Does money make you mean? | Paul Piff

Translator: Anders Finn Jørgensen Reviewer: Allan Jensen

I want you to, for a moment,

Jeg ønsker at I, for et øjeblik,

tænker på at spille et spil Matador,

think about playing a game of Monopoly.

bortset fra at i dette spil, hvor den kombination

Except in this game, that combination of skill, talent and luck

af øvelse, talent og held

that helped earn you success in games, as in life,

som hjælper jer med at få succes i spillet, som i livet,

er blevet gjort irrelevant,

has been rendered irrelevant,

because this game's been rigged,

fordi spillet er blevet manipuleret,

and you've got the upper hand.

og du har fået fordelen.

You've got more money,

Du har flere penge,

more opportunities to move around the board,

flere muligheder for at komme rundt på brættet,

og bedre adgang til ressourcerne.

and more access to resources.

And as you think about that experience,

Og hvis I tænke over den oplevelse,

så ønsker jeg at i spørger jer selv,

I want you to ask yourself:

How might that experience of being a privileged player in a rigged game

hvordan mon den oplevelse af at være

den privilegerede spiller i et manipuleret spil

change the way you think about yourself

ændre måden hvorpå du tænker om dig selv

og om den anden spiller?

and regard that other player?

So, we ran a study on the UC Berkeley campus

Så vi lavede en undersøgelse på campus hos U. C. Berkeley

for at se på præcis det spørgsmål.

to look at exactly that question.

We brought in more than 100 pairs of strangers into the lab,

Vi bragte mere end 100 par

af fremmede ind i vores Lab,

and with the flip of a coin,

og ved at slå plat eller krone

randomly assigned one of the two to be a rich player in a rigged game.

gjorde vi en af de to

til den rige spiller i det manipulerede spil.

They got two times as much money;

De fik dobbelt så mange penge.

when they passed Go, they collected twice the salary;

Når de passerede start,

fik de det dobbelte beløb,

and they got to roll both dice instead of one,

og de fik lov til at bruge to terninger i stedet for en,

so they got to move around the board a lot more.

så de fik mulighed for at komme mere rundt på brættet.

(Latter)

(Laughter)

Og i løbet af 15 minutter,

And over the course of 15 minutes,

we watched through hidden cameras what happened.

iagttog vi dem gennem skjulte kameraer.

What I want to do today, for the first time,

Og hvad jeg vil i dag, for første gang,

er at vise en lille smule af hvad vi så.

is show you a little bit of what we saw.

You'll to have to pardon the sound quality,

I må have lydkvaliteten undskyldt,

i nogle tilfælde, fordi igen, dette er med skjulte kameraer.

because again, these were hidden cameras.

So we've provided subtitles.

Så vi har tilføjet undertekster.

[Video] Rich Player: How many 500s did you have?

Rig spiller: "Hvor mange 500'ere havde du?"

Fattig spiller: "Kun en."

Poor Player: Just one.

Rig spiller: "Er det rigtigt" Fattig spiller: "Ja."

RP: Are you serious? PP: Yeah.

Rig spiller: "Jeg har tre." (Griner)

RP: I have three. (Laughs) I don't know why they gave me so much.

Jeg ved ikke hvorfor de gav mig så mange.

Paul Piff: Okay, så det gik hurtigt op for spillerne

Paul Piff: So it was quickly apparent to players that something was up.

at noget var anderledes.

En person havde tydeligt langt flere penge

One person clearly has a lot more money than the other person,

end den anden person, og alligevel,

and yet, as the game unfolded,

som spillet udviklede sig,

så vi en meget udtalt forskel

we saw very notable differences, dramatic differences begin to emerge

og en dramatisk forskel begyndte at vise sig

between the two players.

mellem de to spillere.

The rich player started to move around the board louder,

Den rige spiller

begyndte at flytte brikken mere støjende,

literally smacking the board with the piece as he went around.

bogstaveligt slår den ned i brættet

mens han flytter den.

