I was really drawn to this book by two things: 1) Giridharadas’ outstanding “The True American: Murder and Mercy in Texas,” and 2) a Slate podcast in which the author outlines some of the themes of this book.

But once I dove into it I was a little disappointed: the author takes full aim at the few rich people who actually give a damn about what’s going on in the world beyond their gated communities. I just don’t see the point of it, unless such people really need a waking up. I suspect they pretty much know they’re collaborators with the devil.

Still, there are a number of themes in the book that bear comment, themes that I throw around in my mind regularly.

For example, Giridharadas correctly lionizes Thomas Piketty’s fine volume “Capital.” Wealth does show a trend to consolidate itself. And indeed all the world’s democracies need to take aim at a progressive wealth tax more than an income tax if they hope to reverse the trend, to shut down the tax havens, to nail the money-launderers, and isolate the Russian kleptocrats.

Westerners do need to view their own governments at once more seriously and with a more critical eye. Our constitutions are not perfect, do need review, and do need a less tortuous path to reform. However, our governments are as clear a picture of their constituents as anything. Our governments are our neighbours, our collective aspirations, and our failure to address the inertia of budgets and priorities. We needn’t let our paranoia overtake the reality of the situation.

There is also the question of who is wise enough to govern ourselves. Giridharadas clearly thinks the titans of commerce are not. Not having known any of them I can’t say as I can agree or disagree with him.

Regretfully, Americans display annoyance that their President is not the Emperor. So many of them side with Donald Trump these days I have been seriously taking a hard look at my vacation plans.

Like Churchill, the author seems to think that democracy is the worst way to govern ourselves, except for all the others. I’d like to believe him. I’ve never had much success at moving my governments one way or t’other on some relatively pedestrian inequities I’ve seen in our laws.

Running for office is no picnic. ( )

After a couple chapters, this book dragged and felt hard to get through. While I don't disagree with the author at all, I feel like he cherry-picked people to include. (And at times I wondered if the subjects he included were aware of how they were going to be portrayed in his book.) Finally, while everyday individuals obviously contribute to the unequal society we currently inhabit, why point the finger at everyday folks instead of the people with, you know, actual power? ( )

Thought leaders p.6 improving lives W/in the faulty system; p.30 McKinsey-Market World "its own thinkers called thought leaders"; p.38 self styled thought leaders (Adam Grant); p.60 conferences and companies ( )

This book was a real eye-opener for me. It helped me to understand why I was always vaguely uncomfortable with elites helping the disadvantaged. It is because they are offering the equivalent of "band-aid" solutions without addressing the underlying causes of inequality, poverty or discrimination. They are, in effect, protecting the status quo and their privileged position within it.

The other insight I gained was that when powerful, market-based elites step in, they are crowding government out. They want to avoid regulations that could hurt their businesses, so they provide "solutions" such as apps to average out fluctuating wages hoping to avoid labour laws that would provide employees with more stable hours of work. Governments are accountable to citizens; corporations are not. As a society, we need to work through our democratic institutions, not undermine them.

As the author points out, not every philanthropist is evil; they may not think too hard about what they are doing. In their minds, they work hard. They donate millions. They are good people. Sadly, I fear, this will only make bringing about change more difficult. But not impossible.

A critically important book! Well written in an engaging style. ( )

Loved this book. This has been a topic I've been very interested in. I feel like for the last few years, I have been reading and listening to things that help to give me tools to describe why Silicon Valley makes me very uncomfortable and why I don't think it should be a model for the rest of society. This book goes a lot broader than that and I loved everything it covered. I loved it as a sociology major but I would recommend it for anyone. ( )

