TED and inequality: The real story

http://tedchris.posterous.com/131417405

by Duff • 14 years ago

471 196 14 years ago

tedchris.posterous.com

nkurz3• 14 years ago

The response is eloquent, but I think it sidesteps the point that concerns me and many others. Yes, for the reasons stated, this talk is not the right one to be highlighted on Ted.com. It's not censorship, it's a valid editorial decision.

But I think the real point is this quote from the NJ article: "But even if the talk was rated a home run, we couldn't release it, because it would be unquestionably regarded as out and out political. We're in the middle of an election year in the US. Your argument comes down firmly on the side of one party." (attributed to Chris Anderson)

Is this quote accurate, and does Ted have an official stance of avoiding controversial issues? The fear is not that Ted is in the pocket of any particular party, rather that the bounds of public debate are being set by parties (plural) who benefit from the absence of debate. If Ted isn't independent enough to start this discussion, who is?

waterlesscloud3• 14 years ago

Points made in an explicitly partisan manner are inherently less valuable to anyone other than the party being supported.

debacle2• 14 years ago

"Reality has a well known liberal bias."

pohl• 14 years ago

The talk actually presents an idea that is, to some extent, a testable scientific economic claim: that the wealth of middle-class plays an important role in a feedback loop that creates jobs.

The Republican party should find this insight to be valuable, since their stated goal is job creation, right? Why might they not want to learn something about the process they are working so hard to enable?

tokenizer• 14 years ago

Agreed. He made no effort to deny he or others who operate with TED have liberal minded ideas. He also gives a perfectly logical and reasonable explanation to the situation and in my opinion does nothing to deter my view of TED in any shape or form.

And to people who make this out to be a US political issue, income equality is a global issue, and always have been. It's not the issue being brushed off but the quality of the argument judged by TED.

But that said it's a really good talk.

lukifer2• 14 years ago

How many TED talks revolve around global warming, despite the fact that the right treats it not just as alarmism, but a liberal hoax? TED doesn't seem to be rushing to pull those down.

I can understand their reluctance to give Fox News ammunition to smear the TED brand. But it was the parties who chose to politicize ideas and issues which should belong to all humanity. Whatever happened to respectfully listening to people you disagree with?

Getting locked up for speaking your mind is only one way for free speech to be stifled; another is to convince people to self-censor for the sake of their reputation, and whether he admits it to himself or not, this is exactly what Chris Anderson is doing. And alas, in today's media-political landscape, one is hard-pressed to find organizations and individuals for whom this is not the norm.

runako• 14 years ago

>> "Your argument comes down firmly on the side of one party."

This would imply that climate change would also be off limits at TED, which it isn't.

grimboy• 14 years ago

It's fine as long as you don't name any political party by name I think.

chc4• 14 years ago

I think you have it the wrong way around. It's not that this topic isn't up for public debate, but rather that the talk was part of a debate that was already highly politicized and TED doesn't want to get into that. Once the politicos see you as a good platform from which to shout their message, you will find yourself swamped by people who just want to yell party lines at each other. If you want to remain independent of party politics, you have to keep those people away.

This is also why I'm of the opinion that Internet forums which are not explicitly about politics should explicitly ban most political discussion. Otherwise the loud partisans will eventually drown out everything else. (Remember a few years ago when it came out that there was a huge conservative voting bloc on Digg downvoting anything posted by members they suspected of being liberals, even if it was non-political? You don't want those people around.)

This isn't to say that topics one party or another might happen to like better should be off-limits, but that you should be very careful when approaching those topics not to play to the political aspects of the topic. It sounds to me like this is what TED suggests as well.

scott_s4• 14 years ago

There is a difference between being controversial and being partisan. The talk directly calls out Republicans. Based on what Chris Anderson said, they would welcome a talk on that controversial subject, but it couldn't call out political parties.

pauljonas3• 14 years ago

But that is the problem, in a nutshell.

We don't want to "call out political parties", so we will ignore the truth that one of the political parties has deviated so far off course, in its anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-equality pursuit.

But let us not speak of it.

borism2• 14 years ago

except it calls out both Republicans AND Democrats.

roguecoder3• 14 years ago

Yeah, their response said exactly what I assumed had happened happened. They, like everyone else building a brand, are trying to erase the truly antagonistic dynamics of modern culture and worship some mythical conflict-free land of bipartisanship and kittens, where smart people never disagree they just have different evidence.

That myth is what TED is selling. Not truth, not even a better world, just a world where we can believe ourselves to be better people.

TeMPOraL3• 14 years ago

> They (...) worship some mythical conflict-free land of bipartisanship and kittens, where smart people never disagree they just have different evidence.

Because that is how the world should be like and they have a mission to make it real. It's not a myth. It's a goal.

Karunamon• 14 years ago

where smart people never disagree they just have different evidence

Welcome to the world of science.

batista• 14 years ago

>Is this quote accurate, and does Ted have an official stance of avoiding controversial issues? The fear is not that Ted is in the pocket of any particular party, rather that the bounds of public debate are being set by parties (plural) who benefit from the absence of debate. If Ted isn't independent enough to start this discussion, who is?

When money and power is involved, you don't get to be independent in the US (or a lot of other places for that matter).

You have the right to free speech as long as you talk for inconsequential issues, if you talk for anything else you are labeled a "partisan" (that goes for both republicans and democrats, and even every other stance).

You are of course free to raise very important issues for society as a whole, but not in a way that implies that the way the power/financial system works is bad in toto -- the best you can get away with is "inefficient".

That is, you have free speech as long as you don't use it for real political causes. Any other partial view is allowed (gay or anti-gay, abortion or pro-life, etc...).

smsm424• 14 years ago

There are many politicians and public figures that say exactly what you just said - that the way the financial system works is bad (actually, IIRC, no other than Obama himself reiterated that talking on the news about huge Chase loss) - and the way the political system works is bad (they even try to organize third parties and independent candidates, which inevitably result in pathetic failure at the polls) - so making it sound as it's somehow topic that no one dares to talk about for the fear of all-powerful 1% is baloney. This topic is talked about far and wide. You can publish any opinion, and even for the most outrageous ones, you get a pretty good chance for your 15 minutes of fame - actually, if it's outrageous, your chances are higher, TV shows need ratings and outrage means notoriety means ratings.