(Game piece smacks board)

We were more likely to see signs of dominance

Vi så oftere tegn på dominans

and nonverbal signs, displays of power

og ikke-verbale tegn,

fremvisning af magt

and celebration among the rich players.

og fejring hos de rige spillere.

We had a bowl of pretzels positioned off to the side.

Vi havde en skål med saltkringler placeret ved siden af.

Den er i nederste højre hjørne her.

It's on the bottom right corner.

That allowed us to watch participants' consummatory behavior.

Dette tillod os at iagttage deltagernes forbrugsadfærd.

So we're just tracking how many pretzels participants eat.

Så vi talte bare hvor mange saltkringler hver deltager spiste.

[Video] RP: Are those pretzels a trick?

Rig spiller: "Er disse saltkringler et trick?"

PP: I don't know.

Fattig spiller: "Jeg ved det ikke"

Paul Piff: OK, so no surprises, people are on to us.

PP: Okay, ingen overraskelser, folk er mistænkelige.

They wonder what that bowl of pretzels is doing there in the first place.

De undrer sig over hvad skålen med saltkringler

er der for, fra starten.

En spørger endda, som I lige så,

One even asks, like you just saw,

er skålen med saltkringler et trick?

"Is that bowl of pretzels there as a trick?"

og trods dette, påvirkning af situation

And yet, despite that, the power of the situation

ser ud til at slå igennem,

seems to inevitably dominate,

and those rich players start to eat more pretzels.

og den rige spiller begynder at spise flere saltkringler.

(Laughter)

Rig spiller: "Jeg elsker saltkringler"

[Video] RP: I love pretzels.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

PP: Og som spillet fortsatte,

Paul Piff: And as the game went on,

one of the really interesting and dramatic patterns

en af de mest interessante og dramatiske mønstre

that we observed begin to emerge

vi observere begyndte at vise sig

var at den rige spiller faktisk

was that the rich players actually started to become ruder

begyndte at blive grovere overfor den anden person

toward the other person --

og mindre og mindre følsomme overfor forfatningen

less and less sensitive to the plight of those poor, poor players,

hos disse stakels, fattige spillere,

and more and more demonstrative of their material success,

og mere og mere demonstrative

med deres materielle succes,

mere tilbøjelige til at fremvise hvad de gør.

more likely to showcase how well they're doing.

Rig spiller: "Jeg har penge til alt."

[Video] RP: I have money ...

(Laughs) I have money for everything.

Fattig spiller: "Hvor meget er det?"

PP: How much is that?

RP: You owe me 24 dollars.

Rig spiller: "Du skylder mig 24 dollars."

You're going to lose all your money soon.

Du vil tabe alle dine penge om lidt.

I'll buy it. I have so much money.

Jeg køber den, jeg har så mange penge.

I have so much money, it takes me forever.

Jeg har så mange penge, jeg kan alt.

RP 2: I'm going to buy out this whole board.

Rig spiller 2: "Jeg kommer til at købe hele brættet"

RP 3: You're going to run out of money soon.

Rig spiller 3: "Du løber snart tør for penge."

Jeg er urørlig fra nu af.

I'm pretty much untouchable at this point.

(Laughter)

PP: Okay, her er hvad jeg tænker

Paul Piff: And here's what I think was really, really interesting:

var rigtigt, rigtigt interessant,

var at ved slutningen af de 15 minutter,

it's that, at the end of the 15 minutes,

we asked the players to talk about their experience during the game.

spurgte vi spillerne om deres oplevelse af spillet.

