MrBeast: Capitalism & Philanthropy

for a generation of youtube fans mr beast has become an almost mythical figure an ordinary guy creating extraordinary spectacles out of sometimes strangely ordinary topics from counting to 100 000 to playing tag and hide and seek and all for eye-watering cash prizes he's buried himself alive recreated squid games and given away a desert island he's known for giving those big prizes cash houses cars and food to friends strangers and as philanthropy and he's built a channel with 90 million subscribers in doing so earning around 54 million a year according to forbes he started a nationwide burger chain been on jimmy kimmel joe rogan employs over a hundred people and has been at the forefront of some of the biggest philanthropic campaigns on youtube but mr beast is part of a larger story the story of american capitalism corporate profit and politics the story of american mythology it's a story that takes some surprising turns one in which a complacent media has neglected to follow the money a story with a narrative that's been shaped twisted and manipulated by corporations like coca-cola monolith chemical and shipping companies international meat monopolies and the deep pockets of big oil it's a shadowy story of injured workers low wages shady deals collusion pollution bribery and even suicides what we can see through mr beast is not speculation but a perfect postmodern example of how capitalist mythology is manufactured how it hangs together and shapes all of our lives so before we get to mr beast's philanthropy we have to do some important groundwork to make some progress in unravelling the problem we have to understand the roots of this much wider trend maybe the most worrying trend of our time because propaganda lobbying advertising public relations and the ideological weapons used by big business have become so expertly proficient in obfuscation run so deeply through back channels to avoid regulation is so entangled in our culture with philanthropy education with the media that big business can make perfect use out of an affable generous seemingly decent and well-meaning figure like mr beast what's interesting with prodigious figures like mr beast is not how they manage to do what they do but what they tell us about the culture that gave rise to them in the first place what can mr beast's success his approach to business and philanthropy and youtube and entertainment and sponsorship tell us about american culture capitalist culture western culture and even more about ourselves [Music] every civilization has its myths rome had romulus and remus ancient greece had zeus and achilles india has brahma and vishnu the british empire had great explorers and civilizers and myths all have a function a purpose a use in society they all support a narrative about the culture that created them what is america's myth well i want to start with a quick story everyone's heard of davy crockett the ordinary woodsman the wild king frontiersman the self-made hero of the american west he was well known across the country in plays and short stories for his larger-than-life mythical adventures when the french writer alexis de tocqueville toured around america in the wake of its revolution to try to understand what was distinctive about american life he noted two years ago the inhabitants of the district of which memphis is the capital sent to the house of representatives in congress an individual named davy crockett who has no education can read with difficulty has no property no fixed residence but passes his life hunting selling his game to live and dwelling continuously in the woods his competitor a man of wealth and talent failed in europe a rise to notoriety from such humble self-made beginnings was impossible american culture turned crockett into a legend a popular song described him as half horse half alligator one man wrote you have heard of the celebrated loco crockett who can whip his weight in wild cats jump up higher fall down lower and drink more liquors than any man in the state he is returned tonight a very gentle and respectable man crockett's meteoric rise became mythical because it seemed to come from nowhere but as the historian mj hill as noted this isn't strictly true crockett's image was actually carefully crafted by politicians and publishers who believed his image would be useful for their calls libertarianism on the frontier the idea of a frontiersman out there on his own independent self-reliant with no need for federal assistance or elite rule was important to the image of democracy that jacksonian democrats were trying to sustain in 19th century america jacksonians wanted to expand suffrage to the ordinary man and in davy crockett they saw a compelling narrative that would help them achieve this and win the public image battle and while he was of course real davy crockett became a mythical figure for this reason he was exaggerated used crafted memorialized manipulated and proliferated for political economic social and cultural reasons tockville noticed this crockett fit in with the image of the american out there alone out to imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands hill remarked that realizing the imaginative power of the west political managers sought to touch responsive chords in the electorate by finding and fashioning political heroes from beyond the appalachians davy crockett was one of the first examples of something we love in democratic societies underdog stories adventurers a self-made man a man of the people but stories can be used and misused appropriated and twisted reimagined and re-written in calculative and disingenuous ways [Music] mr beast is a likable guy he's the guy next door he's the carefree guy having carefree fun with his group of friends he's ordinary but he does extraordinary things what if i filled my friend's house with slime what if anything you could place in this circle you can keep what if we went to the bermuda triangle he's also become well known as a generous philanthropist he's given homeless people homes and ten thousand dollars in cash he's tipped waitresses thirty thousand dollars and given away houses to delivery drivers that turn up at them team trees has organized youtubers to fundraise to plant 20 million trees and more recently team seas has done the same to remove 40 million kilograms of trash from the ocean he's even started a second channel beast philanthropy where he's given away 10 000 turkeys at thanksgiving helped after a hurricane and set up his own food bank and before we move on it's really important to say this this is obviously commendable stuff this video is not an attack on mr beast's personal morals it's not a question of whether he's a good person or not i don't know him he seems like a nice generous hard-working guy who's built a hugely impressive youtube channel and probably just wants to use his influence to do some good in the world but because he's so influential because he's successful enough to be close to some significant organizations non-profit and for-profit looking at mr beast can tell us a lot about some of the trends he's part of and ultimately benefits from himself so let's have a look at some of these giveaways and philanthropic efforts first the most obvious thing to note is that mr beast runs a business a very very successful one jimmy has said openly that the motivation for these giveaways comes from two places first he says it is business they attract views they make profit he wants to be the most successful youtuber in the world and he's succeeded just kept going and reinvesting and then i'd tip pizza delivery people 100 bucks and then i tipped a homeless man 10 grand and then you know gave away cars gave away houses and last 10 take take hand off million dollars keeps in basically the entire time so like for the last like eight or nine years like every dollar i've made i just spent it the next month on content and i just did that every single month and it just kept getting bigger and bigger and here we are but second he feels good about doing it he likes helping people let's take a quick look at this first motivation before returning to the second later every mr beast video that involves a giveaway of some kind whether to a friend a stranger a homeless person is paid for by a sponsor it's a kind of for for-profit philanthropy or what economist matthew bishop coined in 2006 as philanthro capitalism bishop writes that philanthro capitalism encompasses not