Question Description
Todays economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfams story at Davos.And were not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. Its as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they dont feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to.So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?Im afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - workerowned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly.The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life.This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. Thats changed today.Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". Thats failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom.Q. Which of the following offers an appropriate reasoning behind the lack of government intervention in pursuing the welfare of the masses?a)Governments are mostly biased towards the corporate sector.b)Contemporary governments do not require their population as much as they once did.c)People within the government are benefitted from not working for public welfare.d)The modern world does not require armies or factory workers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for Class 12 2024 is part of Class 12 preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Class 12 exam syllabus. Information about Todays economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfams story at Davos.And were not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. Its as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they dont feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to.So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?Im afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - workerowned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly.The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life.This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. Thats changed today.Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". Thats failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom.Q. Which of the following offers an appropriate reasoning behind the lack of government intervention in pursuing the welfare of the masses?a)Governments are mostly biased towards the corporate sector.b)Contemporary governments do not require their population as much as they once did.c)People within the government are benefitted from not working for public welfare.d)The modern world does not require armies or factory workers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Class 12 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Todays economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfams story at Davos.And were not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. Its as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they dont feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to.So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?Im afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - workerowned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly.The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life.This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. Thats changed today.Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". Thats failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom.Q. Which of the following offers an appropriate reasoning behind the lack of government intervention in pursuing the welfare of the masses?a)Governments are mostly biased towards the corporate sector.b)Contemporary governments do not require their population as much as they once did.c)People within the government are benefitted from not working for public welfare.d)The modern world does not require armies or factory workers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Todays economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfams story at Davos.And were not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. Its as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they dont feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to.So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?Im afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - workerowned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly.The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life.This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. Thats changed today.Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". Thats failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom.Q. Which of the following offers an appropriate reasoning behind the lack of government intervention in pursuing the welfare of the masses?a)Governments are mostly biased towards the corporate sector.b)Contemporary governments do not require their population as much as they once did.c)People within the government are benefitted from not working for public welfare.d)The modern world does not require armies or factory workers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Class 12. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Class 12 Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Todays economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfams story at Davos.And were not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. Its as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they dont feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to.So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?Im afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - workerowned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly.The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life.This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. Thats changed today.Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". Thats failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom.Q. Which of the following offers an appropriate reasoning behind the lack of government intervention in pursuing the welfare of the masses?a)Governments are mostly biased towards the corporate sector.b)Contemporary governments do not require their population as much as they once did.c)People within the government are benefitted from not working for public welfare.d)The modern world does not require armies or factory workers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Todays economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfams story at Davos.And were not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. Its as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they dont feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to.So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?Im afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - workerowned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly.The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life.This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. Thats changed today.Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". Thats failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom.Q. Which of the following offers an appropriate reasoning behind the lack of government intervention in pursuing the welfare of the masses?a)Governments are mostly biased towards the corporate sector.b)Contemporary governments do not require their population as much as they once did.c)People within the government are benefitted from not working for public welfare.d)The modern world does not require armies or factory workers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Todays economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfams story at Davos.And were not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. Its as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they dont feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to.So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?Im afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - workerowned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly.The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life.This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. Thats changed today.Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". Thats failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom.Q. Which of the following offers an appropriate reasoning behind the lack of government intervention in pursuing the welfare of the masses?a)Governments are mostly biased towards the corporate sector.b)Contemporary governments do not require their population as much as they once did.c)People within the government are benefitted from not working for public welfare.d)The modern world does not require armies or factory workers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Todays economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfams story at Davos.And were not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. Its as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they dont feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to.So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?Im afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - workerowned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly.The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life.This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. Thats changed today.Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". Thats failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom.Q. Which of the following offers an appropriate reasoning behind the lack of government intervention in pursuing the welfare of the masses?a)Governments are mostly biased towards the corporate sector.b)Contemporary governments do not require their population as much as they once did.c)People within the government are benefitted from not working for public welfare.d)The modern world does not require armies or factory workers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Todays economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfams story at Davos.And were not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. Its as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they dont feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to.So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?Im afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - workerowned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly.The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life.This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. Thats changed today.Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". Thats failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom.Q. Which of the following offers an appropriate reasoning behind the lack of government intervention in pursuing the welfare of the masses?a)Governments are mostly biased towards the corporate sector.b)Contemporary governments do not require their population as much as they once did.c)People within the government are benefitted from not working for public welfare.d)The modern world does not require armies or factory workers.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Class 12 tests.