Anand Giridharadas | It Is Immoral To Be A Billionaire (5/8) | Oxford Union
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 вер 2019
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
The Motion: This House Believes It Is Immoral To Be A Billionaire.
Anand Giridharadas continues the case for the Proposition, as the fifth speaker of eight in the debate.
Anand Giridharadas is the author of Winners Take All, and a former columnist for the New York Times, Giridharadas is currently Editor-at-Large for TIME and a political analyst at MSNBC.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
Watch the full debate here: ua-cam.com/video/LieWDaAA-6I/v-deo.html
A talk on immoral billionaires in front of future billionaires
Oxford doesn't make any relevant amount of billionaires: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_universities_by_number_of_billionaire_alumni
pretty much, makes the motion not passing less surprising.
Yeah whats up with that ?
amadexi Oxford did make a rapist and murderer who became the US president though
Lol it aint stanford
Love the shots of the billionaire children getting uncomfortable
Some idiot in the background is rotting away😅
Tax-bitchass biyatch No, you STFU bootlicker. There’s nothing wrong with fighting for fairness for all. You not the only one that lives on this planet.
The combined wealth of all billionaires in the US is 3 trillion. That is enough to run the government for 8 months.
I noticed that, too. When he said being a billionaire is immoral, they guy behind and to the left of him screwed up his face in an angry sneer. I LOL!
Dude got balls to basically say it in their snobby and spoilt faces.
The audience looks very uncomfortable especially the bow tie dude.
It's a debate, it means you have 2 team debating a subject. One has to say yes it's immoral and an other no it's not. The participants can't choose which team their are on
@@superpanda99show they're*
@@superpanda99show well the man did choose this side. He has literally written the book on this topic.
He receives a very handsome paycheck after all his speaking engagements. He talks a good game but never, ever speaks on any public figure or politician that offers solutions to the problems he’s constantly shining a spotlight on.
The facial expressions of many in the audience are both priceless and riveting
the students are so uncomfortable.. they all came to Oxford with a dream to become the next billionaires, and here's this man who is really poking at their dreams and pushing a sword into their hearts with the bare truth.. the truth is what makes it all the more uncomfortable for them
Rich people are not inherently evil and nor is it immoral to be rich. Demonizing the rich is a strategy for the poor to remain poor and not strive to be rich. Rich people employ so many and they contribute to the economy in a big way. That is what a capitalist economy provides.
@@tirthshah1580 Never said rich people are evil or immoral.. rich is a word with a multitude of meaning.. I said being a billionaire and working to stay there, with their pseudo charities and social photo ops, and that would include each and everyone of them.. that is just pure evil.. destroying your small scale competitors to monopolize the market, which also includes everyone of them, is again just everything evil.. oh and about employing people, I don't think they would or could do the manual labor.. next you might make a case for slavery, I hope not..
@@SinghalLouis Your jump from being competititve to 'everything evil' and employing people to 'slavery' is amusing. Every democratic country has anti-trust laws that promote competition. If you think big corporates employ slaves, try asking one of their employees would they rather run their own business or work for guaranteed pay plus overtime and have weekends off? Billionaires provide services that even well-minded philanthropists cannot. Billionaire Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Jio network provided cheap connectivity to those that never had it. Imagine nearly a billion people with access to the Internet. That is a great leveler. Now India is the leading market for investments in the digital space.
@Paul B Rich people do not owe us anything. But most do charities and some have even vowed to donate all their wealth before they die. I hope you are not living in poverty because you say "resources the rest of us need to survive". People in developed countries have basic necessities or a social net by the government. Emerging superpower India is on track to eradicate extreme poverty by 2030 and it is home to 140 billionaires.
@@tirthshah1580 if Jio has been the first telecom company to break even in record time, how is it 'cheap' service? Vodafone and Airtel were looting everyone, but that doesn't make Jio cheap, just makes it more fair than others.. There's a huge difference.. Law and 'cheap' excuses are all that these billionaire suck ups can come up with.. people's state of mind is not an excuse for tyranny.. German people supported Hitler in his tyranny because they were misled, or lazy to think for themselves, or scared, or intimidated.. doesn't matter.. But, that cannot be an excuse for Hitler's actions, can it? Employees state of mind CANNOT be an excuse for the unpardonable excesses of all of these heartless 'sadistic' billionaires
My man said: "I got the receipts"
😎 Love him!
Kanye East makes some good points.