just the application of modern business techniques to giving but also the effort by a new generation of entrepreneurial philanthropists and business leaders to drive social and environmental progress by changing how business and government operate philanthro capitalism has become something of a buzzword over the last few years it has several features and is broad enough to vary in meaning and scope depending on who you ask and how you look at it but essentially it's come to me treating philanthropy as a business using traditional business methods like a focus on efficiency for philanthropic projects or expecting a return on an investment in some way or another [Music] the merging of business and philanthropy and the involvement of powerful individuals in philanthropic efforts has become a frequent talking point in recent years with the rise of institutions like the gates foundation the clinton foundation and phenomena like fair trade gates has convinced fellow billionaires like warren buffett and mark zuckerberg to pledge to donate their fortunes to philanthropic efforts and mr beast has become something of a philanthropy capitalist himself turning giveaways into advertising revenue food drives into profitable entertainment and homelessness into a kind of spectacle that pays now at its best philanthro capitalism does some important work gates himself has spent considerable resources and effort vaccinating feeding and helping significant numbers of impoverished people all around the world but as several authors have pointed out as we'll see some of the trends not only have a darker side but could actually be doing more harm than good at its worst as we'll discover philanthro capitalism allows sponsors donors and big business to whitewash greenwash and conceal or draw attention away from their otherwise questionable business tactics and propagandize positive spin and public relations to combat disturbing trends that they themselves created and perpetuate in this way figures like mr beast can sometimes end up spreading corporate messages believing that they're doing good and sometimes contributing to even more harm mr beast's sponsors vary some like skillshare could be categorized as simple advertisers exchanging a fee for a short promotional section of a video like this one there's no claim of philanthropy from the sponsor and mr beast uses the money to finance the stunt or the giveaway in other videos though as we'll see the promotion doesn't seem to be the primary objective of the sponsor but to understand this trend we need to quickly look at how philanthro capitalism became a central part of capitalist culture before exploring some of the ways we can identify the damage the trend does today and how mr beast has participated in those harms and how youtube is becoming fertile ground for a disturbing trend the late 19th century was the gilded age of american capitalism an era known for greed corruption exploitation and the spread of industrialization and wealth across america it saw the creation of vast new monopolies in railroads oil steel banking and media by now household names like andrew carnegie jp morgan and john d rockefeller these figures came to be labelled as the robber barons because of their tendency to employ oppressive harsh business tactics exploiting their workers and bribing local and national politicians to amass vast fortunes never before seen in america the robber barons have a mixed legacy as historian richard white writes they've had a contradictory reputation at first standing for a gilded age of corruption monopoly and rampant individualism their corporations were the octopus devouring all in its path later though they were interpreted as entrepreneurs necessary business revolutionaries ruthlessly changing existing practices and demonstrating the protean nature of american capitalism but i want to focus quickly on a particular trend the robber barons have become known for their philanthropy take andrew carnegie the scottish american industrialist who built a vast steel and railroad empire across america he gave most of his vast half a million dollar fortune to charity over the course of his later life and at the time of his death was left with around 30 million dollars carnegie was the forerunner to the new capitalist philanthropist model writing an article the gospel of wealth to urge capitalists to use their new found fortunes for good he wrote that the millionaire will be but a trustee of the poor entrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done itself the wealthy paternalist could dispense with their wealth in a responsible way building libraries while discouraging quote the slothful the drunken the unworthy and while carnegie was building libraries and donating to churches and universities on the one hand he was ruthlessly expanding paying politicians bribes and subjecting his employees to grim working conditions and paying them just above the poverty line one worker said that you don't notice any old men here the long hours the strain the sudden changes of temperature use a man up sociologist john a fitch said that the conditions led to old age at 40. workers worked seven days a week 12 hours a day with just one holiday the fourth of july and carnegie's philanthropic turn came after one of the most brutal labor disputes in american history [Music] in 1892 workers were striking at homestead in pennsylvania in response to a pay cut a battle broke out between carnegie's men and the striking workers and eventually 8 000 national guardsmen were sent in to quell the strike at least 10 men were killed in the fighting after the strike was over carnegie was sent to telegram by his chairman henry frick victory it said carnegie replied cables received first happy morning since july congratulate all around and frick then responded with our victory is now complete and most gratifying do not think we will have any serious labor trouble again but homestead had turned the public against carnegie and later in a letter he complained that quote the mass of public sentiment is not with us about homestead on the direct issue of readjustment of the wage scale people did not understand it but i observed that opinion was greatly impressed by the few acts of kindness carnegie knew that there was more than one way to tip the balance of public opinion and he knew how important public opinion was for doing business so while his philanthropic efforts ramped up in the following years it did so at the expense of his some 40 000 workers historians have shown that while the value of carnegie's goods more than doubled over the years following the strike the wages of his men were cut by 67 percent carnegie had discovered that when it came to profits public opinion was as important as bribery and wage cuts and he's probably the most notable example of a trend that became widespread around the same time the oil baron john d rockefeller was also giving away large sums while simultaneously crushing workers strikes in 1914 strikers at ludlow were gunned down by the national guard at least 25 died including women and children rockefeller congratulated the national guard for quote fighting the good fight which is not only in the interests of your own company but of other companies in colorado and the business interests of the entire country and laboring classes quite as much rockefeller threatened his competitors and chaired secret meetings to monopolize the market and drive up prices corporations like rockefeller's standard oil and carnegie steel became so powerful that in 1890 congress passed an antitrust act to weaken the robber barons and break up their monopolies prohibiting anti-competitive practices including artificially raising prices senator john sherman who the act was named after said that if we will not endure a king as a political power we should not endure a king over the production transportation and sale of any of the necessaries of life in an inquiry the lawyer frank walsh said that it's been stated many times that it might be better for people controlling very large industries instead of devoting the excess profits to the dispensation of money along philanthropic lines that they should organize some system by which they could distribute it in wages first or give to the workers a greater share of the productivity of industry in the first place in 1911 the supreme court split rockefeller's standard oil into 36 smaller companies including exxon mobil and chevron today we all know