Zelim da na trenutak zamislite igru monopola, u kojoj su kombinacija vjestine, talenta i srece, koji inace, kao i u zivotu, znace pobjedu, ucinjeni beznacajnim, zato sto je igra namjestena, a vi imate prednost. Imate vise novaca, vise mogucnosti da se krecete po tabli, i pristup vecem broju sredstava. I dok razmisljate o ovom iskustvu, zelim da se zapitate kako bi to iskustvo privilegovanog igraca u namjestenoj igri uticalo na vase misljenje o sebi i na nacin kako se odnosite prema drugom igracu?
I want you to, for a moment, think about playing a game of Monopoly. Except in this game, that combination of skill, talent and luck that helped earn you success in games, as in life, has been rendered irrelevant, because this game's been rigged, and you've got the upper hand. You've got more money, more opportunities to move around the board, and more access to resources. And as you think about that experience, I want you to ask yourself: How might that experience of being a privileged player in a rigged game change the way you think about yourself and regard that other player?
Mi na U.C. Berkley kampusu smo pokrenuli studiju koja se bavi upravo ovim pitanjem. Doveli smo u laboratorij vise od 100 parova stranaca, i bacanjem novcica nasumice odredili jednog u svakom paru da bude bogati igrac u namjestenoj igri. Oni su dobili dvostruko vise novaca. Kada bi prosli KRENI, dobili bi dvostruku placu, a i bili su u mogucnosti da bacaju<br/>obadvije kockice a ne samo jednu, tako da su se mnogo vise kretali po tabli. (Smijeh) Tokom 15 minuta, sa skrivenim kamerama smo posmatrali sta se desavalo. Danas zelim po prvi put da vam pokazem malo od onoga sto smo vidjeli. Unaprijed se izvinjavam na kvaliteti zvuka, u nekim trenucima, jer su u pitanju skrivene kamere. Zbog toga smo obezbijedili titl. Bogati igrac: Koliko ste novcanica od 500 imali? Siromasni igrac: Samo jednu.
So, we ran a study on the UC Berkeley campus to look at exactly that question. We brought in more than 100 pairs of strangers into the lab, and with the flip of a coin, randomly assigned one of the two to be a rich player in a rigged game. They got two times as much money; when they passed Go, they collected twice the salary; and they got to roll both dice instead of one, so they got to move around the board a lot more. (Laughter) And over the course of 15 minutes, we watched through hidden cameras what happened. What I want to do today, for the first time, is show you a little bit of what we saw. You'll to have to pardon the sound quality, because again, these were hidden cameras. So we've provided subtitles. [Video] Rich Player: How many 500s did you have? Poor Player: Just one.
Bogati igrac: Ozbiljno? <br/>Siromasni igrac: Da.
RP: Are you serious? PP: Yeah.
Bogati igrac: Ja imam tri. (Smije se) Ne znam zasto su mi dali tako mnogo.
RP: I have three. (Laughs) I don't know why they gave me so much.
Paul Piff: Ok, igraci su brzo shvatili da se tu nesto krije. Jedna osoba ocito ima mnogo vise novaca od druge osobe, ali ipak, kako se igra razvija, uocili smo primjetne razlike dramaticne razlike izlaze na povrsinu izmedu dva igraca. Bogati igrac se poceo kretati po tabli mnogo glasnije, lupajuci figuricama po tabli dok se kretao. Uocili smo vise znakova dominacije i neverbalnih znakova, iskazivanja moci i veselja medu bogatim igracima.
Paul Piff: So it was quickly apparent to players that something was up. One person clearly has a lot more money than the other person, and yet, as the game unfolded, we saw very notable differences, dramatic differences begin to emerge between the two players. The rich player started to move around the board louder, literally smacking the board with the piece as he went around. (Game piece smacks board) We were more likely to see signs of dominance and nonverbal signs, displays of power and celebration among the rich players.
Postavili smo zdjelu pereca<br/>vise na jednu stranu. U donjem desnom uglu. To nam je omogucilo da posmatramo<br/>konzumaciju ucesnika. Pratimo koliko pereca ucesnici jedu.
We had a bowl of pretzels positioned off to the side. It's on the bottom right corner. That allowed us to watch participants' consummatory behavior. So we're just tracking how many pretzels participants eat.
Bogati igrac: Jesu li perece dio trika?
[Video] RP: Are those pretzels a trick?