And when the rich players talked about why they had inevitably won

Og når de rige spillere talte om

hvorfor de uundgåeligt havde vundet

in this rigged game of Monopoly ...

i det manipulerede spil Matador

(Laughter)

(Latter)

They talked about what they'd done to buy those different properties

så talte de om hvad de havde gjort

for at købe forskellige ejendomme

and earn their success in the game.

og fortjent deres succes i spillet,

(Laughter)

And they became far less attuned

og de blev mindre opmærksomme

på alle de forskellige komponenter i situationen,

to all those different features of the situation --

including that flip of a coin --

herunder slåen plat eller krone

that had randomly gotten them into that privileged position

som tilfældigt havde bragt dem i

den fordelagtige situation til at starte med.

in the first place.

And that's a really, really incredible insight

Og dette er en virkelig, virkelig utrolig indsigt

into how the mind makes sense of advantage.

i hvordan vores opfattelse af fordele.

Nu kan dette spil Matador bruges

Now, this game of Monopoly can be used

as a metaphor for understanding society and its hierarchical structure,

som en metafor til at forstå samfundet

og det hierarkiske struktur, hvor nogle folk

wherein some people have a lot of wealth and a lot of status,

har masser af penge og status,

and a lot of people don't;

som mange folk ikke har.

they have a lot less wealth and a lot less status

De som har mindre rigdom og meget mindre status

and a lot less access to valued resources.

og meget mindre adgang til værdifulde ressourcer.

And what my colleagues and I for the last seven years have been doing

Og hvad mine kollegaer og jeg har gjort i de sidste syv år

is studying the effects of these kinds of hierarchies.

er at studere effekterne af disse former for hierarkier.

What we've been finding across dozens of studies

Hvad vi har fundet gennem en række studier

og tusinder af deltagere rundt om i landet

and thousands of participants across this country

is that as a person's levels of wealth increase,

er at når en persons niveau af rigdom stiger,

falder deres medfølelse og empati,

their feelings of compassion and empathy go down,

og deres følelse af berettigelse, af de har fortjent det,

and their feelings of entitlement, of deservingness,

and their ideology of self-interest increase.

og deres ideologi om selvinteresse stiger.

In surveys, we've found

I undersøgelser, har vi fundet at det faktisk

that it's actually wealthier individuals who are more likely to moralize

er de rigeste individer, som er mere tilbøjelige

til at moraliserer at grådighed er godt,

greed being good,

and that the pursuit of self-interest is favorable and moral.

og forfølgelsen af selv-interesse er

er godt og moralsk.

Hvad jeg ønsker at tale om i dag

Now, what I want to do today is talk about some of the implications

er nogle af følgerne af selv-interesse ideologi,

of this ideology self-interest,

talk about why we should care about those implications,

at tale om hvorfor vi skal bekymre os om disse følger,

og til sidst om hvad der bør gøres.

and end with what might be done.

Some of the first studies that we ran in this area

Nogle af de første studier vi lavede på dette område

kiggede på hjælpeadfærd,

looked at helping behavior,

noget som psykologer kalder

something social psychologists call "pro-social behavior."

pro-social adfærd.

And we were really interested

Og vi interesserede os for hvem der er

in who's more likely to offer help to another person:

mest tilbøjelig til at hjælpe en anden person,

someone who's rich or someone who's poor.

en som er rig eller en som er fattig.

In one of the studies,

I et studie, bragte vi et rigt og et fattigt

we bring rich and poor members of the community into the lab,

medlem af et lokalsamfund ind i laboratoriet

and give each of them the equivalent of 10 dollars.

og gave dem hver en sum svarende til 10 dollars.

We told the participants they could keep these 10 dollars for themselves,

Vi fortalte deltagerne

at de kunne beholde disse 10 dollars for dem selv

eller de kunne give en del af dem,

or they could share a portion of it, if they wanted to,

hvis de ønskede det, til en fremmed

with a stranger, who's totally anonymous.

som var totalt anonym.

They'll never meet that stranger; the stranger will never meet them.

De har aldrig mødt denne fremmede og den fremmede har aldrig mødt dem.

And we just monitor how much people give.

Og vi målte hvor mange penge folk giver væk.