that pr and image is as important as reality the most savvy public figures curate a kind of mythical figure around themselves and we can see this phenomenon everywhere domino's for example recently donated a hundred thousand dollars to small businesses in a support local campaign but then spent 50 million dollars on a marketing campaign making sure that everyone knew about it and recently volkswagen have championed their philanthropic donations to a variety of causes including beach preservation while simultaneous designing low emission vehicles that were rigged to cheat emissions tests this phenomenon is so widespread it's difficult to choose which examples to pick and even more worrying many of these philanthropic contributions end up running through foundations like the gates foundation which as scholars like sociologist lindsay mcgoohy and professor of law gary jenkins have argued have a host of problems that are caught up in this logic of charity in exchange for influence and good pr gooey argues that the gates foundation is paternalistic ignores grantees concerns about their approach focuses too much on vanity projects and often favors reducing regulations in developing countries furthermore mcgouy writes that study after study has proven that only a small percentage of charitable donations from wealthy donors reach poor individuals most of it tends to go to alma maters or cultural institutions frequented by the wealthy the rich also gives less of their incomes proportionately than the poor do in fact the number of private charitable foundations have skyrocketed in recent years about 5000 is set up every year despite charitable giving in the u.s being steady at about two percent of gdp what explains this well as inequality increases and wages stagnate and billionaires amass pools of wealth so vast it would make carnegie and rockefeller's eyes water what better way to spend that money than on pr and influence that avoids regulation it's not as crass and transparent as traditional advertising and comes with tax breaks in this context of course white washing green washing and now pink washing are everywhere take this startling fact one study in 2012 found that just seven percent of donations reached causes that could be defined as a benefit to the average in need person another study found that 55 of grants went to large organizations with budgets over 5 million already in other words most donations went to religious or cultural foundations like churches institutions and museums and galleries which are much more likely to be frequented by the wealthy associates of the wealthy and let's face it whiter donors who might get a shiny plaque under some modern art piece but a bit less likely to help individuals who probably just need a few decent meals and some better wages the french sociologist pierre bourdieu called the participation in this kind of activity the accumulation of symbolic capital that was good deeds connections and support for institutions that buy you public prestige power and influence and this trend over the last few decades has coincided with the loosening of regulation the rolling back of labor laws and the decline of average salaries and an increase in inequality across the world as karl rhodes and peter bloom write in the guardian what we're witnessing is the transfer of responsibility for public goods and services from democratic institutions to the wealthy to be administered by an executive class all of this begs an important question where's the line between philanthropy and self-interest between doing good and looking good what happens when philanthropy becomes a spectacle for distraction [Music] much of mr beast's reputation centers around his philanthropy media outlets like the associated press looper and the independent praise mr beast uncritically reporting that he's quite rethinking old notions of philanthropy and describing him as youtube's biggest philanthropist scan a few comments listen to a few podcasts watch a few interviews and you'll get the impression that mr beast is seen as a generous selfless heroic philanthropist and again this is certainly not to take away from all the good mr beast does the effort he puts in and his intentions i think he genuinely cares he has fun and he has a huge audience that he's hopefully inspiring to go out and do some good in the world themselves i want to draw attention though to something else the wider trend the problems that arise from this format the money behind it and the motivations of some of the people that support the content let's start here in november 2021 mr beast and the team spent the day giving away ten thousand turkeys at a food drive in greenville north carolina the video has almost 6 million views the 10 000 turkeys worth a quarter of a million dollars were donated by genio who got credited throughout the video and in the description in case you're wondering how we got 10 000 turkeys to give away they all actually came from jennio and the crazy thing is this is their largest donation ever last year they donated over 400 000 pounds of turkeys to people in need like this where'd you get that from i found it that's not fake this oven ready turkey from jinyoung did they tell you to say that they did they gave me three dollars and a turkey they're also pre-seasoned and more importantly they gave us 10 000 turkeys to give away at this food drive so i forbid you from buying a turkey from any other brand for this thanksgiving this is the thanksgiving turkey now obviously we couldn't have done it without them of course while a quarter of a million dollar donation sounds like and in some ways is a lot of money it's a small figure for a company whose parent company the food conglomerate hormel foods is worth 27 billion dollars a quarter of a million is around the same price a company like this might pay for a television commercial that would be shorter more direct less likely to go viral and soon disappear into the other of forgotten adverts and of course this video does not come across like an advert at all it appears to be a simple philanthropic act from a socially responsible company jenny oh vice president of marketing nicole ben told the associate press that he's entertaining and he makes giving back and these philanthropic tie-ins really cool to be part of and she told w-i-n-t that what a great way for jennio to partner with somebody that we can really tell the story about making sure everybody has a thanksgiving turkey on their table for that special holiday she continues no matter what their gathering size sizes genio is going to be helping provide turkeys for families and then they just have to bring the sides and really enjoy thanksgiving all together comments from articles like these and the articles themselves have been syndicated across the web by outlets like the independent yahoo news and u.s news so other than the obvious publicity what motivation could jennie oh have for publicly giving away free turkeys every year well genio is owned by hormel foods a huge conglomerate which owns over 40 brands including genio spam applegate and skippy peanut butter conglomerates like hormel nestle pepsico and as we'll see in a second smithfield dominate the market in the us and much of the rest of the world in 2021 hormel jenny oh's parent and smithfield who mr beast has also worked with in this feeding america video were both accused of being involved in an illegal price fixing scheme to inflate the prices of pork and increase their profits these two companies hormel and smithfield along with two others tyson and jbs control 80 percent of the meat market in the united states the lawsuit accused the suppliers of trying to quote fix raise stabilize and maintain artificially inflated prices for pork sold in the united states since 2009. in 2021 smithfield whose chinese owner wh group is the world's largest supplier of pork settled paying 83 million dollars in fines and there's been an increase in the discovery of similar price fixing schemes in big meat in recent years in 2021 tyson foods and pilgrims pride were fined 221 million and 108 million dollars respectively for doing the same thing in the poultry industry and seafood giant bumblebee food ceo chris lisciwinski was sentenced to 14 months in prison in 2020 for price fixing in the tuner industry is it a coincidence that the same people who are affected by price fixing schemes that satisfy rich ceos and shareholders but drive up the price of everyday essentials