Siromasni igrac: Ne znam.
PP: I don't know.
PP: Ok, nisam iznenaden da su nas otkrili. Pitaju se sta ta zdjela pereca uopste trazi tu. Jedan je cak i upitao, kao sto ste upravo vidjeli, da li je ta zdjela pereca dio trika? Ipak, uprkos tome, cini se da snaga same situacije neizbjezno dominira, i bogati igraci pocinju da jedu vise pereca.
Paul Piff: OK, so no surprises, people are on to us. They wonder what that bowl of pretzels is doing there in the first place. One even asks, like you just saw, "Is that bowl of pretzels there as a trick?" And yet, despite that, the power of the situation seems to inevitably dominate, and those rich players start to eat more pretzels.
(Laughter)
Bogati igrac: Volim perece.
[Video] RP: I love pretzels.
(Smijeh)
(Laughter)
PP: I kako se igra razvijala, jedan veoma interesantan i dramatican sablon koji smo posmatrali je poceo da se pojavljuje a to je da su bogati igraci postali neuctivi prema drugoj osobi, sve manje osjetljivi na nepriliku ovih jadnih, siromasnih igraca, i da sve vise pokazuju svoj materijalni uspijeh, cesce su pokazivali kako im dobro ide. Bogati igrac: Imam novaca za sve.
Paul Piff: And as the game went on, one of the really interesting and dramatic patterns that we observed begin to emerge was that the rich players actually started to become ruder toward the other person -- less and less sensitive to the plight of those poor, poor players, and more and more demonstrative of their material success, more likely to showcase how well they're doing. [Video] RP: I have money ...
Siromasni igrac: Koliko je to? Bogati igrac: Dugujes mi 24 dolara. Izgubit ces sav novac. Kupicu to. Imam puno novaca. Imam toliko novaca da ce mi trebati vjecnost. Bogati igrac 2: Kupit cu cijelu tablu. Bogati igrac 3: Uskoro ces<br/>potrositi sav novac. Poprilicno sam nedodirljiv sad.
(Laughs) I have money for everything. PP: How much is that? RP: You owe me 24 dollars. You're going to lose all your money soon. I'll buy it. I have so much money. I have so much money, it takes me forever. RP 2: I'm going to buy out this whole board. RP 3: You're going to run out of money soon. I'm pretty much untouchable at this point.
PP: Ok, i evo sta ja mislim da je stvarno interesantno to sto smo nakon 15 minuta igranja, pitali igrace da nam<br/>opisu svoje iskustvo u igri. Kada su bogati igraci pricali o tome sta su neizbjezno osvojili u namjestenoj igri monopola -- (Smijeh)-- o tome sta su sve ucinili da kupe razne posjede i zasluze uspijeh u igri, postali su mnogo manje svjesni svih onih cimbenika situacije, ukljucujuci bacanje novcica koje ih je nasumice dovelo u privilegovan polozaj. A to je stvarno nevjerovatan uvid u to kako um dozivljava prednost.
(Laughter) Paul Piff: And here's what I think was really, really interesting: it's that, at the end of the 15 minutes, we asked the players to talk about their experience during the game. And when the rich players talked about why they had inevitably won in this rigged game of Monopoly ... (Laughter) They talked about what they'd done to buy those different properties and earn their success in the game. (Laughter) And they became far less attuned to all those different features of the situation -- including that flip of a coin -- that had randomly gotten them into that privileged position in the first place. And that's a really, really incredible insight into how the mind makes sense of advantage.
Ova igra monopola se moze koristiti kao metafora za razumijevanje drustva njegove hijerarhijske strukture, u kojoj neki ljudi imaju mnogo bogastva i statusa, a mnogi ljudi nemaju. Oni imaju knogo manje bogastva i statusa i mnogo manje pristupa vrijednim materijalnim izvorima. Ono sto smo moje kolege i ja<br/>u zadnjih sedam godina radili je izucavanje efekata ovakvih hijerarhija. Ono sto smo saznali kroz nekoliko desetina studija i na hiljade ucesnika sirom drzave je to da kako se osobno bogastvo uvecava, osjecaj za suosjecanje i empatiju se smanjuje, a da se osjecaj na pravo zasluge, i ideologija samointeresa povecavaju. Saznali smo u istrazivanjima da bogatije individue mnogo cesce moralizuju pohlepu kao nesto dobro, i da teznja za vlastitim interesom je dobra i moralna. A sada zelim da razgovaramo o nekim implikacijama<br/>ideologije vlastitog interesa, da razgovaramo zasto bismo trebali<br/>brinuti o tim implikacijama, i zakljuciti sta bi se moglo uciniti.