Of course, it's one thing to talk about everything being screwed up and quite another - having any practical recipe of how to fix it and being able to convince enough people to follow you. Words are wind, you know. Allowed is one thing, effectual is another. But not because there's an evil 1% conspiracy - but because mainstream is mainstream for a reason, changing people's opinions is very hard.

dclowd9901• 14 years ago

If you read the transcript, you get the distinct sense that what you're listening to isn't intellectual discovery based on empirical data. It reads like a speech from a political candidate. It truly is not TED worthy, and this is from someone who fully believes every word that man uttered.

TED is about sharing knowledge. Raw, unbiased, unignorable knowledge. Talks that are based entirely on anecdote and talking points have no place in the discussion.

After reading the transcript, I firmly believe they made the right choice. And it could simply be that the ambiguous nature of the study of economics prevents it from being an approached topic on TED, which is unfortunate, but I don't believe for one second they blacklist anything based on controversy alone.

jellicle• 14 years ago

His talk would have been better had it referenced the numerous studies showing that more unequal countries have worse results across the board. However, 3 minutes is an extremely short period of time - no one else speaking at TED is laboring under the requirement to fully document everything they are saying in a 3 minute speech.

nkurz3• 14 years ago

I haven't heard or read this talk, and presume that Anderson made a correct editorial decision regarding its merits. My focus is on the statement "But even if the talk was rated a home run, we couldn't release it, because it would be unquestionably regarded as out and out political. We're in the middle of an election year in the US."

I'm not arguing that Ted should be pressured into publicizing this talk. But with great admiration for Ted, I think their approach to politicized topics bears further discussion. I'm stunned to think that an international organization should find it less desirable to broach certain topics due to the timing of a US election.

JackC• 14 years ago

This is a great point. Not to get political myself, but if you compare this talk to Elizabeth Warren's "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class"[1] from a few years back, it's night and day. Before she made economic claims, she described her exhaustive process with government agencies to get reliable data; the ways she tested the data when it seemed implausible; the various theories she tested and rejected to explain the data ... it's gripping stuff, because she develops insights based on research and hard-nosed science. That's what TED should be about.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

_3u10• 14 years ago

I think it's sort of like the hacker news policy, don't post stuff that people can read about elsewhere.

If you talk to most people involved in a particular issue (eg. not politicians) they tend to have views that diverge from the party line, when a talk lines up perfectly with a particular party it comes off more like talking points than an engaging topic.

Imagine a talk on states rights that comes out against abortion and for the war on drugs. Sounds to me like Republican crap rather than an intelligent debate on the separation of powers in government. I think this is what TED is trying to avoid, they're all for an intelligent debate on separation of powers, but against spewing republican or democratic talking points.

rexreed2• 14 years ago

Maybe I'm politically tone deaf, but the talk didn't seem particularly partisan at all. Sure, it had a particular perspective more in alignment with one party than another, but wouldn't this talk be just as relevant in India and the UK as it is in the US, and in which case, not particularly partisan at all? Don't all TED talks have some bias to one perspective on the world or philosophy or another? I don't get why there's such furor over this.

46Bit• 14 years ago

The problem here I suspect is that there are sensible bases for the core tenets of different political points of view, and they end up being stifled because of it.

klochner• 14 years ago

If true, the aggressively planned PR campaign indicates that this was more than just a politically-sensitive topic, but rather a politically-motivated talk:

    He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and
    others, and the PR firm warned us . . .

TED should allow sensitive topics, but to allow others to use TED manipulatively as a pawn in the larger political debate subverts their mission and damages their credibility.

daniel_solano3• 14 years ago

Whether or not the talk was politically motivated, if this article is correct about what the speaker did as a result of rejection, the speaker is an attention-seeking demagogue that uses threats and deception for self-promotion.

thaumaturgy8• 14 years ago

...or, the speaker is simply passionate about a topic that he believes needs to be discussed as openly as possible.

Aren't you now committing the same mistake of guessing the speaker's motivations as everyone who criticized TED?

stfu• 14 years ago

Anyone having some more information on that PR firm? Could become quite hand one day.

They seem to be doing a great job at stirring up artificial controversy and laying the groundwork for a great political talk show "victim" career.

jonah2• 14 years ago

He also has a fairly recently published book[1] to promote.

I wonder if that's what the PR push is about.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Gardens-Democracy-Citizenship-Gove...

dkhenry• 14 years ago

Its amazing what a little truth sheds on an otherwise perfect angry mob. After hearing from both sides I hope those who accused TED of censorship will be kind enough to apologise.

roguecoder3• 14 years ago

"Censorship" is the wrong word, but I'll stand by my accusations of cowardliness. If what he said was an irrelevant ad hominem attack (like "Republicans smell and are ugly") I'd understand their reluctance, but it was an accurate description of the actions of a political party. By ruling such topics off limits, they are intellectually hobbling the discussions that can be had. We can not address the problems they are so enamored of without addressing the forces that have a vested interest in maintaining them.

Their current position is like an agnostic who says, "well, we can never know..." when what they mean is "of course the idea of a divine being is a human invention, but if I say that some people might not like me as much." They are cowards, and I have little respect for cowards.

fleitz3• 14 years ago

Not getting into arguments with children about whether the easter bunny or santa claus are real doesn't make a person a coward it makes them intelligent. If they want to believe in those things then it's fine, I don't need to explain to them the irrationality of it, and often times it's just more fun to go along with it.

You try explaining to a group of children on Christmas morning that Santa isn't real and there aren't going to be any presents this year.

If instead you tell the children you will put in a good word for them with Santa Claus and then Santa Claus brings them the stuff they wanted then they'll be amazed by your pull with Santa.