are the same people who need to come to a food drive to get handouts at thanksgiving in 2021 the guardian investigated the effect these huge food monopolies have on our economies and societies nina lakyani aliya utyova and alvin chang write that a handful of powerful companies control the majority market share of almost 80 percent of dozens of grocery items bought regularly by ordinary americans these conglomerates have been growing in power since the 80s as regulations have been weakened mergers and acquisitions have been encouraged to cut costs and lobbying of politicians has increased while at the same time half of the least well-paid jobs are in the food industry the conditions are getting worse too one study in 2013 found that 42 percent of poultry workers had some evidence of carpool tunnel one former worker at chicken quick said that there are so many injustices there sometimes you get really dizzy from how fast the line speed went but we're not allowed to say we're not going to work at this speed they're not asking you they're telling you you have to do it in 2019 these workers at genio went on strike when one claimed she wasn't offered medical attention and was fired after her hand got stuck in a machine she was never trained to work on in the first place debbie berkowitz of the national employment law project said that the meatpacking industry is much more dangerous now than in the 90s and the biggest factors are consolidation and cutting corners of worker safety and amanda starbuck a policy analyst at food and water watch told the guardian that it's a system designed to funnel money into the hands of corporate shareholders and executives while exploiting farmers and workers and deceiving consumers about choice abundance and efficiency so remember genio spent a quarter of a million dollars on this video with mr beast the previous year during the 2020 election cycle the food industry spent 175 million dollars on lobbying and political contributions two-thirds went to republicans who want to roll back regulations even further and to understand how much of an effect this has and how popular it's become with the industry it's worth noting that the figure was only million in 1992. these conglomerates dominate our shelves and our politics while driving out competition and inflating prices genio's parent hormel foods profits have skyrocketed in recent years while the price farmers get paid for meat has declined at the same time across the world while food conglomerates do well farmers are struggling financially getting into debt and facing a mental health crisis the same report in the guardian writes advocates say that a toxic mix of financial woes climate chaos and trade wars have contributed to a mental health crisis among farmers farmers are one of the most likely groups to take their own lives in countries including the us australia the uk and india in the midwest alone 450 farmers committed suicide between just 2014 and 2018. in the uk a farmer takes their life every week and in india 270 000 farmers have died by suicide since 1995. the president of family farm action joe maxwell told the guardian that the economic power of these corporations enabled them to weld huge political influence so we have a system in which farmers are on a treadmill just trying to stay afloat basically there's a handful of individuals in the world mostly white men who make money by dictating who farms what gets farmed and who gets to eat consumer choice is an illusion the transnationals control everything in this extractive agricultural model furthermore farming in the us relies on an influx of some 2.5 million undocumented migrants these are workers who have no recourse no rights and likely no health care and before we even get to the wage stagnation workers have experienced since the 70s the increasing inequality across the world the pollution the meat industry emits hormel foods share price looks like this so as long as genio can improve their image by throwing a quarter of a million dollars to partner with a fun youtuber that probably isn't going to ask many questions has more influence than any farmer worker or migrant then they probably don't have much to worry about and we can see something similar happening under the surface of mr beast's team seas campaign in this video i cleaned the world's dirtiest beach mr beast and friends commendably organized to clean up trash from bay australiana in the dominican republic the storyline is classic mr beast as they realize how long something is taking how insurmountable the task is the stunt escalates as they bring in more volunteers and eventually admit that obviously the beach is going to get dirty again then this ocean cleanup device a trash eating robot is introduced and they tell the viewer that for every one dollar you donate one pound of trash can be removed from the ocean half of the money will go towards paying volunteers to clean beaches while the other half will go to ocean cleanup many have already questioned the premise science youtuber simon clark has pointed out that the project is problematic and could end up doing more harm than good there's up to 150 million tons of plastic in the ocean much of which is small micro plastics which just cannot be removed like this if at all and we add another eight million tons each year a figure that continues to rise team c's stated goal to remove 13 600 tonnes is quite literally a drop in the ocean as clark points out team seas will remove in three years what's added in 15 hours and many marine biologists have also questioned the premise pointing out that the problem is much more systemic but i want to ask a different question why is the project so popular in the first place why are we focusing on this trash eating robot in the first place why have solutions like this attracted the attention of so many youtubers clark calls it the misdirection of attention so why is our attention drawn to this solution but not other ones while machines like this look pretty cool and taking your friends to clean up really dirty beaches might make for exciting content much more engaging than one lobbying the government and plastic industry for change we can also follow the money here and find out who is funding the promotion of devices like this ocean cleanup lists its partners on its websites they include cefalio the world's second largest manufacturer of plastic sunglasses axo nobel an 8.5 billion dollar multinational manufacturer of paint and chemicals and right at the top under our most generous partners coca-cola who are quote the world's worst plastic polluter for the fourth year in a row in 2021 according to the ngo break free from plastic so let's quickly talk about why the world's best-known supplier of gut rotting sugar in ocean rotting plastic would once spend so much money funding a philanthropic shiny garbage eater coca-cola obviously have a huge budget they spend around four billion a year on advertising and one billion a year on philanthropic grants which as i hope i've convinced you by now should be included as a type of advertising really and often as literal direct lobbying in 2005 for example coca-cola donated a million dollars to the american association of pediatric dentistry yes kids dentistry and like clockwork this study found that there was a shift in tone on the subject of sugary drinks from the aapd quote from describing soft drinks as a significant factor in tooth decay to describing the scientific evidence of the relationship as unclear another 2013 philanthropic donation from coca-cola and pepsico went to the naacp and the hispanic federation afterwards both groups joined coca-cola and pepsico in a protest against a proposed new york ban on large sugary drinks arguing that the move would disproportionately affect minorities coca-cola and pepsico funded 95 public health organizations between 2011 and 2015 and often the influence the donations have on the organizations is explicit the associated press discovered leaked coca-cola emails that revealed they were directly involved in shaping policy at anti-obesity group g-e-b-n after they received a 1.5 million donation coca-cola's chief health and science officer was involved in advising on content for the website editing the mission statement and even choosing senior staff the emphasis of the advice was in shifting the blame from sugar being responsible for obesity to other factors like a lack of exercise the british medical journal reported that an