Now, this game of Monopoly can be used as a metaphor for understanding society and its hierarchical structure, wherein some people have a lot of wealth and a lot of status, and a lot of people don't; they have a lot less wealth and a lot less status and a lot less access to valued resources. And what my colleagues and I for the last seven years have been doing is studying the effects of these kinds of hierarchies. What we've been finding across dozens of studies and thousands of participants across this country is that as a person's levels of wealth increase, their feelings of compassion and empathy go down, and their feelings of entitlement, of deservingness, and their ideology of self-interest increase. In surveys, we've found that it's actually wealthier individuals who are more likely to moralize greed being good, and that the pursuit of self-interest is favorable and moral. Now, what I want to do today is talk about some of the implications of this ideology self-interest, talk about why we should care about those implications, and end with what might be done.
Neke od prvih studija koje smo izveli u ovom polju bavila se pomazucim ponasanjem ili kako ga nazivaju psiholozi prosocijalnim ponasanjem. Bili smo veoma zainteresovani tko ce prije ponuditi pomoc drugoj osobi, netko bogat ili netko siromasan. U jednoj studiji smo u laboratorij doveli clanove bogatih i siromasnih zajednica i svakom ponaosob dali vrijednost jednaku 10 dolara. Zatim smo im rekli da tih 10 dolara mogu zadrzati za sebe, ili dio podijeliti, ako to zele, sa nepoznatom osobom koja potpuno anonimna. Nece nikada upoznati tu osobu</br>niti ce ta osoba upoznati njih. A zatim smo promatrali koliko je ljudi dalo. Osobe koje su zaradivale izmedu 15,000 i 20,000 dolara godisnje, za 44% su davale vise novaca strancima nego osobe koje su zaradivale izmedu 150,000 i 200,000 dolara godisnje.
Some of the first studies that we ran in this area looked at helping behavior, something social psychologists call "pro-social behavior." And we were really interested in who's more likely to offer help to another person: someone who's rich or someone who's poor. In one of the studies, we bring rich and poor members of the community into the lab, and give each of them the equivalent of 10 dollars. We told the participants they could keep these 10 dollars for themselves, or they could share a portion of it, if they wanted to, with a stranger, who's totally anonymous. They'll never meet that stranger; the stranger will never meet them. And we just monitor how much people give. Individuals who made 25,000, sometimes under 15,000 dollars a year, gave 44 percent more of their money to the stranger than did individuals making 150,000, 200,000 dollars a year.
Znali smo davati ljudima da se igraju kako bismo vidjeli tko cesce vara kako bi poboljsao sanse za nagradu. U jednoj od igara smo cak i namjestili racunar tako da bacanje kockica preko odredenog iznosa nije bilo moguce. Niste mogli dobiti vise od 12 u igri, a ipak, sto ste bogatiji, veca je bila vjerovatnost da cete varati kako biste dobili nagradu od $50, negada cak i tri-cetri puta vise.
We've had people play games to see who's more or less likely to cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize. In one of the games, we actually rigged a computer so that die rolls over a certain score were impossible -- You couldn't get above 12 in this game, and yet ... the richer you were, the more likely you were to cheat in this game to earn credits toward a $50 cash prize -- sometimes by three to four times as much.
U drugoj studiji smo izucavali da li su ljudi vise naklonjeni uzimanju slatkisa iz posude na kojoj jasno pise da je rezervisana za djecu -- (smijeh) -- koja ucestvuju -- ne salim se. Znam da zvuci kao da vam pricam vic. Jasno smo rekli ucesnicima da je posuda sa slatkisima za djecu koja ucestvuju u razvojnom laboratoriju u blizini. Trenutno su na casu. ovo je za njih. A onda smo posmatrali koliko</br>slatkisa su ucesnici uzeli. Oni koji su se osjecali bogatima su uzeli duplo vise slatkisa od ucesnika koji su se osjecali siromasnima.
We ran another study where we looked at whether people would be inclined to take candy from a jar of candy that we explicitly identified as being reserved for children -- (Laughter) I'm not kidding -- I know it sounds like I'm making a joke. We explicitly told participants: "This candy is for children participating in a developmental lab nearby. They're in studies. This is for them." And we just monitored how much candy participants took. Participants who felt rich took two times as much candy as participants who felt poor.