Think of it this way, every week 2 billion people give up 10% of their wages just so Santa's intercessors can give them a little wine and some rice paper.

spacemanaki• 14 years ago

What's up with the editorializing of the title? If you're going to post stuff that's on the edge of being too political for HN I think leaving the headline intact is the best approach.

edit it's been fixed, but for reference the original title had something in it about "astroturfing in action"

gee_totes2• 14 years ago

Yeah I agree. For reference, 'astroturfing' is not what happened here. Astroturfing is when a large entity funds what looks like a grassroots, anti-establishment movement. Astroturfing is about orchestrating grassroots tactics to give the appearance of a genuine movement.

None of that happened here. Instead what happend was someone posted and article to the internet, the internet got outraged, and someone else issued an apology. Same cycle that happens every day.

alecco• 14 years ago

Released video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI

"This idea is an oracle of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats." Clearly against bi-partisan and not pro-democrat.

Very bad move by TED. Also, the quality of many TED presentations is a joke so they can't pull that card.

scott_s4• 14 years ago

The implication is that the Republicans are wrong and the Democrats should challenge it. In other words, "Hey, Democrats, here's an argument you should use." That's partisan.

rexreed2• 14 years ago

I think that's the only sentence / segment in the whole talk that refers to one party or the other. Indeed, this talk is relevant even in countries where neither party exists. It seems a heck of a lot less partisan than what passes for news on a daily basis around these parts -- pick your cable news network of choice.

tripzilch• 14 years ago

What? No. As an outsider, it is yet another example that both your parties are perfectly worthless. "Hey, Democrats, here's an argument you should use" is only partisan if there was a snowflake's chance in hell that they'd actually do something. But the Big People with their arms in the puppet on the right don't want that just as little as the ones fisting the puppet on the left.

Four years after replacing the Beast with the Smiler, and what have you learned?

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos"

chc4• 14 years ago

Many of those other bad presentations don't get posted either, so why can't they pull that card?

emmelaich• 14 years ago

1. You've mistranscribed. It's article not oracle of faith. Whoever heard of an oracle of faith?!

2. Calling an idea an 'article of faith' is insulting as it implies a lack of reasoning.

shele• 14 years ago

Believing firmly in something which is wrong often indicates a lack of reasoning.

borism2• 14 years ago

If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down.

This idea is an article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats and has shaped much of today's economic landscape.

What's so f*cking partisan about it?

Tossrock• 14 years ago

Relevant pg essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

The power of PR can be pretty amazing sometimes. Especially scary given the susceptibility of the masses (ie, the Reddit firestorm).

daenz8• 14 years ago

    And we try to steer clear of talks that are bound to
    descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting
    people can find every day elsewhere in the media.

I read that as "it is controversial, so we don't want to talk about that." If some new science showed that human consciousness begins at X days after conception, would that not be aired because it is a hot-button topic too?

TeMPOraL3• 14 years ago

If there was enough evidence, I guess it would. What differs TED from "elsewhere in the media" is that the former has content, the latter usually not so much.

tomjen32• 14 years ago

Why should he post a talk about that? You could get that information from any other source.

Whereas TED is the only place I can find a talk about taking criminals bicycling, the importance of the washing machine and why we should eat insects (that one does have a few doses of liberal morality though).

daenz8• 14 years ago

The TED audience seemed to like it and think it's appropriate. Watch it to the end, half of the audience gives a standing ovation. I've seen front page TED talks that don't get standing ovations.

Gormo8• 14 years ago

Science is science, and can be discussed without descending into a political debate. Discussions about 'inequality' are entirely political, and have little value outside of polemic.

SideburnsOfDoom• 14 years ago

> Discussions about 'inequality' are entirely political

I really doubt that. Given that a Google for "study of effects of inequality" returns 13 million results, a citation of the absence of relevant citations is needed.

daenz8• 14 years ago

> Discussions about 'inequality' are entirely political

Disagree. If the result of certain economic practices result in social inequality, is that entirely political? Economics is a social science, so why should some results be only political? It's not as black and white as you make it sound.

molecule• 14 years ago

Going out of the way to not seem partisan has the same effect as being partisan.

chc4• 14 years ago

It turns the conversation into a tribal pissing match? I don't think that's what taking an even-handed and nonconfrontational approach does.

mcantelon• 14 years ago

"TED: politically safe ideas worth spreading."

trotsky• 14 years ago

astroturfing (ˈæstrəʊˌtɜːfɪŋ)

— n a PR tactic used in politics and advertising in which actors are paid to display overt and apparently spontaneous grassroots support for a particular product, policy, or event

patdennis• 14 years ago

As someone who writes Democratic talking points for a living, I would like to point out that the original TED talk sounded like something I would write for work.

I do wholeheartedly agree with the central thesis, but if I were to put together a (nonpolitical) TED talk on the subject I would've been a lot lighter on the rhetoric and heavier on the case studies.

DavidAbrams• 14 years ago

"Astroturfing"?

Come on, use real words that mean something.

jlgreco• 14 years ago

Astroturfing is a real word with meaning that has been used since the 80s...

brudgers• 14 years ago

I wouldn't call this "the story behind" but rather "she said."

While I find it interesting that the author does not dispute the accuracy of the emails describing the talk as too controversial, what I find troubling is that the author insinuates that hiring a PR firm calls a person's character into question.

In 2010, the Sapling Foundation which owns TED spend more than $100,000 on PR:

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/943/943235... [page 7].

See also "Who Owns TED?" http://www.ted.com/pages/42

TeMPOraL3• 14 years ago

At no point the author insinuates anything about how hiring a PR firm speaks of person's character. The post just simply states the facts that a) a PR firm was hired, and b) he/this firm issued threats to TED.

perspectiveless• 14 years ago

Ted is a circle jerk for rich people of course they don't want to hear about inequality.

daenz8• 14 years ago

This was an issue on Reddit and elsewhere. Ticket prices to a TED talk are at least $6k apparently http://www.ted.com/conversations/1950/ted_s_6000_price_tag_l...

One ticket went for $33k http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2008/01/a...

waterlesscloud3• 14 years ago

How much is a ticket to their youtube channel?

CamperBob2• 14 years ago

Especially when the person lecturing them about inequality uses blatant, easily-debunked lies to do it. ("When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest...")

sbierwagen• 14 years ago

Why was he even pitching this talk to TED, a conference about rich people, for other rich people?