"The winners of our age must be challenged to do more good. But never, ever tell them to do less harm." These are lines from a speech given by Anand Giridharedas, the author of this book, at the Aspen Institute which eventually led him to write this book. It is the central theme and driving force for the book and it really crystallized for me something that I was having trouble defining. I believe in solving problems through government and we have totally abandoned that idea for the "win-win" based world of private philanthropy. As he says "when a society helps people through its shared democratic institutions, it does so on behalf of all, and in a context of equality." I miss those days. The distrust of government, exacerbated by the crimes of Watergate and then boosted by President Reagan in the 80s has left us wide open to those who "weren't interested in making politics work better, but insisting on their own proprietary power..." This book is fascinating and it benefits greatly from the author's acknowledged insider status. The questions it asks are important and not easy to answer, but in the end it made me feel better to have read it, to remember the way we used to work together to make systems better instead of just making them so some people could make egregious profits. If we EVER fix the tax system to get back to a reasonable set of rates (hell, even the Reagan rates would be better than what we have now), if we strengthen labor laws so we don't allow companies to classify everyone as a contractor and not provide any steady wages or benefits, and if we provide an education system that lifts everyone in public schools then things can get better. I am so tired of the ubiquity of business talk in all segments of life and the elevation of the entrepreneur to the pinnacle of our society. Fixing the systems is what we need to be doing, not throwing some band aids at the symptoms. As Mr. Girdharadas says, "Generosity is not a substitute for justice." Far too often now we "replace civic goals with narrower concerns about efficiency and markets." Government should not be run like a business. I think we can all see that now. I am going to look at all the candidates for public office and really throw my support to those that want to fix things not figure that a rising tide will raise all boats. My only complaint about this book is that a couple of times he seems to circle back and introduce someone we have already met and there is some level of repetition throughout the book, but it is a very readable and understandable book that makes extremely important points. ( )

Successful business people often like to use the phrase “doing well by doing good”. Whether they are designing new apps and software that create a new market and so increasing the size of the pie (think Uber and Airbnb), or supporting philanthropic work, the author argues that the financial elites are able to look good without truly doing well by society.

He gives the example of those paying very low wages to their workers and denying them health benefits, but donating very large amounts to medical projects such as a new hospital wing or clean water in Africa.

He differentiates between critics whose demands for change tend to make business leaders shut down and ‘thought leaders’ who advocate small changes withing the system that make no fundamental changes – ie teaching women to use more assertive body language while speaking to men.

He also tackles globalization, which creates businesses without local taxes to support education, infrastructure and hospitals within a community.

This was a selection for my Real Life Book Club, and it gave lots of food for thought and great discussion. Not an easy read in such a politically divided time, but it definitely expanded the way I view many current topics.

” Talking about the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) and using philanthropic solutions rather than political solutions: “One could forget, watching such a civilized group, that traditional politics is argumentative for a reason. It isn’t that politicians don’t know how to be nice, but rather that politics is rooted in the idea of a big, motley people taking their fate into their own hands. Politics is the inherently messy busines of negotiating and reconciling incompatible interests and coming up with a decent plan, designed to be liked but difficult to love. It solves problems in a context in which everyone is invited to the table and everyone is equal and everyone has the right to complain about being unserved and unseen. Politics, in bringing together people of divergent interests, necessarily puts sacrifice on the table. It is easier to conjure win-wins in forums like this one, where everyone is a winner. The consensus was a reminder of all the kinds of people and perspectives that had not been invited in. “ p220 ( )

No idea what point the book is trying to make. It's a criticism of rich people acting in their self-interest (what a shocker). I don't really disagree with anything written I just don't think I learned anything or read any novel ideas that made me think. ( )

I read most of this title on a substitute flight from San Francisco after my original one was cancelled, so I was in an uncomfortable seat and trying to zone out. I say this because it was an apt setting, as the very frequent flyer next to me flirted with the flight attendant and they each tried to one-up the other in their respective knowledge of the American Airlines fleet. The premise is that we have no good reason to assume that the most wealthy in our society should have taken charge of all that they do, too often try to use philanthropy as a substitute for real problem solving, and aren't even very skilled at what they rule over. And the fact that this small group has largely segregated themselves from the rest of us is a corollary, enforcing further his main point. If you want the public sector to be strengthened and reclaim its work that has been contracted out, Giridharadas has the ideas for you. ( )

“The only thing better than controlling money and power is to control the efforts to question the distribution of money and power. The only thing better than being a fox is being a fox asked to watch over hens.”

We live in a world where most large societal problems only seem solvable by somebody who possesses endless resources. So when that man (it’s almost always a man) comes riding down on his horse, offering help, we rarely stop and question his motivations, or how he got all of that power in the first place.

This book, by Anand Giridharadas, is an excellent analysis of how our capitalist society has created inequalities, and how the very people who have historically benefitted from this divide are working hard to paint themselves as the people who can solve the inequality. The author puts it well when he says that you cannot use the master’s tools to take apart his own house; i.e., you cannot use the byproducts of capitalism to fix the problems of the free market.