Cak smo izucavali i automobile, i to ne bilo koje, nego da li su vozaci</br>razlicitih vrsta automobila vise ili manje nastrojeni krsenju zakona. U jednoj od ovih studija,</br>posmatrali smo da li se vozaci</br>zaustavljaju pjesacima koje smo postavili da</br>cekaju na pjesackom prijelazu. U Kaliforniji,</br>kao sto svi znamo, i svi tako i postupamo, po zakonu je obavezno propustiti pjesaka</br>koji ceka na pjesackom. Evo primjera kako smo ovo izveli. Ovo je nas saucesnik</br>sa lijeve strane u ulozi pjesaka. Kada se priblizio,</br>crveni kamio se uspjesno zaustavio. A na tipican Kalifornijski nacin,</br>pretekao ga je autobus koji je umalo pregazio pjesaka. (Smijeh) A sada evo primjer sa </br>mnogo skupljim automobilom Prius, koji prolazi, BMW takoder. Ucinili smo ovo sa stotinom vozila tokom nekoliko dana, prateci tko se zaustavlja</br>a tko ne. Uocili smo da se vozaceva tendencija za krsenjem zakona povecava, povecava se i cijena automobila. N jedan automobil, ni jedan u nasoj kategoriji najjeftinijih vozila nije prekrsio zakon. Skoro 50 posto vozila u nasoj najskupljoj kategoriji vozila je prekrsilo zakon. Vrsili smo druge studije i saznali da imucnije osobe mnogo cesce</br>lazu u pregovorima, odobravaju neeticko ponasanje na poslu poput krede novca iz kase, uzimanja mita, laganja musterija.
We've even studied cars. Not just any cars, but whether drivers of different kinds of cars are more or less inclined to break the law. In one of these studies, we looked at whether drivers would stop for a pedestrian that we had posed waiting to cross at a crosswalk. Now in California, as you all know, because I'm sure we all do this, it's the law to stop for a pedestrian who's waiting to cross. So here's an example of how we did it. That's our confederate off to the left, posing as a pedestrian. He approaches as the red truck successfully stops. In typical California fashion, it's overtaken by the bus who almost runs our pedestrian over. (Laughter) Now here's an example of a more expensive car, a Prius, driving through, and a BMW doing the same. So we did this for hundreds of vehicles on several days, just tracking who stops and who doesn't. What we found was as the expensiveness of a car increased ... (Laughter) the drivers' tendencies to break the law increased as well. None of the cars -- none of the cars -- in our least expensive car category broke the law. Close to 50 percent of the cars in our most expensive vehicle category broke the law. We've run other studies, finding that wealthier individuals are more likely to lie in negotiations, to endorse unethical behavior at work, like stealing cash from the cash register, taking bribes, lying to customers.
Ne zelim sugerisati da samo imucni ljudi pokazuju ovakvo ponasanje. Niposto. Ustvari, mislim dase svi mi, u nasim svakidasnjim zivotima</br>iz minute u minutu, borimo sa ovim dvostrukim motivacijama kada i da li da stavimo vlastiti interes ispred interesa drugih ljudi. A to je razumljivo zato sto je Americki san jedna ideja u kojoj svi mi imamo jednaku priliku da uspijemo i napredujemo, sve dok se potpuno unesemo u to</br>i vrijedno radimo, a dio toga znaci i da ponekad, vlastiti interesi dolazi ispred interesa i dobrobiti</br>ljudi oko vas. Nase saznanje je da sto ste imucniji, veca je mogucnost da cete ici za vizijom</br>vlastitog uspjeha, dostignuca i podviga, na stetu onih oko vas. Ovo je graf prosjecnog</br>kucnog budeta kojeg posjeduje svaki peti budet</br>i 5% populacije u zadnjih 20 godina. U 1993, razlika izmedu razlicitih kvintila populacije, kada je </br>dohodak u pitanju, su jednostavno necuvene. Nije tesko uvidjeti razlike. Ali tokom 20 godina,</br>te znacajne razlike su postale veliki kanjon izmedu onih na vrhu i svih ostalih. Ustvari, 20% populacije na vrhu posjeduju 90% ukupnog</br>bogastva ove drzave. To je novi ekonomske nejednakosti bez presedana. To znaci da bogatstvo ne samo</br>da sve vise postaje koncentrisano u rukama</br>male grupe ljudi, nego i da Americki san sve vise postaje nedostizan za vecinu nas. I ako je to slucaj, kao sto smo saznali, da sto ste bogatiji, vise osjecate pravo na to bogastvo, vise stavljate vlastite interese ispred interesa drugih ljudi, i voljni ste da cinite stvari koje</br>sluze sopstvenom interesu, onda nema razloga nemisliti da ce sve postati samo jos gore, i evo kako bi izgledalo to</br>ako se nista ne promijeni, u narednih 20 godina.