That would be like me pitching a show to Fox News about how white christian males are scum and should be burned for fuel. It's the wrong message, for the wrong audience.

grecy2• 14 years ago

I think you hit the nail on the head, and find it very interesting people are down voting you.

This has shown TED doesn't want to spread the word about controversial issues that actually impact the vast majority of people's lives. I stand by the accusations of them being cowardly.

But of course, a society by the rich, for the rich is nothing new.

Gormo8• 14 years ago

> and find it very interesting people are down voting you.

People are downvoting him for making assumptions about the motivations of actual, specific people, based on little more than their presumptive membership in arbitrary and subjective categories. And, for what it's worth, you're doing the same thing.

Bud• 14 years ago

TED claims the talk in question was "needlessly partisan".

That's almost right; just change "less" to "full".

When a problem has overwhelmingly been created by one party, then yeah, of course you're going to have to be "partisan" to address it.

twelvechairs• 14 years ago

> The audience at TED who heard it live... gave it, on average, mediocre ratings.

Without disputing the 'ratings' (whatever these may be), its pretty obvious from the youtube video that the actual audience response is very positive rather than mediocre (the majority of the audience seem to give a standing ovation and there is pretty emphatic applause all around).

malachismith• 14 years ago

Censorship is censorship. End of story.

thaumaturgy8• 14 years ago

I watched the video after reading TED's response, and I'm skeptical of some of their claims, but I can also see why they didn't initially choose to publish it on their site.

The video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI

Since it's short, I'll go over it point-by-point.

    1. "It is astounding how significantly one idea can
       shape a society and its policies. Consider this one:
       if taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go
       down. This idea is an article of faith for
       Republicans, and seldom challenged by Democrats, and
       has indeed shaped much of the economic landscape."

The first line of his talk is a bit fluffy, but I don't see anything else here that isn't objectively true. Supply-side economics and increased benefits for the rich are a major part of the Republican platform, and because this idea has been accepted as true by society at large, it is not being directly challenged by the Democrats. (Who, arguably, want just as much to protect the interests of the rich & powerful as the Republicans do.)

    2. "But sometimes the ideas that we are certain are
       true, are dead wrong. Consider that for thousands of
       years, humans believed that the Earth was the center
       of the universe. It's not, and an astronomer who
       still believed that it was, would do some pretty
       terrible astronomy. Likewise, a policymaker who
       believes that the rich are job creators and therefore 
       should not be taxed, will do equally terrible
       policy."

This is just bad rhetoric and bad logic, IMO. I get the point he's trying to make, but he's not making it well -- and this is where I begin to really understand TED's decision not to highlight his video on their front page.

    3. "I have started or helped start dozens of companies,
       and initially hired lots of people, but if there was
       no one around who could afford to buy what we had to
       sell, all those companies, and all those jobs, would
       have evaporated."

I can't agree more with this. I think this should be obvious to anybody that thinks about economics at all, and I think this is the absolutely massive achilles' heel for supply-side economics, the elephant in the room that people don't want to talk about.

    4. "That's why I can say with confidence that rich
       people don't create jobs, nor do businesses large or
       small. Jobs are a consequence of a circle-of-life-
       like feedback loop between customers and businesses.
       And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous
       cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, 
       an ordinary consumer is more of a job creator than a
       capitalist like me. That's why when business people
       take credit for creating jobs, it's a little bit like 
       squirrels taking credit for evolution. (audience
       chuckles) It's actually the other way around. Anyone
       who's ever run a business knows that hiring more
       people is a course of last resort for capitalists.
       It's what we do if and only if rising consumer demand 
       requires it. And in this sense, calling ourselves job 
       creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous."

Again, the delivery here is terrible, IMO, but I think his overall point is largely correct. But, there are exceptions. It would be hard to argue that PG, for example, isn't a "job creator" -- or at least a wealth creator. He, and others like him, are lowering the barriers to opportunity for many people and businesses. However, there still needs to be demand for the products and services those businesses offer -- as PG himself would tell you.

Would you, for example, deploy 100 times more servers than you thought you actually needed to meet demand for your SAAS or PAAS? No? Then why would somebody running a large corporation hire more people than they thought would be needed to meet consumer demand?

    5. "That's why our existing policies are so upside-down. 
       When the biggest tax exemptions, and lowest tax
       rates, benefit the richest, all in the name of job
       creation, all that happens is that the rich get
       richer. Since 1980, the share of income for the top
       1% of Americans has more than tripled while our
       effective tax rates have gone down by 50%. If it was
       true that lower taxes for the rich and more wealth
       for the wealthy led to job creation, today we would
       be drowning in jobs. (audience laughter and applause) 
       and yet unemployment and underemployment is at record 
       highs."

Again he kills an overall good point with a terrible statement -- unemployment and underemployment are high, yes, but nowhere near record highs.

    6. "Another reason that this idea is so wrong-headed is
       that there can never be enough super-rich people to
       power a great economy. Somebody like me makes
       hundreds or thousands of times as much as the median
       American, but I don't buy hundreds or thousands of
       times as much stuff. My family owns 3 cars, not 
       3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and shirts a year
       like most American men, occasionally we go out to eat 
       with friends. I can't buy enough of anything to make
       up for the fact that millions of unemployed and
       underemployed Americans can't buy any new cars, any
       clothes, or enjoy any meals out. Nor can I make up
       for the falling consumption of the vast majority of
       middle-class families that are barely squeaking by,
       buried by spiraling costs, and trapped by stagnant or 
       declining wages."

    7. "Here's an incredible fact: that if the typical
       American family still retained the same share of
       income that they did in 1970, they'd earn like
       $45,000 more a year. Imagine what our economy would
       be like if that were the case."

    8. "Significant privileges have come to people like me,
       capitalists, for being perceived as job creators at
       the center of the economic universe, and the language 
       and metaphors we use to defend the current economic
       and social arrangements is telling. It's a small jump 
       from 'job creator' to 'The Creator'. (audience
       laughter) This language wasn't chosen by accident,
       and it's only honest to admit that when somebody like 
       me calls themselves a job creator, we're not just
       describing how the economy works, but more
       particularly we're making a claim on status and
       privileges that we deserve."