Individuals who made 25,000, sometimes under 15,000 dollars a year,

Individer der tjener ca 25.000 nogen gange

under 15.000 dollars om året

gave 44 percent more of their money to the stranger

gav 44 procent mere af deres penge

til den fremmede

than did individuals making 150,000, 200,000 dollars a year.

end individer der tjener 150.000

eller 200.000 dollars om året.

We've had people play games

Vi lod folk spille spil

to see who's more or less likely to cheat

for at se hvem der var mest tilbøjelig til at snyde

to increase their chances of winning a prize.

for at forøge deres chancer for en gevinst.

In one of the games, we actually rigged a computer

I et spil manipulerede vi en computer

so that die rolls over a certain score were impossible --

så terningkast over en bestemt score

var umulig.

You couldn't get above 12 in this game, and yet ...

Man kunne ikke få mere end 12 i det spil,

og igen, jo rigere du er,

the richer you were, the more likely you were to cheat in this game

jo større sandsynlighed har du for at snyde i dette spil

to earn credits toward a $50 cash prize --

for at tjene point til at vinde en 50$ kontant præmie,

sometimes by three to four times as much.

nogen gange op til 3 eller 4 gange så meget.

Vi lavede en anden undersøgelse, hvor vi undersøgte hvorvidt

We ran another study

where we looked at whether people would be inclined to take candy

folk ville være tilbøjelige til at tage slik

from a jar of candy that we explicitly identified

fra en krukke som vi tydeligt sagde

var reserveret til børn --

as being reserved for children --

(Laughter)

(Latter)

I'm not kidding -- I know it sounds like I'm making a joke.

som deltog i -- jeg joker ikke.

Jeg ved det lyder som om jeg laver en joke.

We explicitly told participants:

Vi fortalte tydeligt deltagerne

"This candy is for children participating in a developmental lab nearby.

at denne krukke var slik til børn som deltog

i et udviklingsforsøg i nærheden.

They're in studies. This is for them."

De deltager i et studie, de er for dem.

And we just monitored how much candy participants took.

Og vi overvågende hvor mange bolsjer deltagerne tog.

Participants who felt rich took two times as much candy

Deltagere som følte sig rige

to to gange så mange bolsjer

as participants who felt poor.

som deltagere som følte sig fattige.

We've even studied cars.

Vi studerede også biler,

Not just any cars,

ikke hvilke som helst biler,

men om fører af forskellige slags biler

but whether drivers of different kinds of cars

er mere eller mindre tilbøjelige til bryde loven.

are more or less inclined to break the law.

In one of these studies,

I et af disse studier, kiggede vi på

we looked at whether drivers would stop for a pedestrian

om en bil ville stoppe for en fodgænger

that we had posed waiting to cross at a crosswalk.

som stod og ville gå over en fodgængerovergang.

I Californien, som I alle ved,

Now in California, as you all know,

fordi jeg ved at I alle gør det,

because I'm sure we all do this,

it's the law to stop for a pedestrian who's waiting to cross.

der siger loven at man skal stoppe for en fodgænger som venter på at gå over.

So here's an example of how we did it.

Så her er et eksempel på hvordan vi gjorde det.

That's our confederate off to the left, posing as a pedestrian.

Det er vores medsammensvorne til venstre

poserer som en fodgænger.

He approaches as the red truck successfully stops.

Han nærmer sig og den røde bil stopper efterfølgende.

In typical California fashion,

På typisk Californisk vis, er den overhalet af

it's overtaken by the bus who almost runs our pedestrian over.

af en bus, som næsten kører vores fodgænger over.

(Latter)

(Laughter)

Now here's an example of a more expensive car,

Her er et eksempel på en mere dyr bil,

a Prius, driving through, and a BMW doing the same.

en Prius, kører gennem,

og en BMW, der gør det samme.

