’;  Barack Obama creates his first new office in the White House,  The Office of Social Innovation, which declares on its website ‘Top-down  programmes from Washington don't work anymore.’  kind of remarkable, that- 
«00:27:36» ANNE MCELVOY: But that's because there's quite a lot of evidence that they weren't 
working as well as they should have worked for many people in the population. 
«00:27:43» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Sure; 
what I am suggesting is, a theory was put forward and it was  attempted for the last 30/40 years, and that theory was ‘Government is bad;  regulation is bad; taxes are bad; businesspeople are the best people;  people who actually work in the public good are sort of leeches’.  And the nice thing about this idea is, we tried it -  we've actually tried it for a long time - and I think to be honest about any era,  you have to understand the trade-offs. 
«00:28:14» I think it's been a great era for 
building businesses; I don't think any of us would say there  haven’t been enough great companies formed in our time.  It's been a pretty great era for globalisation; for world trade;  for technological innovation - innovation’s just the Latin word for ‘new  shit’ - and there's been plenty of new shit in our  time.  But progress is different from innovation; it actually means most people's lives getting  better, and I think this era of extraordinary  fertility and innovation has failed to be an era of progress for most people.  So the question then becomes, what are the systems and policies that  allow so much profit, so much growth, so much technology,  so much innovation, to result in so little advancement in so  many people's lives; so little mobility, et cetera?  And I think the answer is this theory that essentially eviscerated the very  idea of the common good; and what I am talking about is easily  caricature as ‘I don't want the airlines to be run by the government;  I don't want my phone to be made by the government; I don't want this water to be made by  the government.’  I am just talking about the three or four or five or six biggest  shared problems we have; problems like, how do you empower- 
«00:29:33» ANNE MCELVOY: Hang on, 
you don't trust the government to make these quite basic silly things,  but you trust government to do really big problems?  Would that not be a bit of a category shift? 
«00:29:48» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: And they do a great job (UNCLEAR) 

«00:29:51» ANNE MCELVOY: Give me an example. 

«00:29:53» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: The NHS. 
Do you understand what life would be in this country without it? 
«00:29:56» ANNE MCELVOY: Idt anyone would- 

«00:29:58» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Anybody here who wishes they didn’t 
in the have the NHS, raise your hand. 
«00:30:01» ANNE MCELVOY: Does anyone- 

«00:30:03» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: 300-400 in the room; 
does anyone wish they didn't have the NHS?  I would say that's a pretty good success.  (LAUGHS) 
«00:30:08» ANNE MCELVOY: Your target group is in the room; but if people want to reform- 

«00:30:10» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: (UNCLEAR) 