analysis of thousands of emails has shown the extent to which coca-cola has sought to obscure its relationship with scientists minimize perception of its role and use researchers to promote industry-friendly messaging these findings represented quote a low point in the history of public health another study found that save the children received five million dollars from coca-cola and pepsico in 2009 and their campaign for attacks on sugary sodas soon mysteriously disappeared so of course coca-cola have an interest in promoting a philanthropic cause that supports the appearance that their millions of tons of plastic waste can simply be cleaned up afterwards that we can all continue using plastic and go on like we are rather than focusing on real change that will affect their bottom line and instead of relying on bad taste advertising and lobbying that might affect their public image corporations like genio and coca-cola have discovered a much more behind the scenes an ambiguous funnel that looks something like this first invest heavily in philanthropic efforts that align with profits second these efforts become the most well-funded which then affects the popularity and clout of the talking points around those topics while simultaneously being able to cover the causes websites and operations and corporate logos for free advertising while also benefiting from the positive press coverage [Music] take one more top supporter of ocean cleanup ap muller musk the largest shipping company in the world with arms in oil drilling oil tankers and air freight and who have been accused of being responsible for abusive working conditions and harsh labor practices across the world maersk are making a commendable effort to decarbonize at the moment but why well shipping accounts for three percent of the globe's carbon emissions burning 300 million metric tons of fossil fuels every year and the industry is nowhere near meeting the paris climate agreement goals that most agree are needed to keep the rise of global temperatures below 2 percent rather than decreasing shipping emissions actually rose by 10 between 2012 and 2018 and regulators are beginning to realize that tougher restrictions are inevitably going to be needed by 2026 for example shipping companies like musk in the eu will have to pay attacks on carbon emissions like coca-cola musk has a clear vested interest in supporting the cleanup of pollution after it's been used to generate profits rather than supporting causes that might actually make a difference in the first place the corporate funneling of resources into philanthropy that share their message means that the media are more likely to listen to the non-profits like ocean cleanup uncritically corporations get what they want without the crassness of advertising or risking the bad press from lobbying politicians directly instead they end up financing and using useful idiots a term i don't really like i'm not calling mr beast an idiot but it goes some way in capturing the logic naive entertainers and uncritical journalists who end up on their side without even really knowing or considering why the greatest trick the devil ever pulled convincing the world he didn't exist disappearing into the shadowy margins using slights of hand and misdirection oceanic society writes about the best way to reduce plastic pollution in the ocean beach cleanups are there but the top two are to reduce the use of plastics in the first place and quote support legislation to curb plastic production and waste by supporting specific causes companies like genio coca-cola and muscat essentially saying don't worry about this huge mess we're all making guys we can just tidy it up tomorrow in the morning katy matthews chief scientist at advocacy group oceana told vox that it's like mopping up the spill or when the spigot is still on we can't clean up our way out of plastic pollution but once they become magically well funded ocean cleanup and other projects like them become the topic of conversation a trend a talking point placed on a pedestal to divert attention away from the real problem they get turned into spectacle exciting new content-worthy tech massaged into a flashy youtuber supported positive image supplanting the rather dull laborious and costly task of actually changing our attitudes reducing use and affecting real change and it's worth quickly noting that this of course is everywhere for example in leaked documents describing the agrochemical giant monsantos funding of grantees that happen to disagree with banning its controversial pesticide roundup a monsanto executive states that the key will be keeping monsanto in the background so as not to harm the credibility of the information in another study during a merger between telecommunications giants comcast and mbcu its author susan crawford found that quote the company encouraged letters to the fcc from more than 1 000 non-profits including community centres rehabilitation centers civil rights groups community colleges sports programs and senior citizen groups what these organizations know about telecommunications mergers is unclear another leaked document from the oil giant mobile describes how donations should have a benefit to mobile and in this study of donations authors marianne bertrand mathilde bombardini raymond fisman brad hackenin and francisco trebbe describe corporate philanthropy as a whole of mirrors they write that their research robustly shows that quote non-profits are more likely to comment on the same regulation as their donors and that this co-commentary is most strongly associated with donations in the year immediately preceding the comments in short the study found that a donation leads to a 76 chance of a shift in commentary and sometimes the influence is even more direct we can see this trend illustrated most clearly through one of its worst examples the bill hillary and chelsea clinton foundation the non-profit which has raised around two billion dollars has been plagued with accusations of conflicts of interest cash for favors and a lack of transparency one employee claimed he could point to over 500 conflicts of interest at the foundation the foundation's annual event is described as a place for quote showcasing opportunities a place where members can publicize their philanthropy to the nearly 1 000 members of the media who are on site at the annual meeting each year to report on the accomplishments of cgi members to attend this prestigious event you have to have paid a twenty thousand dollar membership fee mcguire writes that it's an annual extravaganza permitting donors to announce vast donations secure in the knowledge that a promise is not exactly a binding commitment there is no global cabal of philanthropic bounty hunters making sure cgi attendees make good on their pledges and some of the motivations of the foundation's donors are crystal clear mining magnate frank guistra traveled with clinton around developing nations on a philanthropic mission clinton brought the contacts and griestra bought the md87 private jet in kazakhstan clinton and guystra happened to dine with the then president nur sultan nazarbayev and they happened to discuss guys mining interests three days later a 450 million dollar deal was announced which stunned the mining industry later clinton and guystra met the president of colombia alvaro uribe soon after a 250 million dollar oil venture was struck with a shell company that had links to guistra if this is philanthropy it's really rewarding and i imagine most people don't dream of securing multi-million dollar contracts while they're volunteering to feed the homeless more and more corporations are cutting out the middleman and starting their own foundation so that they can philanthropize directly this accounts for that rise in private foundations we talked about earlier one of the worst offenders here is walmart its foundation lobbies against higher taxes contributes to political candidates and think tanks and supports the privatisation of education it's also been accused of illegally lobbying in areas it wants walmart to expand into so when it comes to coca cola genio walmart big meat big oil chemical companies mining interests let's call a spade a spade and call it what it is it's not philanthropy it's lobbying often indirect lobbying but lobbying all the same lobbying public opinion in fact an old 1946 lobbying act described a lobbyist as any person who shall engage himself for pay or for any consideration of