So we did this for hundreds of vehicles

Således gjorde vi for hundrede af køretøjer

på forskellige dage,

on several days,

just tracking who stops and who doesn't.

bare registrerede hvem der stoppede og hvem der ikke gjorde det.

What we found was as the expensiveness of a car increased ...

Hvad vi fandt var at når prisen på

en bil blev forøget

(Laughter)

the drivers' tendencies to break the law increased as well.

så førerens tendens til at bryde loven

også forøget.

None of the cars -- none of the cars --

Ingen af bilerne, ingen af bilerne

i vores mindst kostbare kategori

in our least expensive car category

broke the law.

brød loven.

Close to 50 percent of the cars in our most expensive vehicle category

Tæt på 50 procent af bilerne

i vores mest kostbare kategori

broke the law.

brød loven.

We've run other studies,

Vi har lavet andre studier som finder

finding that wealthier individuals are more likely to lie in negotiations,

at rigere individer er mere tilbøjelige til at lyve i forhandlinger

to endorse unethical behavior at work,

at udvise uetisk adfærd på arbejde

like stealing cash from the cash register,

så som tyveri af penge,

taking bribes, lying to customers.

tage i mod bestikkelse, lyve overfor kunder.

Now, I don't mean to suggest

Nu mener jeg ikke

that it's only wealthy people who show these patterns of behavior.

at det kun er rige mennesker

som udviser disse mønstre af adfærd.

Not at all -- in fact, I think that we all,

Ikke overhovedet. Faktisk, tror jeg at vi alle,

in our day-to-day, minute-by-minute lives,

i vores dag til dag, minut for minut liv,

struggle with these competing motivations

kæmper mellem disse to konkurrerende motivationer

of when or if to put our own interests above the interests of other people.

om hvornår, eller om, at sætte vores egne interesser

over interesserne for andre folk.

And that's understandable,

Og det er forståeligt fordi

because the American dream is an idea

den amerikanske drøm er ideen

om at vi alle skal have ens muligheder

in which we all have an equal opportunity to succeed and prosper,

for succes og fremgang,

as long as we apply ourselves and work hard.

så længe vi klarer os selv og arbejder hård,

And a piece of that means that sometimes,

og et stykke at dette betyder at nogen gange,

you need to put your own interests

er du nødt til at sætte dine egne interesser

above the interests and well-being of other people around you.

over interesserne og velbefindende af andre folk omkring dig.

Men hvad vi er ved at finde er at,

But what we're finding is that the wealthier you are,

jo rigere du er, jo mere tilbøjelig er du

the more likely you are to pursue a vision of personal success,

til at forfølge en vision af personlig succes,

of achievement and accomplishment,

af belønning og gennemførsel,

to the detriment of others around you.

på bekostning af andre omkring dig.

Here I've plotted for you the mean household income

Jeg har plottet for jer den gennemsnitlige husholdningsindkomst

for hver femtedel og de øverste 5% af befolkningen

received by each fifth and top five percent of the population

over the last 20 years.

gennem de sidste 20 år.

In 1993,

i 1993, forskellen mellem de forskellige

the differences between the different quintiles of the population,

femtedele af befolkningen, set som indkomst,

in terms of income,

er rimeligt tydelige.

are fairly egregious.

It's not difficult to discern that there are differences.

Det er ikke svært at se at der er forskelle.

But over the last 20 years, that significant difference

Men over de sidste 20 år, har den tydelige forskel

has become a Grand Canyon of sorts

blevet en slags Grand Canyon

between those at the top and everyone else.

mellem den i toppen og alle andre.

In fact, the top 20 percent of our population

Faktisk, de 20 % i toppen af vores befolkning

own close to 90 percent of the total wealth in this country.

ejer tæt på 90 % af den totale rigdom i dette land.

We're at unprecedented levels of economic inequality.

Vi har fået ikke ført set højder

af økonomisk ulighed.