«00:30:12» ANNE MCELVOY: I’m going to challenge you on the argument, 
which is that the reforming state institutions -  with the great history and a great function in their societies -  is the tricky bit.  I think it's the easy questions to say: do you the this or the that?  Did you find it worked always well for you, for your aunt last week,  for your elderly mother?  These are the harder questions, and that's where we come to,  who’s going to drive the new shit, as you put it. 
«00:30:31» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: I’m an advocate for toxin rich people 
more, so whatever problems we might have had  with the NHS may have more funding behind them;  and I understand that not every problem with the NHS is a funding problem,  and one of the arguments I make in the book -  and write in the final chapter - is that this is not just about  transferring more responsibility of government on our bigger shared problems.  It's also about making government more worthy of that transfer,  and making government more effective,;but part of that is,  we have created a culture that tells young people that if you want to make a difference,  go make an app.  Go start a latte company; go start a cupcake company that gives  five pence to people for every cupcake you buy.  We have massively diverted a generation of young people- 
«00:31:14» ANNE MCELVOY: Who’s the ‘we’ here? 
Here is an interesting and an engaged (UNCLEAR) why do people go along with  it? 
«00:31:24» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: In my country, 
50% of graduates of the top universities in the last 30-some years have gone to  consulting and finance.  That's not business; that's two incredibly small micro-niches  within the business world.  {So when you say ‘Why doesn’t the NHS work as well as it could’}; first of all,  that group of people in the plutocracy have chosen very hard to fight for a set  of tax policies and austerity that have favoured them and hurt things at the NHS.  Second of all, many of the best and brightest people,  because of the cultural components - this book is in many ways a book about culture  - have participated in a culture that  plutocrats spread and have an interest in -  but you're right, we all breathe in and propagate -  that devalues the commons and venerates what is done privately.  That's a big problem; and to the question of why we all participate,  I always say every time I come to Europe - Britain's probably a little bit in  between on this - but even here, I just don't hear,  Mark Zuckerberg talked about - now it's changed for him,  even in America - but up to two years ago,  Mark Zuckerberg in America was a guy who was going to change the world.  And you had some whiners, but basically…  (LAUGHS) 
«00:32:50» And I would come to Europe; people in Europe didn't hate Mark Zuckerberg, 
but no one saw him that way.  I think people in my experience saw him the way they saw the guy to make those chairs;  he's fine, makes his business, (UNCLEAR) ‘puts tax in’,  he's fine.  He's a guy trying to make money on chairs. 
«00:33:06» ANNE MCELVOY: But isn't that a sign that that the 
retreat of exactly what you described; that people did see through it - or indeed,  more than saw through it, to the extent to which you could say  progressive elites had too much faith in the tech companies,  the Zuckerbergs and those who serve around the Sun King -  and have kind of gone off it?  If anything, a lot of us feel kind of wised up;  so we do seem to go on that journey ourselves. 
«00:33:31» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: I equally believe this 30/40 year 
era we've been talking about is coming to a crashing end;  and I think it's going to be a long and bitter end.  The hopeful side of me thinks that breaks it and Trump and things that are symptoms  - they're enormous symptoms,  that can feel diseases outright - but I actually do think they're symptoms.  I think they're symptoms of what happens when you take big powerful countries,  and take the risk of allowing 60 or 70% of people in them to feel those  countries are run for somebody other than them;  and then they start roaming around to figure out who they're run for,  and that's when they get crazy in their analysis in many cases and start blaming  things on Mexican rapists. 
«00:34:09» But the first step of that intuition, which 
is that, “My society has a lot going on that's positive,  but somehow my kid’s education is not getting better;  my health care is not getting better.  The ability for me to reinvent myself after a job loss hasn't improved”;  that feeling that people have, that first feeling,  is very valid and is incredibly dangerous, when there's many people who feel it.  And what has upheld it, to the point of the Mark Zuckerberg thing,  is that so many of us - and this is incredibly important -  have participated in this culture.  Plutocrats alone are a very small number of people;  what allows this culture to be powerful is that we all participate, sort of,  in the idea that the Silicon Valley people are changing the world.  Or that the people in the city of London who may have helped cause the financial  crisis are also doing Something Something Something on Red Nose Day.  Or that Exxon Mobil, despite having helped cause climate change,  now is apparently a renewable company, according to an advertisement, I recently  saw.  And it's actually us who allows this to go on by believing in these stories that aren't  true; in many ways, I wrote the book to slay some of these phoney  stories. 
«00:35:29» ANNE MCELVOY: I think that's a very good point to 
go to the audience.  I'm just going to ask you one question; perhaps just to bring us back to  question of philanthropy at the heart of this, the revolt against the rich and the  revolt against the rich giving away their money.  Just nail for us, if you could, what you think the problem is with  philanthropists and the way that it works in the wider world;  and it's not just about whether they annoy you at Davos, it’s about,  what is the impact that you think that they might be having?  Because you’re a utilitarian a bit, I think, in some of the way they calculate things;  and if in the end they are still doing some good -  regardless of the fact you might disagree with how they got their money,  and the system that they're working within - why would it, for instance,  be better for Bill Gates's malaria project not to be so well funded,  if it is a well-regarded project on curbing malaria,  one of the world's great evils?  Just leave us on that thought, and then our super fit runners up there  will start passing some mics around. 
«00:36:32» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: First of all, 
in no way I've ever suggested the world would be better off if Bill Gates didn't  fund malaria in poor countries.  One of the arguments I make is that the case of philanthropy is strongest in  places where public capacity is less; and you couldn't say the way you might  be able to say in this country, that the government would be able to do  this if it had the proper resources capability.  So I'm not against any of that; the issue I raised, I do believe -  and this may be a surprising argument - often the pushback I get is,  what could be wrong with trying to do good?  Isn't it better than buying a yacht?  And the general answer ot that is, yes, it's better than buying a yacht;  sort of obviously.  However, I actually do think there's a minority of  cases - and I don't think Bill Gates is one of them  - I think there's a minority of cases  where the world actually would have been better off,  if certain rich people bought a yacht; and I'll explain. 
«00:37:26» Zuckerberg’s actually a very good example, 
where he's made…  I don't know how much he spent so far, but he's spent a modest amount so far  and he's going to spend a lot more.  But I would argue that, given that British democracy itself and  American democracy itself were compromised by his sort of amazing  immunity from scrutiny.  Parliament now, the Congress now,  is only now after all these years starting to poke in to these folks;  your former Deputy Prime Minister works for him.  To my mind, if you subtracted a lot of the moral and  philanthropic glow that Zuckerberg had over the last ten years -  from being a philanthropist, a world changer and empowerer of people -  if you subtracted that, my guess is British parliamentary inquiries,  American congressional inquiries, journalists and others would have been  up that guy much faster, sooner and harder.  And then you say, if that scrutiny had come five years earlier,  what would be the effect on the world?  Maybe we would have an uncompromised election?  Would that have been worth more than the money he's given away?  I think actually, maybe, yeah; so it's very hard to do the math. 
«00:38:35» I think there's folks who created the opioid 
crisis, the Sackler family;  a lot of museums in London have moved away from that money.  I think it's a reasonable question that museums are asking themselves;  maybe if we hadn't taken some of this money in the past - which is tough,  they're not taking the money for the future -  maybe if we hadn't taken in the past, maybe we wouldn't have allowed a certain- 
«00:38:55» ANNE MCELVOY: But you can't see into the future; you 
don't know - as much as you may think who you don't like  - you cannot predict who is going to fall foul.  You might be able to do it on a model like Facebook;  it's much harder, isn't it, in areas of capitalism where you can't  absolutely see the balance of the good and ill is very questionable. 
«00:39:15» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Precisely; 
and this is why I actually don't believe the system of trying to figure out  whether a billionaire has been naughty or nice - and therefore,  whether they give money away - is a good system.  That's why I think the system is a system that should actually tax a lot  more of their money on the way up; regulate things,  so workers actually have some stability in their lives and a decent paycheck.  You will have, if you do that, fewer billionaires;  and we're all going to be ok.  We will survive, actually; and then you'll still have some billionaires,  the way they do in Norway and Sweden.  {The nice thing in Norway and Sweden is, it's not there's billionaires;  but those billionaires don't have to fill massive societal gaps that they are  complicit in keeping open.} 
«00:39:55» ANNE MCELVOY: (UNCLEAR) 'Don't' hide away; 
I'm going to really challenge you on that, because I think what happens in the lot of  societies - particularly Northern Europe;  to an extent in Germany - is, they almost knew you were going to write this  book; they hide away from it.  There's something in the American psyche in capitalism that wants to come forward and  says, 'Hit me on the face with this one;  I'm in the argument', and (UNCLEAR) - 
«00:40:16» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: It doesn't matter they hide in those countries; 
because in my country, if you work 29 hours- 
«00:40:20» ANNE MCELVOY: But you think that's okay, 
despite the fact that so much public wealth is still hidden away? 
«00:40:25» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: No; in fact, I advocate… 
One of the my favourite things to do is to name…  People always say, 'So what should people give to?',  and I have a list; and the reality is that the things on my  list are the kind of philanthropic giving that would be traitor to your class  giving, the giving that would actually help to  break down the bad system you're standing on top. 
«00:40:43» Let's pick an example on that issue; 
there are many people working on tax justice around the world.  They're working to figure out what would a good, smart,  productive wealth tax look like; that takes money just to figure that out,  have people study it.  Or, how much money is in tax havens?  Nine trillion is one estimate I've seen, there's others;  Gabriel Zucman and others have studied this very well.  Those people doing that work; if they had a billion dollars,  they could probably help expose trillions and maybe help governments  bring some of that back in.  That'd be a good investment; but which philanthropist supports  movement for tax justice?  Isn't it interesting?  Seriously, we laugh, but this is what my book's about at its core;  because if they are who they say they are, which is warriors for change,  then we should expect - we would predict -  that they would be as present on causes that hurt their interests and their  friends interests, as they are on causes that help them.  But if it's the case that they're all there when the conversation is about Lean  In - which is turning patriarchy into a posture  problem, where women have been too reclined to be powerful  - they're there for that,  because that costs rich people nothing.  We talk about maternity leave In the United States; ooh,  that's a tough one, because that would actually cost companies. 
«00:42:02» So if rich people want to prove their 
sincerity about changing the world, they shouldn't be absent on all the  causes that would actually threaten their privilege but enhance the welfare of  humanity. 
«00:42:24» ANNE MCELVOY: You can all get to your posture problems, 
defy the patriarchy and Lean In.  We have loads of questions; we'll take in groups of twos and three, I  think, and see what we get covered in what we  might want to come back to.  I love this bit; one. 
«00:42:39» AUDIENCE: Actually, 
right off the back of what you just said; I am part of the rich -  not the Davos rich, but definitely 1% -  and it's unearned, inherited wealth.  I don't have the billions to expose the trillions that are out there,  but I want to put my money where my mouth is;  or where my Twitter likes are.  So, what do I do?  Because I know the problems are systemic, I know philanthropy isn't the answer;  but I'm not willing to just sit here, not help any cause,  but at the same time I want to put the money where it's going to go further. 
«00:43:14» ANNE MCELVOY: Well, 
you're definitely buying the drinks afterwards.  Anand is going to give you a more intelligent answer in a second. 
«00:43:23» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: {Philanthropy starts at the pub.} 