While perhaps true, I think that this part really detracts from his talk.

    9. "Speaking of special privileges, the extraordinary
       differential between the 15% tax rate that
       capitalists pay on carried interest, dividends, and
       capital gains, and the 35% top marginal rate on work
       that ordinary Americans pay, is kind of hard to
       justify without a touch of deification."

Man, this is just so bad right here. He really ruins his talk with this. Stick to the points, stick to the points, stick to the points.

    10. "We've had it backwards for the last 30 years. Rich
        people like me don't create jobs. Jobs are a
        consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop between 
        customers and businesses. And, when the middle-class 
        thrives, businesses grow and hire, and owners
        profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for
        investments that benefit all is such a fantastic
        deal for the middle class and the rich. So, ladies
        and gentlemen, here's an idea worth spreading: in a
        capitalist economy, the true job creators are
        middle-class consumers, and taxing the rich to make
        investments to make the middle class grow and thrive 
        is the single shrewdest thing we can do for the
        middle class, for the poor, and for the rich. Thank
        you."

I really think his conclusion here is a little bit overwrought. Again, I agree with what he's saying, but the delivery, especially the references to TED's "ideas worth spreading", is just unnecessary and superfluous.

As for TED's response, they justified their decision not to post the video with several points: that it was unnecessarily partisan, that it was unconvincing, and that it was mediocre.

I do not see that it was unnecessarily partisan at all. He mentions political parties exactly once, at the beginning of his talk, and I don't think he said anything there that wasn't true.

But, I could agree that his talk was unconvincing to anyone who steadfastly believes in supply-side economics. He didn't present facts well enough, and his talk was salted and peppered with too much opinion, hyperbole, and fluff.

And, I agree wholeheartedly that it was mediocre. Compared to the talks featured on TED's home page, it just doesn't have the substance, the impact, the original research, or the delivery that those talks have. It's just not good enough of a talk. He's got good points. He clearly has something to say, and I would love nothing more than to hear more discussion like this in our national politics, instead of continuing to take a cargo-cult approach towards heaping benefits on the wealthiest class. However, he's a terrible speaker, and his talk in general needs a lot of work.

(39 comments on this thread when I started writing this, and none actually discussing the content of the video -- tsk.)

(edit: formatting.)

nazgulnarsil• 14 years ago

some of us are fine talking about "the elephant in the room" for supply-side econ as you put it.

Here's the thing, you can't force people to be productive enough to be able to consume at the optimal level. All you can do is provide an environment where being productive is easier.

fleitz3• 14 years ago

If everyone spent all their time being productive then there'd be no time to consume. The point of this is that supply and demand need to be in balance. If you look at Ford's thinking behind the 40 hour work week and increased pay it's to create a market for the product he is supplying.

I think that guys like Ford are job creators, but most capitalists don't have the foresight to enact such bold policies.

Gormo8• 14 years ago

I don't see how the necessity of demand is the 'elephant in the room' - it seems pretty obvious that you need both supply and demand in order for ongoing commerce to take place.

Yes, there has to be a customer; but identifying that customer, discovering his desires, and satisfying them in a way that creates net value for all parties is the role of the entrepreneur. Doing that successfully is not a trivial task, and entails substantial risk. Saying that this isn't a value-added activity is like saying that scientific research doesn't create value because the physical world already is what it is, or that explorers and cartographers are useless because the land that they're mapping already exists.

And entrepreneurs and investors do create jobs: if a venture fails because it turns out that the demand wasn't there to begin with, the employees of the venture still get paid - not by the customer, but by the investors, out of the capital that they've risked and lost.

thaumaturgy8• 14 years ago

Gee, I was hoping to just take the time to transcribe the video and add a couple of comments here and there without having to defend its content.

The necessity of demand is the 'elephant in the room' because so much of the political argument so far has revolved around increasing benefits for the suppliers, rather than increasing demand. The argument has been, "we're supposed to make the wealthy wealthier, and then -- magically -- they will create more jobs."

If the necessity of demand isn't the elephant in the room, then why isn't there broad political support for higher tax rates on the wealthy? Why isn't there broad political support for economic stimulus packages? Why isn't there broad political support for universal health care, a significant expense for poor and middle-class Americans? Why isn't there broad political support for lowering taxes on the poor? Why, instead, do I keep hearing such balderdash as, "The poor pay no taxes at all"?

Nobody's saying that business people don't add value to the economy. What people like this guy -- and me -- are saying is that they don't add value all by themselves. And, if that's a point that people can agree on, then the very next question is naturally, "Why do the bulk of our economic strategies focus only on benefiting them then?"

If a venture fails due to low demand, yes, some investor and some capitalist assumed risk and have presumably lost something. But, worse still, are all those other people -- those employees -- who didn't have anything to risk in the first place, and are now back to looking for work again. In your scenario, there wasn't any net job creation, there were just some positions temporarily filled.

And, anyway, if the business people do the market research they're supposed to do first, and the demand isn't there, they won't bother starting anyway.

Let's stop making up fairytale scenarios. Let's start getting specific. Let's look at things like leveling-off or falling consumer demand for gasoline [1], and then let's look at the tax breaks afforded to oil companies [2], and let's ask ourselves: if we're doing everything right, if we're granting these companies record profits [3], then why haven't they lowered gas prices to increase demand like the magic formula says they will?

[1] http://soberlook.com/2012/03/us-consumer-is-saying-no-to-hig...

[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-much-do-o...

[3] http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/08/421061/big-oil-h...

roguecoder3• 14 years ago

You are missing the piece that all conservative economists miss: access to the medium of exchange. It doesn't matter how well you identify the customer, satisfy their desires and add net value for all parties involved: if that customer doesn't have a job that gives them cash to buy your product the economy grinds to a halt.

It can be summed up by the famous if possibly apocryphal line by Ford: "I pay my employees enough to afford to buy my cars."

webXL3• 14 years ago

"And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring."