HAHAHA
Damn hahah
Good one
Lulz
Bruh
Finance is a gun. Politics is knowing when to pull the trigger. -Mario Puzo
Sounds cool, but has nothing to do with reality, finance has been OUTSIDE of political influence for a long time now, and usually its finance that DECIDE politics, not the other way around.
“A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns.” is another good Mario Puzo quote
@@Grafomanokrasto same game same players
@@Grafomanokrasto I believe the FED and Switzerland would beg to differ....
All those children of feudal lords looking uncomfortable knowing their ancestors hoarded wealth through plundering faraway lands and trading slaves.
Yes cause Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey made their money plundering faraway land and the slave. Such a childish position.
@@pauliewalnuts100 he wasn't talking about them though
@@MineSomeCraftPoo The whole thing is about billionaires.
@@pauliewalnuts100 the commenter was talking about specifically those undergraduates in the audience at Oxford. Many of whom have very good family connections.
TheLegend27 is that factual or is that your belief? So they got there because they paid or because they got the right results at school?
Whether or not it is immoral, there is literally no reason to be a billionaire. The most expensive car in the world, for example, is just 3 million. From a practical standpoint, being a billionaire has no benefit to a persons personal life, its just a feeling or power. Also a billionaire doesn't not work 1000x harder than a millionaire. Being worth that much obviously is not an accurate indicator of skill or effort.
People become billionaires not by working 1000x harder, but by having their money work for them. Investing and reinvesting. It is absolutely an indicator of skill and effort or anyone would be able to accomplish it.
@@steverguyI don't think a billionaire's investing skills would be so much better than a millionaire or even than any given person with enough financial knowledge. The reason why the result is different is firstly that billionaires generally have more money to invest and secondly, they have more "inside information", which is not necessarily always illegal but still an information asymmetry. Interest by interest, even a maroon can become a billionaire as long as he hires a good finance consultant.
@@steverguy It takes absolutely no skill whatsoever to grow a fortune provided you have a sizable starting capital, as many billionaires did. For example: if you have a million dollars you can simply invest it in some S&P 500 ETF and then do nothing. No trading, no moving it around - nothing. Just sit on your ass. It will grow ~13% every year. In 30 years you'd have 39 million - all by doing nothing. And a billion dollars? A billion dollars is *1000 times a million dollars*. It is absolutely insane amount of money for one person. Every billionaire is a policy failure.
I can think of a case. For example, in an industry where specific products or services are only feasible from an MVP standpoint; such as the aerospace industry. In order to control the rudder of a company, the founders who have built it need to retain a significant proportion of equity (as in any start up business). The necessary capital and inherent valuation for minimum viable product or service will depend on the industry and the current technology of the time. Many billionaires are valued based on their on-paper share in the equity of the businesses which they have started. It's not a cash-in-the-bank-balance which they are hoarding, it's simply representative of their still-retained proportion of the current valuation of the business they have grown. Forcibly divesting them of that proportion in order to hold them below some arbitrarily-defined moral dollar amount would its self be an immoral act, bereaving them of the privilege and ability to continue to guide their own businesses with the vision they first employed to start them.
Elon Musks' proportion of SpaceX equity is significant, and its valuation is also significant. However it doesn't automatically imply inherent immorality just because on paper someone can write nine or more zeros past the dollar sign under his name. One man thinks 9 zeros is too much. Another thinks 7 is enough. It's arbitrary and subjective. I think that it is what we do with our money and how we acquire it which indicates our integrity or lack thereof, not simply the net value at some discrete point in time. That would be too 1-dimensional of a measure, and the problem is massively multi-variate by nature and requires more finesse to discuss rather than "billionaire = bad/good".
Donald Trump is an example of a system where you inherit a large sum of money, make bad business decisions, and still keep billionaire status through tax avoidance and various scams and settlements. If you have large enough capital, you'll still be rich unless you just give it all away.
Anand by far was the best speaker. His points were justified and made great arguments across the spectrum. Also, I liked that he didn't just read off a sheet and actually engaged in the debate.
Coming from a millioniar ha
Dude is spitting facts.
You fuckers live in glass houses don't you?
Strange. It sounds more like complaining. Fun fact: over 80% of billionaires existed today scarifice years of their lives to attain their wealthy status. They brought a product that benefit people as a whole. The only reason it seems to me that this intellectual individual state that it is immoral is for reasons that he wishes to be one. Life is not black or white. Billionaires should not suffer due to people who lack the fundamental understanding of money and how money works
saysomethingsmart comeonentertainme well maybe its more about wealth distribution. The assets that they accumulated are not contributing to the development of the society..well they got rich from the society because obviously the billionaires only make their workers richer and not redistributing their wealth proportionately to the ones that are really in need. Maybe.