«00:43:25» ANNE MCELVOY: Philanthropy definitely starts at the 
pub, I think we're all agreed on that.  Let's take it a second question over there. 
«00:43:32» AUDIENCE: I used to work for a Silicon 
Valley tech billionaire; I used to run his events in Davos  which did include African girls.  That tech billionaire now owns Time magazine, who you work for.  Do you find that at all compromising or challenging to your (UNCLEAR) ? 
«00:43:55» ANNE MCELVOY: What are the odds, huh? 
Two questions? 
«00:44:03» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: I don't know exactly how much 
you're going to have left over after you buy us drinks tonight,  but I have two answers to that: if you're actually in a position to be  making a philanthropic donation - and maybe having influence on others who  are also doing that, their goals - I think you can start to ask yourself,  what are causes that are kind of indifferent to the system,  but I help some people; I neither help break down the system,  nor help sustain it?  What are causes that I think - as I would characterise Lean In -  where I'm helping maybe some people, but I'm propping up this corporate  multinational feminists particular thing; and then what are actually causes where I'm  donating to, that actually are breaking down a bad system? 
«00:44:53» I think my tax justice example is 
just one example, but I think there are many ways.  So for example, one thing I hear a lot in this country  is people feel the political class is too closed;  they wish a wider array of people represented them.  Well, you don't just get to that overnight;  so organisations that would train young people in Britain -  we've had this in the US, just in the last five years,  I don't know if you have a lot of it here already also -  that just train the people who are never going to run for office,  to run for office; connect them to ad makers,  viral video makers.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was recruited by people who saw talent in her, gave her  skills, networked; she's incredibly raw talented,  but it takes more than being incredibly raw talented.  That's the thing where you're making a donation to an organisation,  but what that organisation is doing is trying to make this entire system that  governs this entire country work better at a systemic level, by having, let's say,  10 times more people run for Parliament - ten times more types of people run for Parliament  - than who's running right now.  That's an example, and you could think through what those are. 
«00:46:09» The second thing is just socially 
within your world to be a voice of a different kind.  Nick Hanauer is a very rich guy billionaire who started writing some  years ago about how America is rigged for him,  and that's not good; and he's made a big splash,  because people wanna listen to him.  He wrote another piece yesterday about how education policy is this kind of mirage,  because inequality and low pay makes it impossible for even the best schools to help  kids, because parents have no time.  It's very powerful when someone speaks against their own interest.  {One of the most consequential presidents in American history was  Franklin Delano Roosevelt; not just because he fought for the poor,  but because he was so rich.  He used four terms in the Presidency the United States -  which we've since cleaned up; you can't do that anymore -  four terms to essentially batter his own class and build durable institutions,  all of which I continue a benefit from how many years later,  that protect working people. 
«00:47:15» I'm curious about what FDR-style 
philanthropy looks; what does it look to give as a traitor to  your class?  Not just to help to stop some bleeding, to help feed some mouths in front of you,  but to help break down the bad system that's causing that?} 
«00:47:31» ANNE MCELVOY: Lady over here. 
This is Marc Benioff. 
«00:47:35» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Marc Benioff, 
who started Salesforce; new owner of Time magazine.  Yeah, it's nuts; and if I went to the Atlantic it would  be Laurene Powell Jobs, Steve Jobs' widow.  If I went to Washington Post, got Bezos; and this is a problem.  I don't know Mark knows this, is watching this debate,  but on the day he bought it - this is before I was working there;  I'd probably say the same thing now, I am -  the day he bought it, I said, "It's nice that he's buying this thing,  but it's a regrettable situation that he's going to be the owner of this  thing."  This is very awkward right now, but I just feel that I'm not. 
«00:48:18» ANNE MCELVOY: But you see, 
someone has to own media to have free media. 
«00:48:21» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Correct. 

«00:48:23» ANNE MCELVOY: And there are mixed models you can do; 
and you can have some trust structures, you can have mixed share holdings- 
«00:48:28» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: I would like some more variety. 
Right now we're getting to a place in the United States,  where there's basically - in part, because the business model's not great -  there's just a handful of billionaires owning the media. 
«00:48:39» My concern is not, 
'these are bad people'; Mark is a very good guy.  The issue is: what are the opinions, the thoughts, the lines of inquiry?  By the way, these owners have very little influence over  the papers, at least in the U.S;  they actually don't - I will say having worked for several,  they really don't - that's not the issue.  The issue is more, what are the broad lines of inquiry or  themes that just don't happen when you have a particular group of people that  is owning the means of communication and information?  So yeah, that's something I think about all the time. 
«00:49:15» ANNE MCELVOY: Okay, 
here we go again; question one. 
«00:49:18» AUDIENCE: Notwithstanding the argument that you're 
making, I would to just raise the point that,  could it be that the real issue at hand is that the system that we currently  have separates financial value from environmental and societal value?  And wouldn't it be a deep cause of all these symptoms that you're describing,  companies that we have in our financial and economic system operate on that basis;  isn't it a (UNCLEAR) that we need to reflect, and how it came about since the 1600-  And how we created that system actually separate financial value and societal value?  If we do that, then the…  If we find a way to re-engineer that and create an opportunity where that is put in  a better way, couldn't this problem just go away?  And one other- 
«00:50:20» ANNE MCELVOY: I do think we got it; I'm sorry, we got to take the lady in the foxy hat now. 
Number two. 
«00:50:24» AUDIENCE: Thanks so much for giving me a plug, 
because we've just established a not- for-profit to deal exactly with we're  talking about at a systemic level.  I do agree with you that this is a systems issue,  because you get good people going into bad systems and they become bad people in  a sense.  Incentive structures are wrong; so I want your opinion to understand,  because with the taxation system that's broken - and frankly,  I look at the tech angle of it and how it can exacerbate some of these issues -  so you're looking at a capitalism economic model;  you're looking at a taxation system that doesn't work;  you're talking about a legal system, we're talking about antitrust and  competition that isn't built, (UNCLEAR) assets.  So we have this whole systemic thing going across the entire society;  how do you fix one but not the others?  And that interdependency between the systems, for me,  is how do we go about it without warfare, which is a prior way of doing it? 
«00:51:26» ANNE MCELVOY: Just as an additional afterthough; 
without the warfare would be nice.  1,600, and interdependent systems and problems. 
«00:51:38» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Everything's, 
always about 1,600 here. 
«00:51:48» I think you're exactly right, 
and in some ways that is what I'm getting at.  Right now, it is essentially not only legal, but accepted,  venerated, to make money in ways that every year,  makes the planet worse and people more vulnerable.  That is- at the end of the day,  we can talk about specific policies, but at the end of the day what we're  talking about is the legality of that model.  By the way, I think that is incredibly connected to gender.  I actually would guess…  To me that's the idea that happens when you get one kind of person in a room for  2,000 years and you're like, 'Guys, brainstorm, all ideas on the table;  except you guys are all the same'.  It seems like a very narrow-minded idea of what it means to run a business,  but that's become- and I don't know quite how the law works  here with corporate law, but in the United States that's really  understood to be the law.  Not only is that okay, but in fact if you don't do that -  if you're not ruthlessly focused on the bottom line -  there's a belief that you might get in trouble with shareholders or whatever;  if you care about the environment or care about people. 
«00:53:01» So I think you're exactly right; 
and so there's a bunch of interesting experiments around now -  B-corps and others - that are trying to voluntarily get  people to be the kind of businesses that factor in profit, environment, society, other  things.  And while I think those are very inspiring, I think the problem with them is they  make it easier to do good without making it harder to do bad.  The reality is, the Exxon Mobil's are working on a scale  that the Etsy's of the world can never match; it really doesn't matter in my view how  many Etsy certify that they're going to do good,  we still got the Exxon Mobil's. 
«00:53:38» Elizabeth Warren who's running for 
president United States has a proposal, to essentially require every American  corporation above a pretty large size, to be a B-corporation.  In other words, if you want a corporate charter in America,  which is a super valuable thing - we forget, we give companies charters and limited  liability protection, it does not come from the sky;  it is a thing we give them - and we can actually set conditions on that. 
«00:54:05» ANNE MCELVOY: Is Elizabeth Warren your candidate? 