Now, I don't mean to suggest that it's only wealthy people who show these patterns of behavior. Not at all -- in fact, I think that we all, in our day-to-day, minute-by-minute lives, struggle with these competing motivations of when or if to put our own interests above the interests of other people. And that's understandable, because the American dream is an idea in which we all have an equal opportunity to succeed and prosper, as long as we apply ourselves and work hard. And a piece of that means that sometimes, you need to put your own interests above the interests and well-being of other people around you. But what we're finding is that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to pursue a vision of personal success, of achievement and accomplishment, to the detriment of others around you. Here I've plotted for you the mean household income received by each fifth and top five percent of the population over the last 20 years. In 1993, the differences between the different quintiles of the population, in terms of income, are fairly egregious. It's not difficult to discern that there are differences. But over the last 20 years, that significant difference has become a Grand Canyon of sorts between those at the top and everyone else. In fact, the top 20 percent of our population own close to 90 percent of the total wealth in this country. We're at unprecedented levels of economic inequality. What that means is that wealth is not only becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a select group of individuals, but the American dream is becoming increasingly unattainable for an increasing majority of us. And if it's the case, as we've been finding, that the wealthier you are, the more entitled you feel to that wealth, and the more likely you are to prioritize your own interests above the interests of other people, and be willing to do things to serve that self-interest, well, then, there's no reason to think that those patterns will change. In fact, there's every reason to think that they'll only get worse, and that's what it would look like if things just stayed the same, at the same linear rate, over the next 20 years.
Nejednakost, ekonomska nejednakost, je nesto sto bi nas sve trebalo zabrinuti, i ne samo zbog onih koji su na dnu drustvene ljestvice vec i zato sto osobe i grupe sa puno ekonomske nejednakosti</br>prolaze losije, i to ne samo oni na dnu, nego svi. Postoje mnoga hvale vrijedna istrazivanja najboljih centara sirom svijeta koje pokazuju dijapazon stvari koje se zanemaruju sto je ekonomska nejednakost veca. Drustvena kretanja, stvari do kojih</br>nam je stvarno stalo, fizicko zdravlje, drustveno povjerenje, sve opada sto je nejednakost veca, Slicno tome, negativne stvari u drustvenim kolektivima i zajednicama, poput pretilosti, nasilja, zatvora i kazni, se pogorsavaju sa povecanjem</br>ekonomske nejednakosti. Ponavljam, ovo nisu zakljucci rezultata samo iz pojedinih zajednica vec iz svih slojeva drustva. Cak i ljudi na vrhu prolaze kroz isto.
Now inequality -- economic inequality -- is something we should all be concerned about, and not just because of those at the bottom of the social hierarchy, but because individuals and groups with lots of economic inequality do worse ... not just the people at the bottom, everyone. There's a lot of really compelling research coming out from top labs all over the world, showcasing the range of things that are undermined as economic inequality gets worse. Social mobility, things we really care about, physical health, social trust, all go down as inequality goes up. Similarly, negative things in social collectives and societies, things like obesity, and violence, imprisonment, and punishment, are exacerbated as economic inequality increases. Again, these are outcomes not just experienced by a few, but that resound across all strata of society. Even people at the top experience these outcomes.