@@dood1011 I have to say that your statement have some merit to it. Allow me to ask you this then. Would you distribute your wealth to your loyal friends who help you out or would you give it to complete strangers whom you know nothing of and dont know if they are using the money for good. Ofcourse the workers are getting rich, they do the same thing the billionaires do, provide value. The man does not seem to provide enough value to the millions out there whom benefit from his existence. Let me say one more thing, billionaires put their life on the line both figuratively and metaphorically by not paying themselves and suffering more than anyone for a better chance to keep their employee loyal and their customers happy. Build a company is no easy task. A task mind you that strip you away from your families while you (not specifically you) get to either sleep in bed or enjoy family outing.
saysomethingsmart comeonentertainme points taken. But my point in redistributing wealth is in form of philanthropy. Its simply wanting to improve the lives of others that are unfortunate, so you have to do it because you are selfless (after you are insanely rich). The billionaire’s company will satisfy those who contributed value to the stakeholders. Anyway I think its not immoral to be a billionaire, but its immoral to not redistribute the wealth. You get what I mean? But I know its really hard as well to redistribute wealth to the right target, I mean you want to provide sanitation,cure malaria, or tuberculosis (which will make you a zillionaire if you can) etc for example not just drop cash to the poor. But I kinda get your perspective, you’re thinking in a corporate way, everything comes with a price,well just correct me if Im wrong.
3.5 years I was homeless. Now am the COO of a small ecommerce corporation. We have a handful of employees that we pay minimum $15 to start with medical benefits and other perks for full time employees. I know what it's like to barely get by, go hungry, and not have a roof over my head. I would never want anyone who contributes towards my success to have to endure such situations I have endured before. Most of my employees get several raises a year based on performance and our profits made. The sky is the limit for growth and I would like them to learn skills that will help them later run their own businesses if they so wish. Myself and my business partners have not given ourselves raises for the last two years. We reinvest it all back into our business and our employees. Our employees are the back bone of the business, without them we would not achieve rapid growth. I will continue to improve on this business model for all my future businesses and treat my employees well, as I would have treated myself. They are as much family, and not just someone coming to earn a paycheck. This is our success story.
Anh Truong
If only there were more like you in the world. Unfortunately...
please teach people how to successfully manage businesses, so many fail because they don’t understand these basic tenants
What a powerful story, thank you for sharing. May I ask the name of the e-commerce so we could potentially support it?
“They hoard the future itself”. Bloody hell that time got me.
The "Wallet" analogy is spot on! Anand is an amazing voice for our movement. His opinion comes, like mine, not from a place of jealousy, but from human decency. Keep up the great work, together as a movement we can change hearts and minds!
It was a terrible analogy. Not even remotely similar to what businesses do.
@@lucdochterman9767 @Luc Dochterman I personally floated 5 separate businesses that lease commercial real estate I own during lockdowns (their combined rent is $13k a month x 5-9 months). I could have been stingy and let them fail but because they've always been loyal to me I decided to return the favor by not forcing them to pay rent for several months with money they didn't have, I told them to feed their families. I also run a successful 42-year restaurant equipment business I bought from my father. I make a fair living and so does everyone who works under me. I could easily hire people for less money but that's why I have some employees that have been with us for 30 years plus. At my business you start out at $30k while the average income in my town is $17k. My highest paid employee makes $60 and drives a personal truck that I purchased for them. I'm able to support my family, my parents, my employees and my renters and still walk away every year with $100k to myself. I want for nothing, drive a nice car, own a house, and still have more than enough money every year. I could make closer to $300K if I treat employees like most businesses do but morally I can't justify that. So you can say it's a bad analogy but as a long time successful business owner I think it's pretty damn accurate. Greed is immoral and my employees and renters pay me to live and they're beyond loyal...
@@ZERO_O7X a whole paragraph to still be wrong.
@@lucdochterman9767 and another whole sentence where you don't even have an opposing opinion. Bye troll! 🧟
@@ZERO_O7X im not going to waste my time to give a rebuttal to your dissertation.
It's a delight to listen to Anand.
In a world where everyone has enough to live in dignity there would be nothing morally wrong with being a billionaire. We don't live in that world though.
