Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer "Rich people don't create jobs"

[Miss*Bijou]

Interesting and short TED talk....



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CKCvf8E7V1g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[AA_Train]

Been saying this for YEARS!!!! I also use the car and clothes example to illustrate my point, too. Nice post

 

[sevenofnine]

Isn't it just common sense?
I mean there is only so much money in the world. If one person has more then well his share, my share and part of someone else's as well. I can't afford to go out and spend. I'm stuck house bound, and how many big screen televisions do you need, how many cell phones can you have, how many cars can you have?
The point is my money would be spent in circulation keeping the economy moving. The rich person's at some point it would just pile up.
He would in effect hoard it.
Hoarding money how would that be good for the economy?

More money for someone means less for me.
And like I said how much does one person need.

 

[mik]

Great timing, Miss Bijou! Today's Vancouver Sun has another crap article from those big business puppets at the Fraser Institute:

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion...+Canadians+comes+with+cost/7763093/story.html


We will also never forget Kevin Falcon's bullsh*t on the HST: "...we've worked hard to keep British Columbia competitive by developing a business climate that encourages companies to invest here and create jobs for families across every region of this province. The HST is one more reason B.C. is a good place for business to invest and grow."

http://www.straight.com/news/kevin-falcon-hst-right-tax-bc

 

[HankQuinlan]

Let's have a leftist pile-on!

Ok, sure. There is nothing new in that "TED" talk. I don't understand why it is even controversial. Henry Ford understood a century ago that the success of his company depended on his employees having enough income to buy a car; his income compared to his employees' was a pittance compared to the fat cats today.

Capitalism as an economic model depends on the average person having enough cash to buy the goods/services that the companies sell. It also depends on steady growth, or the model fails. As long as we don't make enough money to buy more shit, the model fails. When the owners' greed exceeds a certain amount, the model fails.

If, on the other hand, the corporations are abandoning the Western nations as consumers, and concentrating their efforts on selling shit to the emerging economies, they are making an error....the emerging economies have been focused on selling shit to us, and they won't be growing unless we can afford to buy their crap....it is an endless cycle down.

I suppose, given enough time, we can simply switch places. We can be the low-paid workers making and selling crap for Asian consumers, but it won't be happening soon....and in the meantime, as long as the rich can keep increasing their share of the economy, they will carry on doing so...until the whole system collapses.

 

[PlayfulAlex]

Interesting and short TED talk....

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CKCvf8E7V1g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

How did you find out that it was banned, Miss B?

 

[CisForCookie]

Gotta love Obama and his class warfare and socialistic idealogy.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. - Winston Churchill

1. I don't think there is nothing wrong with the rich paying a bit more in taxes in regards to the US fiscal cliff thing...I don't believe the increase was a whole lot.

2. Whatever you do, don't tax the rich 75% like they did in France then whine like little b*tches when the rich start leaving lol...

3. In regards to the rich not creating jobs? I've yet to run into a person who was hired by some hobo on hastings...

Why do we even bring up tax fairness on this board? let's be honest most providers DO NOT PAY taxes on their income...

Read recently about a pornscort in America who got busted by the IRS, I guess she she thought it was bright idea to tweet about why do porn in Los Angeles and get taxed so much by the government when she can escort in Las Vegas get paid in cash and give shit to the government.

 

[cancowboy2001]

... And then to wonder why it was banned?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceup...at-ted-talk-was-censored-its-shoddy-and-dumb/
TED curator Chris Anderson wrote on his blog

“…it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. And it included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings.

Plus some rebuttal points in the article.

 

[Tugela]

Rich people dont create jobs any more than poor people do, spending does and anyone can do that. However, those jobs are primarily in service industry or sustain existing industrial operations.

What is different however is capital investment in new enterprise. Rich can and do do that, poor people cannot, because those sorts of jobs are created through large amounts of focussed capital, and the only people who have that are rich people.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

Obama is not a socialist, you numbskull. Aside from that dramatic quote from a dead Englishman, can you take a crack at defining socialism for us?
Winston Churchill said a lot of shit. It doesn't make it right just because he is Winston Churchill. For example:

In 1937, Winston Churchill said of the Palestinians, I quote, “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

And, its spelled I-D-E-O-L-O-G-Y you bucket head.

Thank you for posting that quote.

It struck me when I heard it in We, the movie made from Arundhati Roy's speech, Come September and I can't help it, now that quote is all I can think of whenever someone mentions Winston Churchill.



A clip of that part of the movie/speech:



[<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7vnaf8R_SJo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


(Full movie: https://vimeo.com/40341945 )

http://weroy.org


We is a fast-paced 64 minute documentary that covers the world politics of power, war, corporations, deception and exploitation.