the purpose of attempting to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation by the congress of the united states what corporations have discovered is that influence is much more influential and much more hidden when they take their cash a bit more upstream away from congress and into the court of public opinion [Music] i want to turn now to how the narratives financed by corporate cash function to support the status quo resist change and boost profits the narratives hang together with the help of a couple of threads that we can see running through mr beast's videos first the narrative tends to make people feel good it has a feel-good factor and second the narrative tends to give the impression that the current way of doing business and politics is fine and they the elite have got this covered take a look at this campaign from domino's pizza paving for pizza it went viral in 2008 when domino's committed to filling potholes around america and telling its customers that those holes ruin your delicious pizza on route these are some pictures of some of the paving projects we have a link on our cbs 42 news app for you to nominate a road in your area just search paving for pizza the campaign gets picked up by endless websites and news outlets who eagerly display the images of trucks with the domino's logo filling holes again with the domino's logo next to signs with the yes domino's logo as bernie sanders complained at the time coverage usually happened to sidestep or ignore the question of why there were so many potholes in the first place author anand girard harardas told fast company that roads should be a pretty open and shut case for government we don't need pizza companies to build roads we need pizza companies to pay their workers enough and pay their taxes he continued they used the do-gooding to undermine the idea of solving these problems together it's not just like subsidizing a road at some point on some panel somewhere their road paving will then be used to say it's better to keep taxes low it's better to have government not do a lot that the private sector can step up girid haradas makes an incisive point the basic premise of supplying public goods is that unfortunately it's work coming together paying taxes solving problems comes at a cost in time and resources that as an investment pays us all dividends as a community later on the community all of us chip in taxes and everyone reaps the benefits equally of course when this is left to private individuals it leaves a massive question mark as to whether these services will be supplied to everyone equally rather than just the roads that domino's happen to need for profit mr beast's sponsorship relies on the same logic they have to be entertaining have a feel-good factor they have to get views when in reality difficult problems like global warming labor rights not needing a handout at thanksgiving is not always fun can't always be fun washed and turned into an entertaining spectacle it often leaves commentators like this one feeling like they've contributed to solving a problem just by clicking like and sitting through an advert and it gives the impression that problems can be solved on a win-win basis a positive sum game where we can all use the market to exchange our way out of problems and difficulties and all make a profit at the same time well i'll only give some change to a homeless person if i get something in return but i must be entertained to do philanthropy where i only donate to any calls in return to sponsorship deals and i only support those causes that align with my interests in some way economist fred hirsch called this the commercialization effect when the introduction of commercial mechanisms into an idea or an object or a relationship changes the nature of that thing philosopher michael sandell points to examples like hiring friends for the day paying for a best man speech auctioning off college admissions and selling adverts on police cars and ambulances commercializing certain things that are meant to be based on such old-fashioned things like values and fairness and meaning twists and changes that thing beyond recognition you can't buy a friend a friend is meant to mean something deeper a best man speech isn't the same if it's written by an algorithm say hersh who coined the term said that the commercialization effect was the effect on the characteristics of a product or activity of supplying it exclusively or predominantly on commercial terms rather than on some other basis such as informal exchange mutual obligation altruism or love or feelings of service or obligation when philanthropy is commercialized in this way it has to drain it of important questions conceal any unfavorable elements and draw out the feel good factor should these things really make us feel good though or should they make us feel guilty lazy spur us into action rather than provide escapism what happens when a story that needs the limelight is not a feel-good story what happens if it's depressing violent difficult when corporations are motivated by profit to support philanthropic causes that only align with their motives and then partner with the media in a way that anesthetizes the problem to make everyone feel better then of course the more difficult boring academic less well-funded solutions will get crowded out who wants to read about plastic pollution when they can go and watch a mr beast video which leads us to the second phenomenon that ties this narrative together what i'll call the big man effect the new philanthropists from carnegie and rockefeller to clinton mr beast and coca-cola and genio lead us to an important question that i mentioned earlier where's the line between altruism and self-interest and does it matter in the 1960s anthropologists studying tribes in papua new guinea discovered a phrase the tribe's people had the big man they found that tribe leaders had become well-known and respected for one skill in particular giving gifts this gift giving created a unique type of economy one where who gave gifts to whom and when acted as a type of exchange for reputation and power the aim of the big man that anthropologist chris gregory reported is to acquire a large body of people gift debtors who are obligated to him another anthropologist marcel mouse looked at these studies in his influential essay the gift he argued that giving gifts was sometimes a type of power it increased the gift-giver's prestige the absolutist ruler of france king louis xiv known for his extravagant palace and spending was also a generous supporter of the arts one of his contemporaries wrote of louis that let him who wants or rather who will be able to do so in a worthy fashion speak of the wisdom of this great king who provided the life of grace to so many souls by this holy zeal his patience his gentleness his gifts by laws as salutary as they are just louis created a cult of personality becoming known as the sun king the center of france's universe he commissioned busts of himself and portraits and supported ballet and theater and music that ultimately functioned as well as royal propaganda louis knew that in the eyes of the public more than anything it was important how one looked his gifts like the leaders of tribes in papua new guinea established prestige his people were his children looked after by a benevolent benefactor oscar wilde wrote a famous essay critiquing charity saying that it was really about prestige he complained about how the so-called benevolence of wealthy victorian industrialists was a means to compensate for their harsh labor practices he wrote that the best among the poor are never grateful they are ungrateful discontented disobedient and rebellious they are quite right to be so why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table they should be seated at the board and are beginning to know it and the french poet baudelaire saw through this too in a short story about a man giving a counterfeit coin to a beggar he wrote that his aim had been to do a good deed while at the same time making a good deal to earn 40 cents and the heart of god to win paradise economically in short to pick up gratis the certificate of a charitable man the french philosopher jacques derrida also saw gifts were full of double meanings they can be remedies they can be selfless but they can be self-interested calculated even poisonous and double-edged does this mean we should always look at mr beast videos like this cynically as always