In our world, millions of people don't even have the resources to get adequate food or put a roof over their heads.
Rich people are not inherently evil and nor is it immoral to be rich. But for so long, films in India demonize the rich. Therefore, the poor remain poor and do not strive to be rich. Rich people employ so many and they contribute to the economy in a big way. That is what a capitalist economy provides.
@Paul B Be it automation or artificial intelligence, it is an unavoidable reality. The use of a calculator is automation and has only improved humans' lives. The leader of the world's biggest democracy has condemned efforts to demonize technology in his country. The debate over AI is needlessly pessimistic. AI can be for everyone's development. The need for labor is still present. Amazon fulfillment centers provide jobs for thousands in rural or suburban areas. Like Spartanburg, SC or Jefferson, GA in America.
Future Greatest President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Dude u are cringe worthy. Billionaire is an evaluation not that they have that money in Capital it’s all paper You DUMB FUCK
Paul B you’re wrong on that. The idea that for someone to be rich, others are poor is inherently flawed.
The world is richer now then it has ever been. Poverty has decreased in the last 50 yr than at any time in history. We have billionaires, millionaires and products to buy and sell. In the last century, the poverty standard was far lower than today, now people live in poverty in the west with cable tv and alcohol. That’s not poverty.
In the 19th century, millions died from starvation, plagues and disease. In the last 50 yrs, that number has decreased exponentially. Population growth has more than doubled and yet poverty is further away for that vast many on the planet.
It doesn’t matter if you’re a billionaire, millionaire or even wealthy, because everyone is becoming wealthier in a variety of different ways. From monetary, to food, to medicine to educationally.
I’m from a working class background, the vast majority of my friends are too. I can tell you I am richer now than my family were as a kid, as they are just through simple working, medicine, food production etc. We’ve gone from single glazed windows to double or triple, obesity becoming a problem not just in the west, but the east also.
That’s not a sign of poverty, it’s progress and choice.
Poverty would have been removed quicker had the old USSR fell faster and its ideology not spread to poor nations.
Obesity affects more people than hunger now. Billionaires are just gluttons with cash over food.
Anand killed it with the truth and it showed in their faces.
l d Nah. He just killed the truth.
"especially when Congress has made it legal to steal"
The pitchforks are slowly getting ready to rise up in mass
Only to eventually turn on each other after the "wealthy" are dealt with.
@@shauncameron8390 You're right. This has happened at least over 75 times in human history and it usually ends in genocide. BUT there are two sides to this when it comes to not learning from the past. Conservatives like to talk about the inevitable failures of communist revolutions, and rightfully so, however what the don't like to talk about are the conditions that inevitably lead to them happening in the first place.
There is an elephant in the room that neither side wants to talk about, and that is the Pareto Principle. If you don't know what this is, it's basically a mathematical natural law that ensures that the "losers" INEVITABLY become the majority in ANY natural system of distribution, while the shrinking number of "winners" take everything.
The left doesn't want to talk about it because it destroys the idea that we are all equal and ensures that the formation of hierarchies is inevitable, and the right doesn't want to talk about it because is destroys the idea that the "invisible hand of the market" will take care of everything.
If we don't find a way to deal with the destabilizing trends of the Pareto Principle, then we will continue seeing the cycle of austerity and communism. The inevitable austerity that's caused by the markets natural tendency toward the winners taking all, and the communist revolutions that happen as a response.
LIQUIDSNAKEz28 but didn’t you just make the opposite point? Some people are just better than others. If left by itself, some people at the top will just make more than everyone else
@@utkarsh4386 Utkarsh Dave Sahni *"but didn’t you just make the opposite point?"*
- No, I didn't. I'm not speaking out against inequality, I'm speaking out against mass abject poverty. Hierarches are perfectly healthy, and are a necessity in order to maintain an incentive structure and level of competence in any given society. The issue is that they don't just plateau at a stable homeostatic state, they continue growing, tending towards greater levels of polarization and inevitably become unstable. This is the real reason the middle class is disappearing and why communist revolutions keep happening over and over again.
*"If left by itself, some people at the top will just make more than everyone else"*
- Wrong, if left by itself, it will inevitably lead to austerity in the long run, where the "winners" take *ALL* and leave the masses just barely scrapping by. It's literally monopoly where one dude or a tiny group take EVERYTHING in the end, leaving everyone else with practically nothing.
Do you have aspergers? Your comment had literally NOTHING to do with this conversation.