«00:54:09» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: I don't have a candidate; to be honest, 
this race is a year and a half.  I don't even know what most of them believe on most things.  We know what she believes, because she has more plans than you have friends,  but- 
«00:54:18» ANNE MCELVOY: I don't know, that could go either way for me. 

«00:54:23» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: -But {I think a conversation about 
whether in the core of corporate law, it should be legal to make money by  damaging society, is the next phase of this conversation.} 
«00:54:37» ANNE MCELVOY: I think we should take question two. 
I'll come to the back in a moment. 
«00:54:43» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: My response to that is just that, 
you say 'How do we do one of these things?'  It's all interrelated, and that seems to make it complicated;  but that also makes it fixable.  The reality is, our culture changed a lot going down this  road; people sold this idea-  there was this memo in the United States, the Powell memo,  where these besieged corporate people wrote a memo about how they felt the  student revolts were happening, the Soviet Union was still on the on the horizon,  and they were going to lose - business people were going to be  encircled by the Reds - and they wrote this memo,  like 'We have to grab political power.'  That's the 1970s, and boy did it work;  the only successful memo ever, and they did.  They had a plan, they grabbed political power;  they allied with the evangelicals, they did their whole thing,  and they sold this vision.  What should be inspiring- and it was five families that really  under wrote that; Jane Mayer has an incredible book called  Dark Money about it - what should be inspiring about that is,  it is not that hard to hijack a country.  Actually, what they did was harder,  because it actually benefited not that many people;  so it's really hard to hijack a country when you're not helping most people. 
«00:55:53» What I think a lot of the people who 
want to actually question how these deeper systems is working for them,  is if they at least want to do things differently; make 50/60% people's lives better,  and have relatively- 
«00:56:10» ANNE MCELVOY: And yet, with remarkably so far limited success. 
And the many examples - and this is why I think you are starting  to veer towards a kind of socialist sort of utopianism - it sounds great,  because it's not there; or bits of it are there and then you  take the bits that you and you forget the others. 
«00:56:29» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: This happened to me the last time I 
went into The Economist offices. 
«00:56:32» ANNE MCELVOY: We do this; 
we let them in and then we trap them.  But you can see, I think it's a fair question;  a lot of what you've proposed, a drift of answers you've proposed,  have come from a radical left tradition; and some of them -  not using the Bill Gates word as a slur - have come also from the ideology of  communism in its day, or state socialism.  I don't think that's what you mean, but I'm not quite sure where you want to stop. 
«00:56:59» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: I think, 
restoring a basic amount of fairness and dignity to our societies -  after a 40-year hijacking by the idea that everything we do together is bad  and everything we do alone in our bank vault is good -  is not radicalism, it's not communism,  it's not socialism.  It is actually humanism; because {in this society and in my society,  most people don't feel the society works for them,  and attempting to restore a sense that it does is not radical.  It is the smartest thing that we can do if we don't want this to go another way.} 
«00:57:36» ANNE MCELVOY: We've got one in two here; 
I'd love people to also factor in those at the back.  Number one.  Thank you. 
«00:57:51» AUDIENCE: I wanted to ask your opinion- obviously, 
you've written this polemic against the idea of the globalist market world -  but the two biggest perceived laws that have been landed on globalism and the  market world recently have been Donald Trump and Brexit.  When you actually look at them; Donald Trump (UNCLEAR) Mercer in the  room with Stephen Schwarzman just after he's elected;  Brexit, (UNCLEAR) , et cetera - they're both a bonfire of regulation and  tax cuts for the rich.  So are you concerned that something worse has actually dressed itself up in  the claws of anti-globalism and jumped in there before we've got anything else  that's more positive? 
«00:58:28» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: That's a great question. 
I describe Donald Trump - and you can figure out if this applies  to some of the Brexit characters over here, which I know less well -  I describe Donald Trump in the book as an exposer,  an exploiter and an embodiment of the cult of elite-led social change.  I talked about an exposer, because he was actually very acute -  and that's not a phrase I use a lot in describing him -  he was very acute in understanding the problem of the Clinton Global Foundation;  all this stuff, that I think a lot of people weren't  paying attention to at a certain moment. 
«00:59:08» He understood that raising that up- 
the Clintons were genuinely careless on a lot of that stuff,  as they have been for a very long time ,and possessive;  the sense that everything they do is right, so therefore they just can't see when  they do stuff that's not; or shady, a lot of shadiness.  One of the people who worked for them for a long time said to me,  'They're not bad people, they're just shady';  and he was very good at understanding that pumping up their connection to this  nefarious world of people trying to make money and pretend they're doing good, was  a liability, not an asset.  He was early to see that, and actually he was right.  Exposer; exploiter.  He then took that anger that he was ginning up against plutocrats,  and very quickly in the campaign instead of staying with it,  he did a couple gestures.  He was against the carried interest loophole, which is a terrible loophole for rich  people in America and some other things; he made bad comments about financial capitalism,  which was actually interesting for a Republican, that's not something Republicans do.  But he started saying, 'You have all these problems;  these Mexicans coming across th border, they're (UNCLEAR) '.  So taking the anger, he then exploited it;  he diverted it on to other people, who were obviously not the people  causing people to have lost their homes in the financial crisis, et cetera. 
«01:00:26» And then he became the embodiment of it; 
because having gotten into office, he has literally used the presidency  United States as a cash machine.  He's used it to do more deals, promote his clubs -  he was over here, again promoting his Irish club through  some press conference - and so he has become in many ways -  he's not quite what I described in the book; he's not even a real philanthropist or do-gooder  - but in many ways {he is the reductio ad  absurdum of what you get when you ask the people with the most to lose from  change to be in charge of change.} 
«01:01:02» When you trust people who've broken 
things their whole life to be the best repairman; when you make arsonists firefighters; and  I think we, in a very perverse sense -  it gives me no pleasure to say - we got what deserved,  after a generation of telling ourselves that business people were just so smart  all the time about everything, that if we took a particularly not intelligent  one, he would still be smarter than anybody  else we could get. 
«01:01:32» ANNE MCELVOY: Just a quick word on the Clintons, 
seeing as it came up before we go to your next question;  do you feel in any sense that now that shine has come off;  given that Bill Clinton when he was president to an extent -  also Tony Blair in this country, but in the manner and the style of a tribute  band - and it inspired a lot of people?  There was a moderate, lively - I used the word radical and you  responded a little bit earlier - but I meant it partly in a way that  suggests great energy that is attaching to a cause;  and that was there around a centrist cause.  Now, you would it a little bit more to the left,  some people would want to put it somewhere else;  but was anything lost when that dream of a Clintonism or a big centre in Britain  and some other countries has perhaps fallen apart?  Do you mourn it in any way? 
«01:02:24» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: I think what's interesting about- 
Tony Blair couldn't be here tonight, because he's still mourning…  atoning for the Iraq war. 
«01:02:32» ANNE MCELVOY: It's not stopped from being on everything 
else. 
«01:02:36» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: I think the reality is that the 
idea of the centre, of being moderate - and therefore,  in this mathematical imagination kind of there's just maybe more people there,  because you can grab more people from the other side -  that's a very attractive idea; the math of it at some level seems obvious. 
«01:02:58» ANNE MCELVOY: Only the math? 