The venture capitalists who invest in fancy Silicon Valley start-ups don’t see themselves as powerful parts of systemic oppression, they see themselves as rebels against “the man”. Elon Musk tells people that he’s only interested in advancing science, but does not acknowledge the dangers of privatizing space travel and rarely mentions the extent to which he profits off of these “common-good efforts”. For generations the innovation of society at large has only been helping those at the top of the totem pole, while the majority of Americans (and people in the world at large) have been fruitlessly attempting to catch up. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the wealthy trying to help, the problem comes when they do this in a direct attempt to keep people satisfied in the system that created these issues in the first place. Bill Gates is a great man, but the extent of his wealth is the byproduct of an unfair machine that needs to be fixed. So if his tens of millions of dollars given to charity make people feel less inclined to stand up and say “Hey, isn’t it messed up that he has that much money?” then it can be a reason for concern. Some corporations go out of their way to truly do good things (one example the book gives is the choice AirBnB made to reduce racial profiling, when it easily could have blamed the users and not the platform itself), but in order to properly respect these actions we must contextualize it by admitting that most businesses act solely out of their own interest of profits.

Especially in 2018, the conversation about corporate morality has pivoted towards social media. The book quotes French philosopher Foucault in regards to the “state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power.” Our communications (and really, our lives) are being controlled by small groups, and their image as philanthropists has helped quell any call for transparency. ‘Zuckerberg isn’t a bad guy, he donated a bunch of money to a hospital in San Francisco!’ But now we learn that he made a lot of that money by overlooking Russian cybercrimes that contributed to the hijacking of our democracy. Is Zuckerberg’s donation still valid and helpful? Yes. But does this mean that he is a net positive to a system that has allowed him near limitless power over our lives? God, no.

This book is great. If you disagree with what I’ve said in this review, you should read it. If you agree with it, then you still should read it. Obviously it’s all opinion, but it’s a well-informed and researched stance that sheds a lot of light on how we got to where we are, and how this is not normal. We used to rely on a transparent and publicly funded government to help us, and now we look to independent agents who are profiting off of our suffering. Anand does more justice to the argument than I ever could, but I can promise that this book is worth your time.

Parts of it kind of dragged, hence the lack of a 5 star review. It took me a long time to finish because I had a crazy busy semester, but hot dog am I happy that I did finish it.

Another quote:
“Investing has become the genteel occupation… gentleman investors decide what ideas are worth pursuing, and the people pitching to them tailor their proposals accordingly. The companies that come out of this are no longer pursuing profit, or even revenue. Instead, the measure of their success is valuation- how much money they’ve convinced people to tell them they’re worth... They, too, honestly believed they were changing the world, and offered the same kinds of excuses about why our day-to-day life bore no relation to the shiny, beautiful world that was supposed to lie just around the corner.”
( )

A scathing indictment of the insane financial system our world seems to be at the mercy of. Giridharadas is a compelling author, this is meticulously researched and professionally argued. It's hard not to get angrier with each page and I know if a non-fiction book/movie/show gets me really angry, it's almost always because the product is good and the cause is just. It's surprising to me how thin skinned the elite are - they can't possibly swallow the fact that the way they made their money is immoral, the amount of money they have is immoral and that simply taxing them more and doing less harm would reduce much of the world's problems, instead of "side-hustle" B Corporation projects about "helping" people. Great book. ( )

About once a year I read a book that makes me uncomfortable, but also crystallizes the cloudy misgivings I’ve had,
yet couldn’t figure out how to explain. Last year that book was An American Sickness. This time it is Winners Take All by Anand Giridharadas. He takes on the unscrupulous business practices of tech firms but also the problem of using mckinsey consultants for NGO-type work. As expected he skewers the Sacklers, yet also devotes a chapter to criticism of Clinton’s Third Way and the Clinton Global Initiative.
Im going to steal from the synopsis on the front flap:
“Giridharadas asks hard questions: Should the world’s gravest problems be solved by unelected elites rather than the public institutions they erode by lobbying and dodging taxes? How do those who commit injustice — like the family who helped seed the opioid crisis — use generosity to cover it up?
Giridharadas portrays these elite revolutionaries with sympathy and critique. They cling to a sincere if dubious belief that what’s best for humanity happens to be what’s best for them. But beneath their self-assurance, many confess festering doubts about their complicity in an unjust order. The reporting leads Giridharadas to the the conclusion that we need a change in how we seek change...Rather than rely on scraps from winners we must create more robust egalitarian institutions. Rather than trust solutions from the top down, we must take on the grueling democratic work of truly changing the world from the bottom up.” ( )