In a room full of blind, the man with the mirror is a fool.
Ngl idk what this means
I can’t puzzle this
Oh I get it never mind
Show Love the crowd is the status quo
This don't make sense because the room has two sides to debate and one side is against the others. Don't just paste quotes cause it makes you look smart...
Did you check at the British Museum? They might have the money from your wallet.
Spectacularly said! Anand Giridharadas is masterful at pointing out the corrupt immoral nature of our geopolitical economic system. He's such a great reporter and writer! I wish he would devote his next effort and book to an equally brilliant analysis of how we can all opt out of this immoral system we are all giving our consent to. True we have few choices of where we can work and many must work for odious predatory corporations to survive, but we can find ways to opt out of mindless consumerism & instead only spend our money with fair trade justly run companies. We can, all of us not already engaged in doing so, get involved in helping our neighbors show up to vote. I'm sure given Mr. Giridharadas's great intelligence and passion he could present the world with some spectacularly insightful and helpful views on how we all proactively revolt against this lethal immoral system of ours.
Sadly the same immoral system is just waiting for the best opportunity to take him out
There is a way. Every time somebody gets rich beyond a certain point, stop buying their products. Instead promote a new young business. But this can limit technological change.
You already pointed out some solutions. Work co-ops, collective strike and bargaining, modest lifestyle and active saving, organized political power that candidates take seriously, small business workshops and affordable housing revolution. Save Save Save and invest inside the community.
Lots of bootlickers in the comments
Call it what you want, but billionaires are better than the federal government having that money instead. They get $4T in taxes but still manage to fuck up the budget. Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Amazon are collectively worth $4T and they have done way more good for this world than the federal government has done in 1 year since they have been operating for decades and all have provided something of value to billions of people worldwide. Not to mention how many people they provide salaries to. Don't be so shortsighted and seek instant gratification with their money from taxes. Look at it long-term. Also, billionaires don't readily have $1B in cash to spend even if they're worth $50B. Most of their net worth comes from their company stake which they have to sell to others for cash.
@@BRBallin1 I haven't bothered to read many of them, as their relatively predictable...& no doubt Bernie bros/Labour Party enthusiasts/sympathizers/members....who know little of business, history, etc. Just that they're "feeling," well...."unhappy" with their lives and the anxieties thereof are coming to fruition w/in themselves. (& with some prodding by MSM & Soc-Media)
This is not to say, that many of Anand's "points" are not w/out merit of concern or "addressing." Indeed they are. But Anand too, as the naive are not presently aware of, has a nefarious "agenda" of his own; and so do his "complicit" woke, followers. Hmmm......🤔
BRBallin1
Billionaires got 15 Trillion dollars in 2008, how do you think that budget gets fucked up when the US has a D+ rating for infrastructure?
Economic power spills into political power via lobbying and then we blame governments for what businesses are essentially paying them to do..
@@kargs5krun Nah, al, they're just not greedy and have the ability to put the wellbeing of others on a par with their own. You know, anyone outside of the 'me, me, me', 'I want it all and I want it now' demeographic.
Oprah should hear this.
ua-cam.com/video/XTJRGHsrYhY/v-deo.html
She’s done loads of charity.
@@jarenc2048 Did you not listen to this man's speech?
She earned her wealth
@@cardcode8345 What a load of misinformation. He basically says "Winners take all" is a law of nature. That is literally oppression...or slavery.
This man has fallen in love with his own legend and cannot take a critical stand on his own ideas.
All these folks hv been formed and trained to always expect an “Anand” in their lives.
They are well versed in the proper reaction and response to “these folks”.
All that clapping was so programmed that it sent a chill down my spine.
I don’t think anyone is saying that getting rich is wrong. What is wrong is how they get rich. So if you exploit humans then yes that is bad. If you avoid taxes yes that is bad. The problem is that these rich people don’t lose sleep over the immorality of their actions, perhaps because their fan base keeps egging them on.
This was a great presentation and I fully agree, but was anyone else distracted by the white kid faces on the background to the left of Anand?
Dressed to the nines, sitting upfront in an intellectual debate at the Oxford Union and constantly shifting between one uncivil and unrefined expression to another ...
He better be thanking God for his dad's wealth, his beauty won't get him much further in the real world.
He is making the argument (correctly) that billionaires DO immoral things - although not all do as he points out. He is not addressing the question of whether it is immoral to BE a billionaire.