When a consumer chooses not to buy something, i.e. commerce does not take place, saving occurs. Savings means there will be money available in the future. Money available for a small business loan. Money available to buy shares in a company, freeing up capital from the person you bought the shares from. That capital could actually end up in a new venture that makes it cheaper to produce X, or make X last twice as long, producing more savings in the economy.

That decision by the consume NOT to purchase something tells the producer that they better figure out some way to reduce the price, or go under. Capital, including human capital, frees up for more productive uses. Occasionally imbalances (e.g. too much capital tied up in housing) cause a massive recession, but most of the time this process is relatively benign. Victims of this cheap-credit fueled bubble and recession don't have money to save and invest right now, but innovation will provide jobs again one day. It happens every recession, sometimes longer than others.

Creative Destruction: it's the primary reason why we're all not planting seeds or hunting right now.

thaumaturgy8• 14 years ago

Respectfully, I think you are making an unfounded assumption about why consumers aren't buying things. I heard a news story just the other day about U.S. family savings being lower than recent history. This isn't it, but here's a similar article: http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/05/17/our-view-recessio...

i.e., consumers aren't "choosing" not to buy because they're saving the money instead, they're "choosing" not to buy because they don't have any money.

This is exactly why it is so, so important to foster a healthy middle class: they love to spend money. Give them $10,000, and they'll spend $9,000 of it.

We do not right now have a healthy middle class, and I'm super interested in whether or not our economy will recover without addressing that.

nhaehnle2• 14 years ago

Savings means there will be money available in the future. Money available for a small business loan. Money available to buy shares in a company, freeing up capital from the person you bought the shares from.

While your statement is not entirely false, it paints a misleading picture of how the economy at large works. Outside of venture capitalism, credit for running businesses tends to be provided by banks, and banks just create the necessary money out of thin air whenever they find a creditworthy borrower, i.e. a business with a solid business plan and with a reasonable expectation of sufficient demand for its product.

When the overall savings rate rises, it becomes less reasonable to expect sufficient demand for products, which means less creditworthy borrowers, which means less loans given out by banks.

Occasionally imbalances (e.g. too much capital tied up in housing) cause a massive recession

Not quite. The recession isn't caused by capital being tied up in housing. "Putting capital into housing" is just economics-jargon for spending money on houses. And that tends to create jobs in the construction sector.

The recession comes about when private households can no longer use their houses as collateral for loans to fuel demand because the value of those houses is reassessed.

Creative Destruction: it's the primary reason why we're all not planting seeds or hunting right now.

I think you'll find that the primary reason why most of us are not doing these things is actually creative construction. The destruction part is only really beneficial when one gets stuck in a local optimum.

Codhisattva2• 14 years ago

Thanks for transcribing and commenting. Insightful.

JumpCrisscross3• 14 years ago

The logical flaw is equating consumer demand with aggregate demand. There are other economies, e.g. Germany (industrial economy) and China (state economy, albeit transitioning), that aren't as reliant on consumer demand as America (consumer economy).

His entire argument flows from this assumption.

gchpaco• 14 years ago

Funny you cite Germany as not as reliant on consumer demand; one of the things that keeps being cited as hurting Germany right now is that the rest of the Eurozone is its major customers, and they can't afford German goods on account of depression.

WalterBright3• 14 years ago

His talk makes the mistake that spending money is what drives the economy. This is a fundamental error.

What drives the economy is people creating value. When people have created value, they can exchange that value for things they want from other people who have created value.

Simply handing people money to spend is not stimulative because it does not create value. Put another way, taking money from A and giving it to B so B can buy things from A does not (and cannot) make A wealthier.

The route to greater wealth for A and B is that both A and B specialize in creating things that the other wants. Then, they trade, and each winds up with a higher standard of living than if each tried to do both. Economies are built on the greater efficiency that comes from specialization, and the resulting trade.

Androsynth• 14 years ago

Thats a good point. Wouldn't the logical conclusion to that point be that it is a mistake to think that a businesses purpose is to create jobs (as opposed to value)?

utunga• 14 years ago

I don't think its fair to describe that as a fundamental error. Rather, your explanation while OK as far as it goes is overly simplistic. Yes, its the real value not the currency that we are after, but you also have to take into account secondary effects like 'aggregate demand'. Perhaps that's an ideological bent of yours or perhaps just omission?

Either way, the process of creating 'real value' on both sides cannot get started in some cases because neither A nor B has any confidence (or capital to support their confidence) that the other side will have the currency to buy the real value they intend to create.

Sure, the currency itself just goes around in circles, and only acts as a catalyst to creation of the 'real value' we are after. But by injecting actual currency to one side or the other (through tax cuts or other means) we increase the aggregate demand and thus amount of flow of this currency in the economy as a whole. This could then (hopefully) increase the confidence of A and B that the other will buy their real value and thus is a way to restart the circular flows of productivity that ultimately creates jobs (and real value).

His talk sort of just assumes you are aware of all the above. His actual point is that by giving tax cuts to the wealthy instead of workers a greater percentage of the stimulus / tax cut stays in bank accounts and thus the effect on aggregate demand is less.

ealloc• 14 years ago

> Simply handing people money to spend is not stimulative because it does not create value. Put another way, taking money from A and giving it to B so B can buy things from A does not (and cannot) make A wealthier.

Sure they can, according to some models.

Here's the argument: Say A and B produce goods for each other, and so A might buy something from B for $5, and B might come back and buy something from A with the same $5. They are happily creating value, trading back and forth. Now, say something scares A so that he wants to save some of his money instead of spend. Then B is getting less income from A, and so she also becomes worried about her future income and spends less. Then A gets even less money, and is even less willing to spend. As you can see there is a feedback cycle where A and B produce (and spend) less and less. This is a recession.

Now give B some money, possibly even taken from A. Now B is getting a more reliable income, an is more willing to spend on A, who thus earns more and becomes more willing to spend on B, and so on in positive feedback.