«01:03:00» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Well, 
the problem with that idea is when you take…  Let's switch to a cooking metaphor.  Making a dish as abundant as possible, being able to feed just pouring water into  it, does not make it taste better;  and I think what has happened - at least in the United States;  I don't know if folks would agree here - is a lot of policies that could have  been simple to understand and exciting on the Left were diluted,  in an effort to get to that Centre; be more moderate,  address more people who don't government, maybe win some of them.  And the Democrats have tried this for 25 years. 
«01:03:39» So on health care, 
you had some people calling for universal health care,  single-payer health care - Bernie Sanders for a long time, some others;  you had Hillary Clinton trying it, then pulling away when there was an outcry  - so where the Democrats ended up was in that  centre, and suddenly this is what it sounds like.  I'm just going to mimic what it said; 'Okay, we're going to have a five-part plan;  if you like your insurance, you can keep it, but if you don't like it then we'll have  state-funded block grants for Medicaid.  And if you earn less than this much, then you'll be on this program,  but we'll have a supplementary drug programme…"  And no one is inspired; no one actually understands what it is. 
{So yes, you've come to the centre; 
but you've turned it into an ideological Frankenstein of vote attraction that  actually is attractive to nobody.}  And I think part of what, again,  Donald Trump understood - and used for evil, in my view -  is that the wall is a very good political idea.  It is a very bad actual idea, but it's a very good political idea; it's  simple, people get it, they see it; and it actually addresses three or four  anxieties in many people's reptile brain at the same time.  'Immigrants coming over'; 'I can't get a job';  terrorists coming here'; 'drugs, my kids getting into drugs,  my kids getting into gangs.'  Suddenly one thing that he says that you can visualise,  that he can tweet some picture of, becomes something that works.  Now, the question is: are bad guys the only  people who can do this?  So when it comes to an issue like healthcare -  you have the NHS, we have nothing like it -  is for Democrats, doing the moderate Blair Clinton thing -  which is this massive, 'We're sort of changing it,  but if change scares you then we won't change it for you';  is that actually losing everybody? 
«01:05:40» ANNE MCELVOY: Depends on how good your 
alternative idea is; that's the challenge, isn't it? 
«01:05:44» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: An idea like medicare-for-all in 
the United States, which is sort of analogous to the NHS;  that is an idea that is approaching the wall in its level of political thinking.  It would be enormously complicated to do on the backend,  the way the wall and many other things are; but actually there's nobody who doesn't  understand what that is.  Democrats are very bad at this, and I think it's probably true also;  the people who actually want to make people's lives better,  need to understand the power of simplicity that some of the demagogues  and populace understand. 
«01:06:17» ANNE MCELVOY: We have a question over there; be very 
patient, and then I think we should take some  people in the further reaches of the North Pole at the back.  Hello. 
«01:06:30» AUDIENCE: My question regards you mentioned Sweden, 
before.  I'm from Sweden, and almost all the problems you mention  in the book we don't have or we've solved. 
«01:06:40» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Congratulations. 

«01:06:42» AUDIENCE: So my question is: why is that not 
brought up more as an example, when people say "It doesn't work" or "We  can never do this?" 
«01:06:52» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: It's a great question, 
and one of the funny- I don't know if this happens here,  maybe it doesn't, but one of the funny things that happens  in American politics is when people talk about the things I talk about people -  even Hillary Clinton said this - "Well, we're not Scandinavia."  Who's proud of that?  It's very interesting; it actually does come up in American  politics quite a bit.  I think Sanders and Warren probably talk about that as an example; and look,  one of the reasons it's a little bit of a disanalogy is because,  at least the United States, you're talking about 350 million people;  it's just a level of social complexity that is different. 
I think, a big part of the problem- 
I understand there's a growing immigrant population and Sweden and other  Scandinavian countries, but America has a racial issue that has made  it very, very complicated to do these kinds of programmes,  because a lot of people perceive these programmes as white people funding  undeserving coloured people.  People of colour. 
«01:07:55» ANNE MCELVOY: Well, 
that would be certainly true of Sweden, where immigration is- 
«01:07:58» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Right, 
but the numbers are just different. 
«01:08:01» ANNE MCELVOY: It absolutely drives the challenge 
to the existing political party. 
«01:08:04» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: There's been evidence in Sweden and 
elsewhere that as that immigrant population has grown,  social trust and the willingness to anonymously help other people has gone down.  So that's a challenge; but I do think it's a story that needs  to be told more and more, so please tell it. 
«01:08:18» ANNE MCELVOY: Question one; 
over at the left side.  Thank you. 
«01:08:22» AUDIENCE: You haven't mentioned political 
funding and donations.  Does this play a part in sustaining the system your thesis is about? 
«01:08:33» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Yes, 
it's a great point; and in many ways-  I don't know how much…  I think you'll do less of it here; we spend two or three billion dollars in  political donations per election cycle, which is…  Our election cycles are basically two years long.  It's another thing you do very sensibly here, you do them in five minutes.  (LAUGHS) 
«01:08:54» ANNE MCELVOY: But we have rather a lot of them, don't we? 