In a way isn't the question flawed? - shouldn't we judge the morality of their actions that gain them the status of billionaire rather than the status itself? Is it productive to demonise billionaires for their status? Or should we instead address their actions directly and call them out when we judge them as immoral?
Only in a system where fake money rules. None of this'd be possible if only workers produce wealth not central banks.
Asian Ryan Reynolds makes very good points...
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Dead 💀😂
... holy shit 😮
Wait so is he Kanye West or Ryan Reynolds?
@@JC-rl6ln Kanye East
An articulate and convincing argument, really enjoyed it, wish had the transcript.
Billionaires usually don't have their net worth in cash. It's divided into land, company shares, and other assets. So if you ask me, it's usually impossible to have $1 billion in cash on hand at any given time. Over a span of time, it may cumulatively be >$1B, but at any given time they aren't sitting on $1B in cash.
The 🐜 , Is more moral than a human being, they take care of each other, they make sure all have a place to be and work hard every day to do something For one another. I find this astounding.
Amazing speaker! Some might say he represents America we need to strive for. Nation of immigrants and seeing the children of immigrants thrive as adults.
theres also the fixed supply of capital argument. hoarding capital is bad for society. thats really the main argument. 5 people making 50k is better than 1 person making 150k. economically speaking.
The fact that we even have
billionaires is a blatant policy failure
Said the broke man
@@theone8327 refute the point dipshit because I'd like to see you try
I disagree. I willingly paid J.K. Rowling for her books. I am happy to contribute to making JK Rowling a billionaire. Its good that she created those books. Both of us are richer now.
@@michaelsnater2345 would you not be able to buy her books if she were taxed into simply being a multi 100 millionaire?
@@bigtuna7900 There is a direct relationship with the freedom of creating wealth and economic agents innovating.
This guy is absolutely inspiring, can't get enough of listening to him. If you're a right wing "trickle down" type of person, would it be possible to hear Anand here, or lesson talk about his book "winners take all: the elite charade of changing the world" n not be moved, not re-think your world view?! How could so few have so much (ill gotten gain) while so many have so little?! It stands against every pillar of human decency n morality.
I argue that a SYSTEM that allows so few to accumulate so much of society's wealth and at the same time, keeps so many citizens in dire poverty is immoral. A power grab by those who have the money to distort our political systems is at fault. If this situation continues, I fear for the stability of our global community. Sorry, I couldn't listen to the opposing view as there is no justification for greed and selfishness. Accumulation of material goods and status seeking is killing the planet.
What is that guy sitting at the center table doing?? Reading the Oxford Almanac?
So many young minds to mold, influence by ANAND GIRIDHARADAS.
People who are not rich in that room are paying attention. People who are rich are trying not to.
What is the difference between a billionaire and a hoarder? The question is not weather it is immoral, but is taking all that money out if the larger circulation of the economy, good for the economy?
beautiful talk and insightful.thank you..
Sad to see that common people have so little understanding about our system.
In most countries income tax is much higher than taxation on dividends and other forms of income from property. This means the working and middle class finances the countries operations, infrastructure, education etc. while those "immoral" wealthy people sneak their way out of their responsibility to give back to the societies and the people with who's help they make and maintain their wealth.
Do you see the systemic injustice?
But those paying the taxes are keeping other middle or lower middle class people employed as it should be. Truly wealthy people via their taxes pay for the military that protects American interests abroad. The system is more or less fair
Justified by the long debunked idea of an actual working trickle-down-effect ...
Pleasantly surprised. Was expecting more rich people worshippers in the comments saying they earned it and you're jealous.
TheAnial8r Yeah, there’s a surprising lack of Trumpy bootlickers in here!
@@coSMia2010 but the ones here are particularly despicable
If survival of the fittest is the theory, then there isn't enough resources that everyone could be rich. That means to be a billionaire you will have to crush many ppl and devoid them of chances to be rich just to maintain your richness.
how aboutcrushing millions into poverty?
That's how the world works since the creation of time
Wrong title! It should be: What Billionaires Do To Avoid Taxes.
I love this dude! He tells it like it is. No bs.✌❤😊
Yeah, he sugercoats nothing and also is not afraid to call out the true cause of which we see all the horrible effects in all areas of life on this planet: capitalism. So many left or progressive people will call out the symptoms but dance around naming the disease. Anand does not give a fuck about dancing around anything and I love him for it.
Wonderful!!!
2:06 what did the person say?