This is basically Krugman's "Babysitting Co-op" scenario.

josh33• 14 years ago

I cannot up vote this enough. Value creation is key. One new theory I've been exploring lately is that, while people can value good and bad things (moral and immoral, sustaining and destructive, etc), the creator of value has a responsibility not only to give people what they want, but actually what they deserve. The distinction this makes can be explained with an example:

John makes software for law firms. His software has lots of bugs. John justifies this because he can make more money by adding features and isn't at risk of losing his cash flow because there are no competitors in his space. IMHO, John has an obligation to write better software simply because his constituents deserve it. I also think it could be warranted that he charge even more for it at this point. While I'm not sure bug-free software is a universal good, there are definitely products that ought to be better or not exist (pornography and cigarettes come to mind). The government should not have to regulate these.

brc2• 14 years ago

Says Law says it all. No consumption without production first.

einhverfr• 14 years ago

I was watching Steve Keene's talks on what's wrong with Neoclassical Economics (one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZKjQtrgdVY) as he shows why economists get all this wrong. Its strange to me that economists make assumptions tat each marginal dollar gets spent the same way regardless of who it is given to....

bahgoo• 14 years ago

Thanks for providing the transcript. I listened to this and the guy is not a good presenter. Both the content and the delivery need serious work. What's worse is you can tell he has rehearsed this thing ad nauseum. And it's still really stiff and awkward.

Now, in some way he, being as lame as he is in this presentation, has proven his own argument.

A lot of wisdom is imparted on the wealthy to be leaders of the economy. But not everyone who is wealthy is actually very wise. They have succeeded in making money. But that in itself does not elevate them to God status. Don't believe me? Let us look at Exhibit A:

Rich guy from Seattle who has "started _dozens_ of companies."

Roll presentation.

And what's with use of the term "capitalist"? Are there lots of socialists in America now? Are American workers not capitalists?

Volpe• 14 years ago

> And what's with use of the term "capitalist"? Are there lots of socialists in America now? Are American workers not capitalists?

Workers (as in people who work for a wage) aren't Capitalists (as in the Noun).

You don't have to be a Socialist if you are not a Capitalist. There are not 'a lot' of Capitalists anywhere (proportional to the overall population).

chj• 14 years ago

Whether his talk makes a point and TED refuses to publish this talk are two different stories.

Tichy• 14 years ago

The first error is the assumption that creation of jobs is somehow desirable. Personally I have the goal of not needing a job anymore, for example by automating everything. I think the whole economy is working towards that goal in the end.

Likewise "more consumption" is not a goal in itself. Wellbeing of people is a goal, consumption might be a way to achieve it. But because you should be careful what you measure, trying to increase consumption is probably bound for disaster.

The problem is not creating more jobs, it is distribution of wellbeing.

dredmorbius• 14 years ago

NB: appreciate the post, but HN really needs a better quoting markdown hack than monospace/code blocks (all of which displays with a horizontal scroll slider on my laptop).

johngalt• 14 years ago

I didn't think the talk itself was needlessly partisan. Only reason I'd say it shouldn't be posted is that a basic intro to keynesian economics isn't particularly new or noteworthy.

If I gave a TED talk that just was a fisher-price version of Bastiat's broken window, should it be aired? Should I call it censorship if it wasn't?

bgilroy26• 14 years ago

If you place the non-TED talk's transcript next to Hans Rosling's discussion about Global Poverty [1] it's easy to see the differences.

Mr. Rosling made a seminal talk that is one of the 3 or 4 that I think of when I think of TED. It was data-driven and multi-dimensional. At the same time, you're learning about the content -- global poverty through the eyes of a top UN advisor -- you're watching world-class data visualization.

Since their inception, TED has done a tremendous job staying on message. Most talks are given by people who are up to their elbows in the subject matter that they're talking about. This entrepreneur works in the business community, so there's relevance there, but that's pretty abstract. I would much rather this point be made by a union organizer.

The core message of the non-TED talk is a good one. That is the problem. The entrepreneur and the internet grassroots that have followed him are over the moon for it and are happy with the implementation that have here. If they were a bit less resistant to the criticism they've received, they could probably find a better way to get their message out.

For instance, how much more credible would it be if there were an enterprising union leader who could talk about his or her chapter's strategies, and who has measured the boost that their union members' employment has brought to their local community? In this age when many employers can't afford to invest in training employees who will leave their firms in 5 years, a union that provided job security to its members through training partnerships with local community colleges, and provided quality assurance to employers through licenses, and certifications in order to close the skills gap would be an inspiring organization. If they were providing each other with unemployment insurance and allowing the federal government to spend less money, that's a bi-partisan win!

An approach like that works at TED. One that can't be cobbled together in a weekend. These talks are almost always personal, representing years of on-the-ground activity. If they aren't given by the leader in the field they're given by someone with a unique perspective, like Jill Bolte Taylor, the stroke victim/neuroscientist who talked about the stroke she had.

This entrepreneur has a compelling message, one that I agree with, but his standpoint isn't special and his content hasn't progressed further than a well fleshed-out idea.

1. http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_o...

smsm424• 14 years ago

As always, lie travels 10 times around the world while the truth is putting its shoes on. I've encountered dozens of references already that Powers That Be and their minions at TED were afraid to talk about something that might piss of the all-powerful 1%, and that of course proves all conspiracy theories out there and gives birth to a dozen of new ones. But I wonder if any of these people will ever hear the real story.

steve8918• 14 years ago

First and foremost, from the video that was posted, the talk in question was not good at all. As a speaker, Nick Hanauer is not very polished and has this halting manner of speaking that is fairly irritating. It sounds like a speech that a high school student would make.

This was too easy of a decision to not run this, because it was really terrible. Instead of bitching and moaning about censorship, get a better speaker to talk about income equality. Get a more dynamic speaker to present a better-researched and better written speech, and then see what happens. But THIS particular speech is not something that people should be rallying behind, because it's really bad.

wavephorm• 14 years ago

This sounds like the typical hogwash from any other politically aligned media outlet. Am I reading a Fox News editorial? Just post the video and let "the internet" make the decision. If you think you think you can censor opinion in the modern world then you are flat-out wrong.

smsm424• 14 years ago

The content in the video is available since day 1. The very article contains link to TED's version, which would be obvious to anyone reading the whole article, which makes me wonder - did you? The whole point is not about the talk ideas being somehow unavailable - but about the author feeling entitled to being promoted by TED and when TED does not provide that for him launching into PR campaign about "censorship". Nobody tried to "censor" anybody's opinion. But some people love having opinions without even bothering with the facts. I don't know anything more flat-out wrong than that.

sams99• 14 years ago

I find it tragic that this "storm in a teacup" instigated by a very rich and powerful person even happened.