«01:08:56» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Right, 
what you lack in duration…. 
«01:08:59» ANNE MCELVOY: We make up for in frequency, yeah. 

«01:09:01» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: No, 
it is an enormous part of this story; and it's not specifically the story I  tell in the book, in part just because it's a whole other thing.  This book Dark Money by Jane Mayer is sort of a companion book to my book; she talks  about, in this case, how the political right used philanthropy,  but also political donations to completely grab hold of power,  and it's a very big part of the story.  My book is in a way what happens after that, when you now have that power grabbed and  social problems multiplying, and people making a lot of money because  they get special breaks from the Congress; what do they then do with that money to  further entrench their power? 
«01:09:38» But you're right; 
I don't know what my magic wand thing is - people sometimes ask if you could do one  thing to fix your country - but that's a top three candidate.  I think if you get all money out of American politics,  actually the world as a whole would become a better place the next day,  in a way that's hard to imagine a few other changes achieving. 
«01:09:55» ANNE MCELVOY: But you must acknowledge that is very- 
we cannot get money out of politics. 
«01:10:00» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Sure you can. 

«01:10:02» ANNE MCELVOY: Money and politics have gone hand in hand 
forever.  Ancient Rome, if not before that. 
«01:10:06» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: But no other country does it the way 
we do; no other country as as much money as we do.  So the idea that you can't do it when everybody else- 
«01:10:11» ANNE MCELVOY: {No, 
every democracy I've worked in has had problems with party funding. 
«01:10:15» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Sure, 
but three billion dollars is a lot of money; and the reality is,  it's not just about the donations, and 'I gave to you,  so you could do something for me'.  It's actually about time.  Most of these members of Congress don't go to their committee hearings,  because they have to spend three, four, five, six,  seven hours a day in their office on a phone, calling donors.  Most American legislators spend maybe most of their time,  certainly much of their time, raising money.  I don't know if that; but if it explains why your friends  across the Atlantic are crazy, that's that may be one reason.} 
«01:10:58» AUDIENCE: I'd like to paraphrase you. 
You were talking about how the biggest shared social problems involved some  people having power and another person not having power.  These can't be solved with win-win solutions; someone has to lose.  So I'd like to maybe ask, do we just usurp those in power or is  there a trade-off?  Can we swap power for something like social recognition,  or a different type of respect that actually is fulfiling? 
«01:11:24» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: That's interesting; 
I think the remarkable thing about democracies in theory,  is that they've created a peaceful way to take power away from a few and  devolve it to the many.  That is a lot better than the previous ways we had of doing that that involved swords;  so when you got kids out of factories with their little nimble fingers,  the factory owners did not that.  That was a really good labour source; they were not going to lead the way on  getting kids out of the factories, you're going to have to do that over their  objection.  But democracy provides a way to do that where you create a law.  The nice thing for them is, everybody is subject to that law: it's  not a mafia guy coming to them and saying 'You can't have children in your factory',  everybody can't have children.  That creates a level playing field; and then the society also decided to  start building public schools for those children, and you know what?  Some of those factory owners may have discovered that the next crop of  slightly older people you got ten years later, they were a little smarter,  a little more productive; because they actually hadn't been  fiddling with pinheads from the time they were four years old,  they'd actually been learning math and they were actually able to do more  things for that company. 
«01:12:50» So I am actually not someone who 
justifies doing the right thing by saying it'll give people profit -  that's in fact the opposite in my eyes - but actually in many cases,  when people lose in the short term in that way -  you lose your kiddie labour supply and you didn't consent to that,  but the Society made that decision - it actually does translate into a more decent,  dignified, fun to live in society,  where you're not seeing street urchins who work in factories all day and sleep on  the street.  That actually is better for all of us to live in,  unless you're out there person; and so I think what people need to understand  on - including on the tax issue;  {I have a lot of European friends in business jobs, finance, tech,  who come visit us in America, and they're always appaled.  And what appals them is, they see Americans fantasising that the  only way it would be possible to have a business sector is if you had an  incredibly cruel society.  That's the story they hear from America; and they're here to say,  "I'm from France, we have bankers in France.  It's okay to give people health care and protect their jobs a little bit";  they don't do it perfectly, but I have French friends who say "I'd  much rather live in a society in which you don't die of a flu,  because you work 29 hours at Target instead of 30",  which is how the country I live in works.  It is actually nicer for all of us to live in a society that is not full of cruelties.} 
«01:14:23» ANNE MCELVOY: I think we can agree in that. 
So where does this leave us?  I was just thinking, as you were talking about the things  that you might have touched on it in history; and it would be perhaps going back to  the tension between incremental and sweeping change.  That's a very fundamental tension in political and economic development.  So a lot of things that you just touched on there very eloquently were great  causes of liberals, Whig elites - people who I'm sure would have fallen  foul of you at Davos; in the great country houses,  having a high old time - but they were ultimately on the  progressive side.  So have the great liberals been of the 19th century;  many of whom would have moved too slowly for you on some things.  So would (UNCLEAR) 'Ludwig Earhart' perhaps fallen foul of you;  he would have been at Davos talking about the social market,  and you'd be "No!  Get on with it faster, change more!" 
«01:15:18» Do you have any worry that the desire 
for sweeping change - which is quite an easy demand to make;  and it reflects frustrations and unhappiness and justified outrage,  about some of the cruelties you've just described there -  can sometimes be its own worst enemy, because it doesn't produce as good a  result as a more incremental approach? 
«01:15:39» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: It depends if you think creating a 
health care system in the United States that would some be somewhat similar to the  NHS - that nobody in this room wanted to get rid  of - if you think that is massive sweeping  revolutionary change, that's fine.  When I think about, I think of it differently.  I think right now in America we have a lot of complexity in the system.  We have all these insurance companies, we have this whole infrastructure;  and we also have a programmeme called Medicare that's only for old people,  and the most radical programmes in America offering a changeup.  Here's how they work; they take the program that's working for  old people and they just lower the age by five years next year.  And you know they do the next year?  It is lowered again by five years, and then it's lowered again by five years.  If that is radicalism, then maybe we're all radicals,  but the reality is that is not radical at all.  History actually supplies a definition of radical change,  where you lock people up- 
«01:16:40» ANNE MCELVOY: Yes, but if you went and said to another country, 
"Do you want this system imposed on you?", they would say no.  The Germans would probably keep their insurance-funded system;  so would the French, it's not absolutely clear that everyone wants  one thing, which seems to be the stressed premise here. 
«01:16:57» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Medicare-For-All polls incredibly 
successfully in America; the people who don't want it are  insurance companies.  It's very, very obvious; Republicans in large numbers that are shocking  now, given the history of this issue, have gone.  Because the nice thing is, Republicans and Democrats actually all  have ailing mothers. 
«01:17:16» ANNE MCELVOY: But I suppose, 
does your answer go any broader than one policy area -  which in your defense, we could stay on,  but we've touched on a bit - which is this tension between the incremental- 
«01:17:26» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: I reject the premise that reversing 
the right-wing takeover of our ideology and society,  by the idea that government is bad and public purpose is bad and the private is good;  I reject the premise that restoring sanity is massive change.  It's no more massive a change than the change to get in here;  if you consider that coming in massive change, then sure,  it's massive change.  I actually think it's reform, in the great tradition of reform;  I think it's very analogueueous to what happened in the Progressive Era in the United  States, the New Deal, where you're actually building  institutions and systems that are not trying to upend tradition,  that are just frankly dealing with the world as it is now. 
«01:18:13» {New situations have arisen; 
people now lose jobs to new technologies faster than they did before.  China is a new factor that no one understood 15 years ago,  and we haven't updated anything in the common infrastructure of society to  protect people from the vicissitudes of life.  To suggest that you want to build a few new institutions every generation,  to meet the problems you are seeing people have,  to me is not radical, it's not revolutionary, it is normal.} 
«01:18:41» ANNE MCELVOY: Question One; 
the first round of applause here, and than question one.  You get paid in applause here. 
«01:18:50» AUDIENCE: Your talk is wonderful to me; 
I appreciate what you've been saying. 
«01:18:56» ANNE MCELVOY: Could you speak up a little bit? 