What that means is that wealth is not only becoming increasingly concentrated

Hvad dette betyder er at rigdom ikke kun er blevet

stigende koncentreret på hænderne af en lille gruppe individer,

in the hands of a select group of individuals,

but the American dream is becoming increasingly unattainable

men at den amerikanske drøm er blevet

i stigende grad uopnåelig

for en stigende del af os.

for an increasing majority of us.

Og hvis det er tilfældet, som vi har fundet,

And if it's the case, as we've been finding,

at jo rigere man er,

that the wealthier you are,

the more entitled you feel to that wealth,

jo mere fortjent man føler sig til den rigdom,

jo mere tilbøjelig er man til at prioritere sine egne interesser

and the more likely you are to prioritize your own interests

over interesserne for andre folk,

above the interests of other people,

and be willing to do things to serve that self-interest,

og være villig til at gøre ting for at følge den selvinteresse.

well, then, there's no reason to think that those patterns will change.

Der er ingen grund til at tænke

at disse mønstre vil ændres.

Faktisk, der er al mulig grund til at tro

In fact, there's every reason to think that they'll only get worse,

at det vil blive værre,

and that's what it would look like if things just stayed the same,

og dette er hvordan det vil se ud hvis tingene bare fortsætter,

at the same linear rate, over the next 20 years.

men samme lineære rate, i de næste 20 år.

Nu, ulighed, økonomisk ulighed,

Now inequality -- economic inequality --

is something we should all be concerned about,

er noget vi alle skal være bekymrede om,

og ikke kun omkring dem på bunden

and not just because of those at the bottom of the social hierarchy,

af det sociale hierarki,

but because individuals and groups

men fordi individer og grupper

med meget økonomisk ulighed får det værre,

with lots of economic inequality do worse ...

not just the people at the bottom, everyone.

ikke kun folkene i bunden, men alle.

Der kommer meget overbevisende forskning

There's a lot of really compelling research

coming out from top labs all over the world,

ud fra top institutter i hele verden

showcasing the range of things that are undermined

som viser en række ting

som bliver undermineret

as economic inequality gets worse.

når den økonomiske ulighed bliver værre.

Social mobility, things we really care about,

Social mobilitet, noget vi virkeligt bekymrer os om,

psykisk sundhed, social tillid,

physical health, social trust,

all go down as inequality goes up.

alt går ned når uligheden går op.

Similarly, negative things in social collectives and societies,

Tilsvarende, negative ting

i sociale grupper og samfund,

ting som overvægt, og vold,

things like obesity, and violence,

antal fængslede, og straffe,

imprisonment, and punishment,

are exacerbated as economic inequality increases.

bliver forværret når økonomisk ulighed stiger.

Again, these are outcomes not just experienced by a few,

Igen, dette er konsekvenser ikke bare oplevet

af nogle få, men giver genlyd

but that resound across all strata of society.

i alle lag af samfundet.

Even people at the top experience these outcomes.

Selv folk i toppen oplever disse konsekvenser.

Så hvad skal vi gøre?

So what do we do?

This cascade of self-perpetuating,

Denne kaskade af selvforstærkende,

pernicious, negative effects

skadelige, negative effekter

could seem like something that's spun out of control,

kunne se ud som noget der er kommet ud af kontrol,

and there's nothing we can do about it,

og der er intet vi kan gøre ved det,

certainly nothing we as individuals could do.

bestemt ikke noget vi som individer kan gøre.

But in fact, we've been finding in our own laboratory research

Men faktisk, vi har fundet

i vores laboratorieforskning

that small psychological interventions,

at små psykologiske indgreb,

small changes to people's values,

små ændringer i folks værdier,

small nudges in certain directions,

små skub i bestemte retninger,

kan genskabe niveauer af lighedstænkning og empati.

can restore levels of egalitarianism and empathy.

For instance, reminding people of the benefits of cooperation

For eksempel, at påminde folk

om fordelene ved samarbejde,

eller ved fordelene ved et samfund

or the advantages of community,

cause wealthier individuals to be just as egalitarian

for de rigere til at være ligeså lighedssindede

as poor people.

som fattige folk.