Pa sta odna da cinimo? Ova kaskada samoodrzivih, ubitacnih, negativnih efekata bi se mogli ciniti kao nesto</br>sto se otelo kontroli, i da se nista tu vise</br>ne moze uciniti, pogotovo niko ponaosob. Ali mi smo u nasem istrazivanju saznali da male psiholoske intervencije, male promjene u ljudskim vrijednostima, mala gurkanja u odredenom pravcu, mogu popraviti nivo egalitarizma</br>i empatije. Na primjer, podsjecajuci ljude beneficijama suradnje, ili prednostima zajednice, podstice imucne ljude da budu</br>isto toliko egalitarni kao i siromasni. U jednoj studiji, dali smo ljudima</br>da pogledaju kratak video, oko 46 sekundi,</br>o siromastvu djece sto je posluzilo kao podsjetnik</br>na potrebe drugih u svijetu oko njih, a nakon videa smo posmatrali, koliko su ljudi bili voljni da svoje vrijeme ponude</br>nepoznatoj osobi koju su upoznali u laboratoriji</br>i koja je bila u nevolji. Poslije gledanja videa,</br>sat kasnije, bogatasi su postali jednako darezljivi sa svojim vremenom pomognu</br>ovu drugu osobu neznanca, kao i siromasni, sto sugerise da ove razlike nisu urodene ili kategoricke, vec osjetljive i na najmanje promjene u ljudskim vrijednostima, na mala podsticanja na suosjecanje
So what do we do? This cascade of self-perpetuating, pernicious, negative effects could seem like something that's spun out of control, and there's nothing we can do about it, certainly nothing we as individuals could do. But in fact, we've been finding in our own laboratory research that small psychological interventions, small changes to people's values, small nudges in certain directions, can restore levels of egalitarianism and empathy. For instance, reminding people of the benefits of cooperation or the advantages of community, cause wealthier individuals to be just as egalitarian as poor people. In one study, we had people watch a brief video, just 46 seconds long, about childhood poverty that served as a reminder of the needs of others in the world around them. And after watching that, we looked at how willing people were to offer up their own time to a stranger presented to them in the lab, who was in distress. After watching this video, an hour later, rich people became just as generous of their own time to help out this other person, a stranger, as someone who's poor, suggesting that these differences are not innate or categorical, but are so malleable to slight changes in people's values, and little nudges of compassion and bumps of empathy.
i izlive empatije. A izvan zidova naseg laboratorija, cak smo primjetili znakove</br>promjene u nasem drustvu. Bill Gates, jedan od najbogatijih</br>osoba u nasoj drzavi, u svom pocetnom govoru na Hrvardu, pricao je o problemu koje ceka drustvo o nejednakosti kao o pocetnom izazovu, kako se boriti protiv toga, rekavsi, "Najveci podvizi covjecanstva nisu nasa otkrica, vec kako su ta otkrica iskoristena za smanjenje nejednakosti." A tu je i "Zavjet Darivanja", u kojem vese od 100 nabogatijih ljudi nase nacije zavjetuju pola svoga bogastva</br>dobrotvornim ustanovama. A to je i pojava na desetine provincijalnih pokreta, poput "Mi smo jedan procenat", "Generacija Resursa" "Bogastvo za Zajednicko Dobro", u kojima najprivilegovaniji clanovi nase populacije clanovi tog jednog procenta i drugih, u kojima najprivilegovaniji dijelovi populacije clanovi toga jednog procenta i drugih organizacija, ljudi koji su imucni, svoje vlastite ekonomske resurse, i stari i madi</br>sto me je najvise iznenadilo poravnavanjem svojih privilegija, svojih ekonomskih resursa, bore se protiv nejednakosti zagovaranjem socijalne politike ali koji ce mozda na kraju vratiti</br>sjaj Americkog sna.
And beyond the walls of our lab, we're even beginning to see signs of change in society. Bill Gates, one of our nation's wealthiest individuals, in his Harvard commencement speech, talked about the problem of inequality facing society as being the most daunting challenge, and talked about what must be done to combat it, saying, "Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries -- but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity." And there's the Giving Pledge, in which more than 100 of our nation's wealthiest individuals are pledging half of their fortunes to charity. And there's the emergence of dozens of grassroots movements, like "We are the 1 percent," "Resource Generation," or "Wealth for Common Good," in which the most privileged members of the population, members of the one percent and elsewhere, people who are wealthy, are using their own economic resources, adults and youth alike -- that's what's most striking to me -- leveraging their own privilege, their own economic resources, to combat inequality by advocating for social policies, changes in social values and changes in people's behavior that work against their own economic interests, but that may ultimately restore the American dream.
promjene u drustvenim vrijednostima, Hvala.
Thank you. (Applause)
i promjene u ljudskom ponasanju, (Aplauz) koje rade protiv njihovih ekonomskih interesa