«01:18:58» AUDIENCE: I appreciate what you've been saying. 
My problem is, I'm wondering if there are any heroes or budding  heroes, as you look out and you see people that are  operating - and I'm not talking about the political world  - do you see people that are acutally,  trying to champion the common good in America?  Who are they and how can they be publicised? 
«01:19:26» ANNE MCELVOY: Can I just take question (UNCLEAR) 
we're going to get towards the end, just a few more things I wanna squeeze out  of you, few more arguments to be had.  Question Two. 
«01:19:37» AUDIENCE: First of all, 
thank you for coming and talking to us; really enjoyed your talk as well.  I actually wanted to ask something following on from the first question,  about how can we all make a difference, work towards the same goal?  What role can global institutions and systems, where this change that sets the rules  and then from there on politicians and philanthropists and said petitions can  work together toward the same goal?  What kind of role can global institutions play? 
«01:20:09» ANNE MCELVOY: Well, 
that's very nice, because the first question -  thank you very much - about individuals who you see  exemplifying the common good, if I understood it,  maybe driving it on; and then the question about institutions. 
«01:20:19» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: I would in some ways, 
at least from an American perspective, challenge the little bit of despair that  I heard in your question, which is, I actually think this is happening.  If you look at the 2018 election, the number of women in the US -  the midterm elections; the number of women who ran for office - unprecedented,  and that is a symptom of something.  That to me suggests- it's not easy to run for office.  You got to raise the money that we talked about;  you put your life on hold; if you have kids,  they go through a lot; if you're a woman,  you get beat up online in a way that men don't, that's a lot.  Thousands of women more than ever before, decide to run.  So why do they decide?  Not just for gender balance. 
«01:21:10» There was something about this 
president that we have, this moment, the untruths they saw -  the failure of people in those jobs, even on the other side,  to do something - that made them leave their jobs as  teachers or bartenders or whatever it was and get involved,  and that wave has continued.  I see it everywhere, and I think there is a real civic  renewal in the United States.  I think this idea that young people go to Silicon Valley when they want to make a  difference; I think that narrative is already turning.  I already hear so many- the number of people I know in the last  three or four months who are superstars, who could do anything;  who specifically swerved from some private sector thing to one of the  presidential campaigns, often in somewhat low capacities,  just to be on a presidential campaign is amazing.  I don't think they would have done that four years ago. 
«01:22:04» So I think the people to me who are 
heroes are ordinary people trying to take back change,  take back their society; and not doing it from the top down,  but doing it by actually organising power from the bottom up.  Building institutions in their community that actually don't just stay in their community,  but connect to others and form clusters and networks of power.  And I see those people everywhere, and I think we need to actually tell  their stories more.  When you give money away to graduation ceremony to some people,  you just get a certain kind of coverage that those kind of pp don't get. 
«01:22:45» ANNE MCELVOY: So as a proof of pudding - 
because at some point your case is going to have to be tested too -  do you think that a candidate running from the left of the Democratic Party's  going to win the next election in America? 
«01:22:58» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: The dumbest thing for journalists 
to do is make predictions; I just don't do it because that's not our  job.  I think the Democratic primary, a lot of people are exhausted by it  already because it's 25 people, or whatever it is;  an enormous number of people- 
«01:23:17» ANNE MCELVOY: We've nearly got that many in the Conservative Party race; much more. 

«01:23:21» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Cocaine is always a good winnowing agent; 
really thins out the ranks, not just the body. 
«01:23:33» ANNE MCELVOY: That's going to be an in joke for 
most of the world listening to this. 
«01:23:39» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: So one of the things I think is 
going to be great about this- I think it's going to be a fantastic primary,  I will say that.  I'm not going to predict who's going to win or whether they can beat Trump,  but I think it's going to be a phenomenal primary; because,  unlike any primary in my lifetime, this is a full intellectual smorgasbord  of everything you could ever get from a party on the left.  You have some very corporate, sincere believers in corporations in the party;  people who are probably, when they're out of politics,  immediately take a job at Facebook or Google or Goldman Sachs, and that's fine.  That's them.  You have Bernie Sanders, calls himself a Democratic Socialist;  you've Elizabeth Warren who's similar to him in many ways,  but calls herself a capitalist in her bones, in that reform tradition.  You have a lot of people who are sort of in the middle,  or maybe not we're not quite clear; some new people,  we're not sure where they're going to land on these questions.  And so we are going to be treated to a real conversation about capitalism,  and whether it's to destroy the world as you make money or whether that should be  reformed at the core.  We're going to have a conversation about race; we already are.  All these candidates are talking about whether we should pay reparations for slavery;  that was a thing you just didn't ask presidential candidates.  I know it's a awkward topic here too; I asked Rory Stewart the other day in an  interview and he was like, "No."  Not for slavery, for colonialism; remember it? 
«01:25:03» So this feels, 
if Seinfeld was a show about nothing, this is going to be the primary about everything.  And I think that's very healthy, because you can't say ideas are off the  table or that the corporations are- This is a real competition of ideas. 
«01:25:19» ANNE MCELVOY: You said something interesting 
earlier when you were talking about Donald Trump,  about the sort of brutal clarity - even if it didn't sort of mean anything very  much, in terms of what sense you could make of  it in policy terms - that you felt the progressives,  if I'm understanding right, had to learn a bit from that.  Some people looking at that said, "What we need is more starry figures running";  probably where I'm going with this, which is the Oprah for President trope.  So Oprah for President; nightmare, or the realisation of all of your dreams in  one glitzy, cut-through, progressive figure. 
«01:25:56» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: I think Oprah herself understands 
the truth of what I'm about to say - and agrees with me, probably,  which is why she's not running for president -  which is that I think Oprah for President, a great question.  Oprah for President is the kind of thing that may look the perfect antidote to this  problem, but is just slightly better poison.  Because this is not about whether you're a good person or not;  Oprah is a fantastic person.  That's not what it's about. 
«01:26:24» Oprah would be running because she 
has made a tremendous amount of money and can self finance a campaign.  That's the whole fantasy on the Left; that you could have someone rich, unencumbered,  spend their own money.  And you might win an election, you might not win a election;  but what you would do is you would leave undisturbed some of the fundamental  trend lines in American life, that have turned America into a casino  where the billionaires always win.  And it seems to me that if you're trying to stop America from being a place where  the billionaires always win, a billionaire, no matter how noble,  is not the best foot to put forward. 
«01:27:07» ANNE MCELVOY: Should anyone be a billionaire? 