In one study, we had people watch a brief video, just 46 seconds long,

I et forsøg, lod vi folk se en kort video,

bare 46 sekunder lang, omkring børnefattigdom

about childhood poverty

som fungerede som en påmindelse om andres behov

that served as a reminder of the needs of others in the world around them.

i verden omkring dem,

og efter at have set den

And after watching that,

kigede vi på hvor villige folk var

we looked at how willing people were to offer up their own time

til at bruge deres egen tid på fremmede

to a stranger presented to them in the lab, who was in distress.

som de mødte i laboratoriet og som var i nød.

Efter at have set denne video, en time efter,

After watching this video, an hour later,

rich people became just as generous of their own time

rige folk var lige så generøse

med deres egen tid til at hjælpe denne anden person

to help out this other person, a stranger,

en fremmed, som en fattig var,

as someone who's poor,

suggesting that these differences are not innate or categorical,

hvilket muliggør at disse forskelle er ikke

indgroede eller kategoriske,

but are so malleable to slight changes in people's values,

men er så påvirkelige

til en lille ændring i folks værdier,

and little nudges of compassion and bumps of empathy.

og små puf af medfølelse

og skub af empati.

And beyond the walls of our lab,

Og udenfor vores vægge i laboratoriet,

we're even beginning to see signs of change in society.

er vi begyndt at se tegn på ændringer i vores samfund.

Bill Gates, one of our nation's wealthiest individuals,

Bill Gates, en af vores lands rigeste individer,

in his Harvard commencement speech,

i hans tale til dimitenterne fra Havard,

talte han om de problemer som samfundet står overfor

talked about the problem of inequality facing society

hvor ulighed er den mest skræmmende udfordring,

as being the most daunting challenge,

and talked about what must be done to combat it,

og talte om hvad der skal gøres for at bekæmpe den,

og sagde at: "Menneskehedens største fremskridt

saying, "Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries --

ligger ikke i dets opdagelser,

but in how those discoveries are applied

men i hvordan disse opdagelser er brugt

to reduce inequity."

til at reducerer ulighed."

And there's the Giving Pledge,

Og her er the "Giving Pledge" [Forpligtelsen til at give]

in which more than 100 of our nation's wealthiest individuals

hvor mere end 100 af vores lands

rigeste personer

har forpligtiget sig til at give halvdelen af deres formue til velgørenhed.

are pledging half of their fortunes to charity.

And there's the emergence of dozens of grassroots movements,

Og der er fremkomsten

af dusinvis af græsrodsbevægelser,

like "We are the 1 percent,"

som We are the one percent, [Vi er de 1 %],

"Resource Generation,"

Ressource Generationen,

or "Wealth for Common Good,"

eller Wealth for Common Good [rigdom for fælles bedste]

in which the most privileged members of the population,

hvor de mest privilegerede

medlemmer af befolkningen,

members of the one percent and elsewhere,

medlemmer af den rigeste procent og andre,

people who are wealthy,

folk der er velhavende,

are using their own economic resources,

som bruger deres egne økonomiske ressourcer,

voksne og unge imellem, hvad der er mest påfaldende for mig,

adults and youth alike -- that's what's most striking to me --

udjævner deres egne privilegier,

leveraging their own privilege, their own economic resources,

deres egne økonomiske ressourcer,

to combat inequality

for at bekæmpe ulighed

by advocating for social policies,

ved at være fortaler for social politik,

changes in social values

ændring i sociale normer,

and changes in people's behavior

og ændre folks adfærd,

som arbejder i mod deres egne økonomiske interesser

that work against their own economic interests,

men som tilsidst vil genskabe den amerikanske drøm.

but that may ultimately restore the American dream.

Thank you.

Mange tak

(Applause)

(Bifald)