motivated by profit and self-interest not necessarily there's deredusal we have multiple overlapping sometimes contradictory motivations in life but we should always try and demystify what those motivations are and what the results of them are mr beast is not solving a homelessness problem homelessness will never be solved in this way in fact what's commercialized in videos like this is our fascination with just how unlikely this is to happen of course we can't help but click on a video like this of course we're all curious because it's such a singular event such a one-off so astronomically improbable that we just have to see the reaction but when it comes to widespread structural social issues like pollution homelessness poverty and hunger philanthropy like this doesn't cut it the gifts when caught up in a web of pr misdirection and whitewashing have the same effect as placing a little band-aid over a cut just enough to mask it just enough to boost image to make everyone involved look good without ever addressing the underlying problem [Music] in the german ideology karl marx wrote that the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas i.e the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force the class which has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of mental production so that thereby generally speaking the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it the ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas of course corporations with deep pockets want to be associated with fun youtubers who won't ask too many questions of course they want to look like they're solving problems and acting benevolently in everyone's interest capitalist mythology creates a kind of modern priestly figure a feel-good entertainer a generous big man crafted by profit image pr and spectacle someone that just gets stuff done that doesn't need the government or the community and could do it all for clicks views and likes the new philanthropy capitalism creates the impression that the elite their flashy robots and fun-loving entertainers and their technology have everything under control in his book mythologies roland bartz comments on the french priest abba pierre who became a famous household media figure in france in the post-war period bartz wrote that he was interested in the enormous consumption of media about him by the public he said that the public no longer having access to the real experience of apostleship except through the bric-a-brac associated with it are getting used to acquiring a clear conscience by merely looking at the shop window of saintliness and i get worried about a society which consumes with such a vidity the display of charity that it forgets to ask itself questions about its consequences its uses and its limits and i then start to wonder whether the fine and touching iconography of the abbe pierre is not the alibi which a sizable part of the nation uses in order once more to substitute with impunity the signs of charity for the reality of justice michael edwards a former executive of the ford foundation has become a vocal critic of the new philanthropy capitalist mentality he argues that among other things it's eroding support for government spending on public services and it's simply never going to replace us coming together to solve problems democratically in 2020 for example the gates foundation of course the biggest of them all spent five billion dollars in contrast the us government budget is almost 7 trillion and there are another 1.4 million registered non-profits in america and most of them about 73 percent have budgets under half a million and millions and millions of people volunteer for these charities every day this is where the real work happens with nothing in return just volunteering mugue writes that edwards and other outspoken critics point out that private philanthropy is no substitution for hard-fought battles over labor laws and social security in part because philanthropy can be retracted on a whim while elected officials at least in theory have citizens to answer to on the one hand wealthy pr departments support entertaining videos and ad campaigns and philanthropy and spend a fortune on lobbying while on the other they preside over an economy that by many measures is getting worse today the share of young people running their own business has fallen by two-thirds since the 1980s low-paid work has declined and the income of the bottom half has stagnated while the rich have gotten immeasurably richer health outcomes for many groups are declining mental health problems are becoming an epidemic and there's a stark divide between wealthier cities and left behind rural areas angel guria from the oecd wrote that elite figures like to focus on convenient issues that sideline quote rising inequalities of income wealth and opportunities the growing disconnect between finance and the real economy mounting divergence in productivity levels between workers firms and regions winner take most dynamics in many markets limited progressivity of our tax systems corruption and capture of politics and institutions by vested interests lack of transparency and participation by ordinary citizens in decision making the soundness of education and of the values we transmit to future generations he says that ultimately they've found a variety of ways to change things on the surface but in practice nothing changes at all and girard haradas writes in his book winners take all that the elite charade that they're changing the world quite improves the image of the winners with its private and voluntary half measures it crowds out public solutions that would solve problems for everyone and do so with or without the elite's blessing and money loves a man of the people image a self-made man that through grit and hard work and determination can make it in the same system that they themselves have made it in and are defending you can see the same logic play out on fox news which has starred itself as a kind of defender of the working class the ordinary man and woman to be associated with the authenticity of mr beast his everyday davy crockett appeal is for corporations priceless add to that the feel good factor and viewers come away with the impression that they've helped enact change that in helping others we can have our cake and eat it too political theorist jodie dean has talked about how many types of online participation including petitions likes surveys and social media comments actually become de-politicizing because they create a fantasy of participation and change she writes that weirdly then the circulation of communication is de-politicizing not because people don't care or don't want to be involved but because we do or put more precisely it is depoliticizing because the form of our involvement ultimately empowers those it's supposed to resist as michael sandel puts it other values other solutions other forms of organization get crowded out but the ethics of helping others the difficult work of addressing hard problems and the dry deliberation and research of politics and political issues cannot be reduced to an exchange for entertainment morality does not arise from a positive some exchange i didn't give the homeless man a penny and expect a little jig in return philanthropy is difficult it usually comes at a cost in time and effort and money and resources and if everything gets turned into a marketable exchange a commercial venture motivated by profit and material reward then what happens to the issues and areas and people and ideas that aren't polished and content-worthy when we uncritically leave philanthropy in the hands of big tech moguls youtube personalities oil barons and clintons we get shiny robots and halls of mirrors we get a few planted seeds we get distractions we get spectacle and entertainment we get empty libraries and more food banks and lower wages we get white washing green washing pink washing fun washing and now youtube washing thank you as always for watching and a huge thanks of course as always to my patreons without which this just wouldn't be possible so if you want to see scripts if you want to chat in the discord server if you want your name in the credits but most of all if you just want to help support make this content then click the link in the description below if not you can like you can share you can leave a comment all those things that help the algorithm thank you so much and i'll see you next time [Music] foreign