He said point of information, he wants to asks a question of the speaker about what he's saying, probably going to be challenging what he's saying
Brilliant, Brilliant, BRILLIANT!
1:55 is that JORDI EL NINO ???😅
I have a feeling a lot people in that room are related to billionaires
Or at least millionaires. And the only person of color was the speaker that I saw.
No it's not immoral. Wealth is not a fixed pie. It is created.
repooc84 facts
Greatness has no limits.
There is nothing great about accumulating so much of the harvest that the village begins to starve.
It has , it's time
Does anyone know what the audience member said at 2:09 that he responded "no" to, which got an audience laugh?
"point of information" meaning he wanted to challenge what anand just said
The billionaires fight among them to show the world who is the richest family in the world, leaving a path of pain and suffering for the rest of the world.
it's immoral to be a millionaire; and to own second homes. People who earn more than others don't earn that extra money; they steal it from those that are paid less.
His hair makes him look like an ethnic version of the villain in "The Incredibles" haha
wow wonderful lecture! loved it!
I enjoyed watching peter singer's face while listening to Amand.
Returning empty wallets." Proof of virtue"
For all the brains at Oxford you haven't figured out that simply uploading a single debate video will get you more views and will help you build an audience. See Joe Rogan +3 hour conversations -> single video, whatever you guys are doing is incredibly inconvenient.
More videos more ad revenue.
And for all the brain *you* have, you haven't noticed that the full debate video is available, with the link being available here for months now.
@@zahrans the link leads you to a playlist of each individual video. Granted it's easier to watch but viewers demand 60 to 120min podcast length video's which can play in the background without 8 or 9 interrupting reloads of video's starting at different sections of the debate. After a viral hit with Shashi Tharoor's segment about Indian colonisation the Oxford Union UA-cam team stuck to that format. It's rather the other way around, successful debat and conversation channels(Joe Rogan, TED, etc.) upload the entirety of the conversation. If a section stands out they upload that part to drive more traffic to the full debate video. At this point in this response I'm hoping someone from the union sees it - their debate videos should really be getting hundreds of thousands of views rather then the current 2 or 3k average per segment.
itloads I hope they stop dressing like their in district 1 of hunger games. That might bring more casual viewers too
@@cf6713 has nothing to do with formating of videos so viewers actually watch. What's the point of filming everything with a production staff if they get 2k viewers on what could be much loved content. Besides the obvious branding benefits for the university.
"A holistic understanding of morality"... yes, please! If ignorance of the law is no excuse, why would ignorance of Moral Systems Theory consequences be anything like an excuse?
please his definition of morality is the most pious thing possible. he would believe you are immoral if you are not fighting against every injustice everywhere even though 1) that would lead to you being ineffective at getting any one thing accomplished 2)would most likely involve an incomplete knowledge of intersectionality of these problems and their possible solutions thus could lead to worse outcomes 3)put equal focus on all issues of the world when in reality things do have a priority ranking. I don't think women slaves in the 1800's cared about environmental impact as much as slavery.
@@scotchy451 The aim of morality should be for the highest good possible, but simultaneously as you say problems need to be prioritized and dealt with in turn. These aren't mutually exclusive truths.
@@G-Rockman What is the ontological grounding for your normative, and somewhat circular, claim (The aim of morality should be for the highest good possible)?
AMEN!
This could be the shortest video ever. One syllable. Yes.
Yo I love his full articulation of the complicity paradox. The only moral action would be a global labor strike followed by a complete sociopolitical audit and meritocratic, reparative reorganization of power and resource.
Facts. Goes over the heads of these rich kid Oxford toffs.
What are you basing that on?
@@aperson2730 He is implying most oxford kids got into the university because they bought themselves in not through intensive studying
It is impossible to keep wealth unless you have a desire to use violence against any person that harms your wealth. Also, as wealth is the property you hoard above what is needed for a comfortable life, as the greater your wealth the greater is your ability to hire guards, lawyers and politicians to protect your wealth, always do you lust for more wealth than you have.
We need an existence of comfort in this world for the majority. The human basics will be build a great society
Immoral to be billioner directly and indirectly.
If a society is judged by the way they treat their incarcerated, how can it not be immoral to be a billionaire with homeless, & people on this planet dying of starvation!
If you give a homeless man 1million he would still end up homeless
Morality isn't universal or objective, it's just what we collectively decide on, so you should decide your morality for yourself.
