Winners Take All | Anand Giridharadas | Talks at Google

What Hacker News said

Strong rec mistersquid · 2018-10 · on “Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World [video]”

Giridharadas talk is explosive in terms of its ideas. From what I can tell, he's not pulling any punches even though he's been invited to speak on a Google campus (Boston). At 29:03 Giridharadas challenges his audience to demand that Google (and other Silicon Valley companies) generate an annual political disclosure to its employees, the very people in his audience. [0] As a side note, Giridharadas is very clear and measured in his articulation, and I found that speeding the video to 1.5 times normal rate to be a good delivery speed (YMMV). What Giridharadas says prior to the timecode I referenced is also provocative and politically risky. I can't yet comment on his entire talk, but the qual

Strong rec pdkl95 · 2019-02 · on “Is Philanthropy Anti-Democratic?”

One of the best explanations why "philanthropy" and "novel (disrupting), win-win solutions" for systemic problems is highly anti-democratic (and inciting class warfare) is Anand Giridharadas's recent talk[1] at Google[2]. I strongly encourage everyone - especialy anyone employed at Google - to watch it. [1] [this video] [2] Google is the perfect venue for this talk.

Strong rec CharlesColeman · 2019-03 · on “The Oppression of the Supermajority”

> But a system of philanthropy is inherently biased insofar as since donors can and do choose charitable causes that match their own preferences. Anand Giridharadas goes pretty deeply into that idea in this talk that he did at Google. I highly recommend watching it, I thought it was elucidating. [this video] I want to read his book "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" but I haven't gotten to it yet.

Strong rec Shacklz · 2021-04 · on “Artist faked being a billionaire to photograph New York City’s best views”

> It's way nicer on our side, where we do win-win deals, and know to be happy, the people around us need to be happy. If you would like this world-view to undergo some critical analysis, I strongly recommend Anand Giridharadas' take in "Winners take All" (condensed in this google-talk here: [this video] ). He specifically addresses the negative points of the "win-win"-mentality, and in my opinion, makes a strong point that a society built on a "win-win" culture is bound to be doomed.

Strong rec abuob · 2026-06 · on “American capitalism has taken an apocalyptic turn”

If you're genuinely curious, a few suggestions that I personally found incredibly enlightening: Anand Giridhardas, Winners Take All: The book is fantastic, there's also his now infamous google talk where he talks about dismantling google: [this video] Thomas Piketty, Capital in the 21st century: Probably the most comprehensive (but at times also longwinded) outline on how wealth inequality comes to be, why it's not good for society and how it could be adressed

Recommends IBM · 2018-10 · on “An Alternative History of Silicon Valley Disruption”

I think you'll like this talk by Anand Giridharadas [1]. He makes the point that the tech industry still thinks they're the pirates and don't realize that they're the navy. [1] [this video]

Recommends pdkl95 · 2018-12 · on “Adding Up the Cost of Tax Breaks for Big Tech’s Data Centers (2016)”

> “win win” (company gets subsidy, area gets jobs) Anand Giridharadas recently gave an a great talk[1] (at Google!) in which he explains how "win win" is a charade used to set the framing of the conversation. Framing a plan (like a subsidy) as something that benefits everyone has good optics, but it implicitly creates a framing that only considers that plan. (it's either this plan or "you get nothing"). Without the restricted framing, the choice isn't a binary "subsidies or nothing"; there are many ways that money could be spent. (e.g. maybe going without that business and investing in education or infrastructure would provide a greater benefit). [1] [this video]

Recommends sleazy_b · 2019-01 · on “Down with philanthrocapitalism, says an entertaining polemic”

I read this book and, to be honest, did not enjoy it very much. It consists largely of profiles of people involved in this sort of philanthrocapitalism. The main theme seems to be that the ultra-wealthy have coopted the work of social institutions in such a way as to undermine efforts for truly revolutionary change, that is change that might threaten them. The premise is interesting but the content is pretty boring. I got tired of reading about people whom the author believes to be mislead or malicious or otherwise on the wrong path. For those interested he gave a talk at Google in Cambridge that was pretty good. [this video]