Powerful condemnation of TED-talk activism that promises salvation for the poor without requiring the rich to do anything other than open their pocketbooks. Neoliberal reformers comfort the afflicted but don’t afflict the comforted; they tell the rich to give back, not to take less; to do more good, but not to do less harm. These failed chiasmuses have real consequences, because it turns out you can’t actually do a lot of big things without government and laws as tools in the progressive arsenal. For products, for example, this ideology means certifying good instead of regulating bad, but if you don’t regulate bad, it may stay cheaper (because it is effectively subsidized by the regulatory system) and its proponents may be better at advertising. Thought leaders may have progressive ideals but present them softly, and the listeners don’t pick up on the subtle message of critique because they don’t have reason to do so. Depressing but convincing. ( )

“Winners Take All” could be the most important book I’ve read in the past year. Written by a self-defined “insider/outsider,” it is radical enough to provoke real discussion, but palatable enough to be readable by the quarries of Giridharadas. It is also superbly written, retelling a series of personal stories and decision points.

As Giridharadas concludes,“[the wealthy] are debtors who need society’s mercy and not saviors who need its fellowship” (page 261). This book is a scathing inquisition of the status quo, and turns the tables between the working and the ruling classes.

The book begins by contrasting public intellectuals and thought leaders; the former offer critiques of the system, while the latter applaud the efforts of leadership to change the world—one personal, market-based action at a time (“MarketWorld”). It then moves in to discussing wealth inequality, and the failures of traditional philanthropy.

Why is it that we believe business leaders would be good at everything else (placing them on the boards of NGOs and art institutes)? Why is it that we let the wealthy have decisions making (allowing them to decide where they give away the money they steward)? What if the value of money is derived from a public, from a society? What if wealth is collectively generated? What if the skills required to make money are different from those required to give it away productively? Maybe there’s a conflict of interest in letting the owning class solve the problems they’ve created. These are the questions Giridharadas leaves us with. ( )

In this book, Giridharadas quotes Audre Lorde "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House." Which pretty well sums up his point, which is that philanthropy and social change that is led by business elites has a natural bias towards continuing the systems that allow those elites to flourish. I had heard Giridharadas speak on the radio, and was intrigued by his thoughtfulness. I am glad to have read this book, as it gave me lots to think about. One interesting coincidence was that at work, and also my real life book group just listened to Brene Brown's TED talk on vulnerability. I liked the talk, but Giridharadas points out that Brown's analysis of shame and vulnerability doesn't include any of the external factors (crime, racism, poverty) that lead some people to have more feelings of shame and inadequacy than others.

However, I think that he was more persuasive as a speaker, than as a writer. Some parts of the book are stronger than others. I liked the discussions about the history of philanthropy. (Andrew Carnegie is a great example.) But other times I felt that he was repetitive. Overall I am glad to have read this book, which was thought provoking for me. I am not sure I totally agree with Giridharadas, but his analysis is interesting.

One thing that I think would have helped the book would have been if Giridharadas had included more of his personal story. In the afterward, he explains that he had originally been a part of the group that believes in market forces creating change, and gradually changed his mind. He has friendships and relationships with a lot of the people and institutions that he critiques. He left that out until the end, but I think that a book of narrative non-fiction that included his changing perspective could have been more powerful. ( )

This is a book that will make a lot of people unhappy. The author takes a critical and sometimes cynical look at the global elite of do-gooders. These are the very rich people attending global conferences talking about how to cure poverty. He asks questions like whether it would have been better to have paid their employees better in the companies they own rather than trying to cure the poverty that they caused. In particular, it take s critical look at the Clinton Global Initiative. ( )

The truth cascades from each page: the "WorldMarket" global elites - Clintons, TED people, social media CEOS, etc - all believe that they can be great philanthropists while denying the need for the rigged system to be overthrown. You can coax big bucks out of them by exhorting them to donate to a hospital in Uganda, but be sure to avoid reminding them that exploitation by Big Pharma is why medicine is unaffordable throughout the world. The author takes us back to Reagan's pronouncements about government being the problem, and reminds us that every administration since has allowed corporations to drive (or stall) any attempts at improving lives, including the destruction of unions, if there is going to be even the smallest impact on their bottom lines. Brilliantly told, with examples of well-meaning "thought leaders" who sold out and are laughing all the way to the banks and to Davos. ( )

Thought provoking look at how businesses win win works in relations to profit and helping others. ( )