At the uni for billionaires? Entering the wolves’ den. Why not have this debate where it might resonate, rather than in an ornately carved room full of entitled gargoyles?
Rwanda. In Africa is a good place. They don’t have billionaires...
Ooh! Reductio ad absurdum.
Nicely played. Over simplify the nuanced argument about immoral accumulation of wealth and arrive at the absurd argument "are countries with no billionaires awesome?". People fall for that, all the time. Nice.
Everyone is a billionaire in Zimbabwe
They’re are African billionaires. You can look it up. Thank you for providing even more of a reason to reform the system. Impoverished places in Africa is the end result of our current system
Somewhere this helps all us regular folks feel morally superior for not having enough money ....but each one and their momma would sell their grandmother to get the billion dollars including Anand
Thank you for saying that out loud from the rooftops. It's impossible to get it to anybody from where I am. Keep up the good job. Who knows, maybe someday, their system will crash and they will be devoured by us.
The voice of conscience for our times.
Really such brilliance in logic and subjectivity.👏👏👏
itachi Theonlylegend
😂😂😂😂 ua-cam.com/video/XTJRGHsrYhY/v-deo.html
He speaks very well 👏👏
And?
@@karlconnolly3994 He has a nice haircut?
Are you surprised an intellect invited to speak at Oxford University speaks well?
@@karlconnolly3994 It's not a given.
A Person
Your original comment is unnecessary and possibly condescending..really,who are you to comment on an intellectuals diction..a goat perhaps?
"...a hollistic understanding of morality". Is it not what is called ethics? An awareness that life and living is all interconected.
Is it?... because I remember certain someone that said once "being rich is bad"... he died, his family ended up being and staying rich...
It’s immoral to be a human.
They're going to cancel him for saying "obesity" :(
Being a billionaire is not immoral if you have done it legally. Crony capitalism is the issue here. And there is a big misconception that i think viewers should be clear about. Wealth is value of assets. Its not liquid cash. All the cash Bill Gates has in his bank account is income & dividends. Corporations may not pay taxes but their owners do.
Those entitled millionaire and some billionaire students needed to hear that.
The lady in the green dress seemed to sport immense hate for the speaker.
She's just self conscious because she's wearing a cocktail dress with a slit all the way up the side and sitting on a chair in front of a room of mostly men.
The lady has a name, Helen Thomas, she offers the rebuttal to Anand's argument.
I think, rather, that she is actually feeling very seen as a beneficiary of ultra wealth, and what your are interpreting as rage is actually her uncomfortably begining to come to terms with the inequality that she has benefited from.
@@Serialkoala Based on what?
@@gkkalipurayath497 yea so what?
It should immoral to be a billionaire and a crime to be poor.
It is and it is.
Tee
ua-cam.com/video/rrkHn5Fd6zM/v-deo.html
Isn't oxford a very privileged place to go to school? I doubt those spoiled rich kids in the background are even listening hahaha
The dude in the background (5:10) looks like Wes Bentley in American Beauty :-)
Write books on immorality of billionaires,
Become millionaire.
dr nayk and in which way does one exploit the working class by writing a book and becoming wealthy?
@@erickcartman8758 accumulation of wealth. It is just people in shallow water hating people in deep water.
K
@Androva J. I honestly don't see anything wrong with that.
@Androva J. you elect the representatives who make provisions against such activities. The onus is on us, we the people, not on Facebook or twitter commercials.
@3:41 that moment when you finally become woke and realize the world you've been sold is a lie
DANG!!! They are Wiggling in their seats...Uncomfortable Huh!
Immoral are organized religions that have more money than most small nations while preaching that they are charitable and moral and continue to ask for money to feed homeless and starving children.
He is Ben shapiros future nemesis
This piece of shit does not stand a chance against Shapiro
wealth is not zero sum. You are not poor because someone is rich.
it takes about a year of economic research to understand that fact - something a good majority of humans do not have the time for.
Some are bad thus all are bad by default.
They choose to sell something thus it is their fault people face negative consequences of buying that product...
Instead of the responsibility being where it should be, on those who purchased the item and did bad with it.
If I buy junk food and get fat, that's on me for making a bad choice, not on the person selling to me.
There's nothing wrong or evil about avoiding taxes.
If it's done illegally then let evidence be found they broke a law and let them be punished for breaking that law.
Greed is not the only thing.. fear of competition, even potential competition, is another force that increases incentives to pay people least and do dodgy things to save taxes, to fund lobbying etc.