«01:27:09» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: I think we should just have a 
moratorium on billionaires for a while and see if we're better off;  and we can go back if we all decide we've somehow accidentally impoverished ourselves.  Look, the reality is I don't think there's a  policy that could guarantee- I guess there is,  that would probably be pretty extreme; but I think if you created-  we talked about Sweden, the guy stands up.  He pays higher taxes in Sweden if you live there and various other things,  but he just stood in front of this entire room and says,  his country basically does not have most of the social problems that I've been  describing tonight.  That's pretty good; and from what I understand,  it's a slightly tougher place to become a billionaire and keep your billions,  but that's the bargain they do. 
«01:27:56» I think if we taxed wealth appropriately, 
tax inheritances appropriately, gave everybody a more robust education  so they can actually make their own way to a greater extent in the new world we've  built, gave people healthcare -  so that a flu is not losing five years of your life to a debt spiral,  and on and on and on - I think we would end up with a society  that works way better for most people.  I think the goal is not to make sure there's no billionaires,  I think if you actually had competition policy that prevented monopolies and  wealth taxes and all those things; I think as an incidental by-product,  the ability to make 150 billion dollars would be greatly reduced.  And I have a feeling - I'm willing to be wrong, and we can try -  I have a feeling most people wouldn't be worse off.} 
«01:28:48» ANNE MCELVOY: Last question; 
I'm going to take you back up that mountain to Davos you spoke about in the beginning,  and you've got all these elites- Look at these elites in front of you,  look at how well heeled they are; and they've all got their chequebooks open,  in fact this lady over here started already -  and you can get them- I know you didn't want to choose one thing  earlier, so I'm not going to say choose one thing,  but you can't do an entire lecture.  These elite say, "Look, we hear what you say;  we think we have had a lot of power given to us -  probably too much wealth - and we want to, in that awful phrase, 'give back'.  But we don't want to do it in a way that would just won't get us anywhere".  So give them a couple of pointers; what should our elites here in our  pretend Davos gathering here in London do tonight,  with their wealth. 
«01:29:38» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Give in the spirit of FDR; 
give in a way that actually puts your own privilege at risk.  Give in ways that increase the odds of the bad system,  that allowed you to make your money, will be broken down through your giving.  Give in a way that actually makes it harder for anybody to ever again make as  disproportionate - to use a word Mackenzie Bezos used about her  fortune - to make a disproportionate fortune.  She talked about, "I have a disproportionate amount of money";  well, that's true, but I would hope that when she and others  give, she's giving in ways that make it harder  to make a disproportionate - which is a correct word -  fortune next time. 
«01:30:20» This is not a mystery. 
What a lot of people at the very, very top of the mountain have tried to  convince us is that this is hard, this is unknowable, we have no idea;  but the reality is, the basic rudiments of a decent,  dignified life for most people, are not a crazy mystery.  We know what achieves it; there's enough countries and enough  variety to know they do this and they get that outcome,  they do a bunch of those things, they get that outcome -  you guys are similar to us, but you have the NHS and you get way  different outcomes on that score - and to just learn from each other a little  bit.  And not do crazy things that are rash, but actually build the kinds of systems  that allow to live with dignity; and if you are at the very top,  I think what I would urge you to do - whether you're willing to do that or not -  is to increase the odds that we change this system and we reform this system,  and not increase the odds that we delay doing so. 
«01:31:18» ANNE MCELVOY: Anand Giridharadas, 
thank you very much for joining us. 
«01:31:24» ANAND GIRIDHARADAS: Thank you. 

«01:31:34» ANNE MCELVOY: Thank you very much to Intelligence Squared, 
of course, for hosting us tonight so brilliantly as always,  and to you the audience; and there is, you guessed it, a book signing,  somewhere outside, and there will be shortly be an author at  it. 
UNCLEAR 

Hello, and welcome to this Intelligence Squared event; 
tonight, The Revolt Against The Rich.  At glitzy gatherings - from Davos and Aspen to spin-offs all  around the world - former heads of state,  Silicon Valley bosses and Hollywood A-listers champion philanthropy as the  way to solve the world's most pressing problems.  But scrutiny about how much money is spent and how much influence it buys is growing.  How effective is the do-gooding of the Davos class,  and might those dollars be better used elsewhere, perhaps in paying more taxes while  they're getting rich? 
«01:37:56» My guest today argues that the top 
1% of earners have little interest in social change when the  status quo has served them so very well.  Anand Giridharadas is a McKinsey man gone rogue,  now tearing down his former idols in the bestselling book “Winners Take All: The  Elite Charade of Changing the World”.  He says he hopes it will encourage the few enlightened phi to become traitors to  their class, and the rest of us to stop handing over  our future to the elite, one supposedly world-changing initiative at  a time. 
«01:38:52» In his day job, 
Anand is editor-at-large for Time Magazine and a political analyst for MSNBC.  Welcome, Anand. 
«01:39:09» So you're a graduate of Oxford and Harvard, 
you've done very well in life, you're very succesful at what you do;  are you  a member of the elite? 
«01:40:28» Anand Giridharadas, 
thank you very much. 
 

Completed work is marked by the “END OF TRANSCRIPT” sign at the bottom of every page.

 

--- END OF TRANSCRIPT ---

 
 

-VIEW MODE-


/*********** style="visibility: hidden;" mp4 mp3 ****************/
00:00:00