Channel: Then & Now

Views: 633,350

Keywords: mrbeast, mrbeast philanthropy, philanthrocapitalism, capitalism, jennie-o, smithfield, coca-cola, corruption, hormel foods, teamseas, ocean cleanup, robber barons, team seas, mr beast, mr beast philanthropy, philanthrocapitalism pros and cons, philanthrocapitalism problems, philanthrocapitalism and its critics, ocean cleanup 2022, robber barons gilded age

Id: svHCXvQeZfY

Length: 80min 5sec (4805 seconds)

Published: Mon Apr 04 2022

Reddit Comments

[u/wwarnout]

Like when a company donates $x, and then spends 10 times $x to advertise their donation?

[u/roguebaconstrip]

I’ve never understood people’s infatuation with “mega rich” YouTube celebrities and massive cash/prize giveaways. There’s a bizarre, mindless hysteria behind them that makes no sense to me. There’s no sustained “value creation” beyond the entertainment factor and the immediate wealth realized by the people participating in the scheme. And don’t forget “virtue porn” personalities. Guys walking around surprising poor people with $500 while catching it on camera in order to “inspire the world”. There’s a weird power/social dynamic and it never ceases to make me incredibly uncomfortable.

[u/ImADouchebag]

This video is overly produced and unnecessarily long. I agree with the overall message, but come on man.

[u/horseradishking]

I don't recognize him without his mouth open or when I'm signed-in YouTube.

[u/[deleted]]

I haven't seen this, but this seems interesting. It's obvious companies don't do anything that doesn't somehow increase profits, but on the other end giving positive feedback to them when their methods of driving profit up includes helping others seems fine, on a superficial level atleast.

[u/Caboose_1188]

I have to say after browsing this subreddit for a little while (AIso never remember subbing) it really shouldn't be called r/documentaries. There's basically no vetting of any of the content and my worry is that while most people here understand that documentaries aren't about presenting facts and truth, some people do.

[u/internetlad]

"Next up, my video where I wander around giving people 100 dollar bills and make 50 grand off the video's monetization"

[u/jdax2]

Haven’t watched yet but I can assume that Mr Beast’s philanthropy and activism makes people complacent with societal crises.

Things like TeamTrees and Seas push the idea that it’s the individual’s responsibility to fix climate change rather than the corporations that contribute the vast majority of the emissions and waste.

Beast is definitely a well-meaning guy and I’m 100% sure he’s authentic in his care for people and these causes, but focusing on the individuals’ fight against societal issues allows the corporations that are actually responsible wash their hands of their responsibility. Eager to listen to this on my commute.

[u/[deleted]]

Another reason not to hit the button at the retailer who is asking you to help whatever cause they selected. They get your money for their charity donation. I give directly to the people that provide services, no middle men.