Saying TED shy away from controversy, or even defining this talk as huge controversy is tragic.

Take this talk for example: http://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_abo... -- stop reading this comment -- AND GO WATCH IT. It touches on many very critical issues in our society and the USA in particular that are marginalised and forgotten. If this talk was "censored" due to the fact it deals with "minority issues" I would understand a "censorship" claim.

The "tax the mega rich" talk was not powerful enough and did not properly deal with all the surrounding issues. As a person who watched many TED talks I also feel it was not at the right level. I also find it very disingenuous that the speaker did not tell anything about his story, what is he doing to change the state of affairs (besides talking at TED).

joejohnson• 14 years ago

It seems to me that TED was embarassed by this talk, not because they disagree with the conclusions, but just because the speaker was so unbearable to watch, and TED probably felt that he came off a little weird.

tallpapab• 14 years ago

tl;dr; Unpolished speaker is right.

alan_cx• 14 years ago

Isn't it up to "me" to decide what is partisan and what is or is not convincing?

Heh, I suppose the devil's "quality" control argument slides right in.

Codhisattva2• 14 years ago

Brilliant move by both parties to make this talk more popular than if it had just been released normally.

Yes his presentation is not up to snuff as the typical TED speaker. So a quiet YouTube release and shitstorm of trumped up controversy work out great for getting the message out:

"In a consumption driven economy, the middle class is more important than the elite class."

Aftershock21• 14 years ago

All this non productive discussion aside, Can Hackers solve this problem ? Entrepreneurs take risk and should be rewarded accordingly. However not all Rich people are Entrepreneurs. Some just keep their money in the bank and stagnate the economy.

How about creating Soft-Tax system, where Rich people are taxed Soft-Tax in addition to regular Tax. Soft-Tax would be a separate bank account where Rich must transfer their capital for Entrepreneurial work. If they don't use that money for funding new businesses Soft-Tax would turn into regular Tax after some deadline.

pippy• 14 years ago

Both parties are at fault here.

* The attendee for hiring a PR firm to create commotion

* TED for not being transparent

TED's decision, based on the elections or quality is superfluous. The fact is they weren't up front about it. If TED took its reputation seriously it would be transparent in all aspects of video selection. If it isn't censorship, they wouldn't be in this situation. Personally the slides I read were thought provoking, which is what TED was about (despite some graphs not labeling their Y access correctly).

Hiring a PR firm for a smear campaign on a non profit is simply a dick move. I shouldn't have to elaborate on that.

blueben2• 14 years ago

I continue to be amazed that folks continue to claim a rich man with a published book who makes the rounds on cable news networks is somehow being "censored" by virtue of his mediocre talk not being highlighted by an independent foundation. Seriously, this does a serious disservice to the word censorship and people across the globe who suffer from actual censorship.

hristov• 14 years ago

Here is a wonderful little quote from the article:

"Also, for the record, we have never sought advice from any of our advertisers on what we carry editorially. To anyone who knows how TED operates, or who has observed the noncommercial look and feel of the website, the notion that we would is laughable."

For anybody that knows how to read press releases, this speaks volumes. It is indignant and righteous and yet at the same time it clearly leaves a loophole one can use to back out of the statement at a later date. Hint: one does not always have to seek advise to receive it. Sometimes the "advice" just comes to you.

mkopinsky• 14 years ago

Youtube's slow update of view counts + a video that goes very and is very controversial very quickly =

303 views

2,115 likes, 837 dislikes

sakura_k• 14 years ago

This story is too hot for Safari on iPad. Every time I click the link, it crashes.

jonah2• 14 years ago

FWIW, Richard Wilkinson's TED talk "How economic inequality harms societies"[1] makes a far superior argument. It's laden with original research, data, and graphs, lots of graphs. :D

[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

389401a2• 14 years ago

It's kind of funny to hear wealthy individuals complaining about not taxing their class proportionally. As if they are saying "This is wrong. But unless the government tells us we have to pay, we're still not going to pay."

Why don't these individuals, e.g. Buffett, this TED speaker, and others, just lead by example. Overpay their taxes to amount to whatever they think is fair.

Why do they have to wait for the government to tell them they must pay?

Or they say they will pay more only if other wealthy individuals do the same.

Either they believe in paying a bigger share or they don't.

This "I'm not going to do it unless he does too" attitude is child-like behaviour.

nknight• 14 years ago

I'd say the "every man for himself" mentality you embody is what's child-like.

anotherthrow• 14 years ago

>Either they believe in paying a bigger share or they don't.

First, They believe in rules to enforce everyone paying a bigger share, and are lobbying to bring that about. There's nothing inconsistent in doing that whilst not individually making a bigger voluntary contribution. One might think that one's efforts are far better spent lobbying for a general rule then individually donating.

Second, people like Buffett have commitments to philantropy that I think would easily count as making a bigger contribution.

Lednakashim• 14 years ago

$6000 dollar ticket price. That it is the real inequality.

horsehead• 14 years ago

It sounds like a case of activist journalism, or a reporter got duped into thinking some injustice was carried out by TED. The power of media at play, folks.

Maybe i'll have to go back and actually watch the speech now. Funny, though, how this fellow, if he did feel slighted by TED and sought to get his speech publicized, is now getting all this attention ... Seems he's the beneficiary of a lot of interest at TED's expense.

aaronh• 14 years ago

The abdication of duty to truth in favor of balancing competing ideas is a disease. Sometimes some ideas are just empirically more correct and some are just empirically more incorrect. If some partisans happen to hold the more correct view, and others happen hold the more incorrect view, then to speak the correct view cannot avoid being incidentally partisan. To therefore preclude that speech as "partisan" is ridiculous.

TED and inequality: The real story

Related Stories