It visualizes the words of Arundhati Roy, specifically her famous Come September speech, where she spoke onsuch things as the war on terror, corporate globalization, justice and the growing civil unrest.
It's witty, moving, alarming and quite a lesson in modern history.

We is almost in the style of a continuous music video. The music used sets the pace and serves as wonderful background for the words of Ms. Roy and images of humanity in the world we live all in today.

We is a completely free documentary, created and released anonymously on the internet.

 

[summerbreeze]

not sure government are any good at investing risk capital, no doubt certain industries need stimulation to get them going and government plays the major role in this stimulation

investment in a capitalist society historically has been best done by the private sector who go to where there risk/reward is maximized so if a government wants to over tax, its best capitalist's setup shop elsewhere

increasing tax for the rich in the US is a strategy to get the democrats another term, in Regan's term an economist put forward the notion that the tax department would collect higher revenues by lowering taxes

this proved to be accurate and the prime reason was people forgot about trying to avoid tax or move out of the country and just paid it

problem with government trying to do anything is you have a 9 to 5 mentality and inefficient management. in Sweden they have more people administering their welfare system in government than people who are on welfare......

no doubt merits to both sides of the conversation, problem is complicated and having a generic solution probably not practical, rich people may not buy proportionately more products but they do have the capital to invest in a business opportunity which typically will produce jobs

investment is different than consumption, investment into R&D and innovation helps create new demand, which means more consumption

 

[PlayfulAlex]

Another perspective on Nick's TED talk, from Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/19/the-ignorance-of-nick-hanauers-ted-speech

 

[CisForCookie]

Lol, looks like there are a lot of leftist Obama lovers here huh,

I apologize for railroading the thread because Obama and his so called greatness could be a thread of it's own. Not to mention the middle eastern crap you brought up would definitely be a thread or two of it's own.

So back on topic.

"Rich People Don't create jobs"

It's easier for the rich to do it, but poor and middle class people can as well. Not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth, a lot of people start from nothing and create decent wealth from it.

The problem with the poor and the middle class is they have a socialist mindset.

The government will give me this, the government will give me that. The union will get me this the union will get me that.

I have a family member who is exactly like that, all they do is complain about their boss, complain about their wages and complain how the union can't do anything till the next round of bargaining.
I've told them rather than using all that energy complaining why not create a business. But they don't...

They DON'T want to take the risk.
They WON'T make sacrifices to save all their spare $ to put into a business.
They sit in the comfortable middle and whine about the rich.

I don't believe spending creates jobs, it just keeps the economy rolling along.

It's the entrepreneur that creates the job and hires the people, spending determines how long the entrepreneur will be around or how well this entrepreneur will do. If the business goes bankrupt, then hopefully another entrepreneur will step in and we go from there.

I don't think Tax cuts for big corps create jobs, the $ just ends up going to the execs, and shareholders. Tax cut tied to hiring locally rather than off shoring, tax cuts or incentives for businesses to create plants in america would be better.

I think the government should've let the bush tax cuts expire on the rich, and cut taxes on the poor and middle class to spur spending.

*****

Why do we even bring up tax fairness on this board? let's be honest most providers DO NOT PAY taxes on their income...

lol

 

[westcoast555]

Rich people dont create jobs any more than poor people do, spending does and anyone can do that. However, those jobs are primarily in service industry or sustain existing industrial operations.

What is different however is capital investment in new enterprise. Rich can and do do that, poor people cannot, because those sorts of jobs are created through large amounts of focussed capital, and the only people who have that are rich people.

You're the only one on this thread that knows what he's talking about.

A lot of people suffer from the 'fixed pie' illusion - that if a guy has money there's a bunch of people that are not getting their share. Economics is not a 'zero sum' game. Failure to understand this leads people to adopt anti-capitalist positions.

As for the TED talk, it was skimming over some key points as you note. Venture capital is required to launch a new business... yes you need consumers but you need CAPITAL to get it going. A lot of people are economically illiterate and don't understand what capitalism really is.

 

[mik]

Perhaps some of you should read this book:

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=47

 

[Bartdude]

Socialism is a lie.

But so is "trickle-down".

 

[MrEd124]

the uber rich are the only ones to be able to invest in ventures that actually can create jobs outside of the public sector... the one thing he failed to get into in such a short talk was it's up to the private sector to create these jobs. Whom or what pays for govt or public jobs??? everyone's tax dollars... so you look at European countries that are folding or have ridiculous unemployment and what do you find? over 50%, 55%, 60% of the jobs are public sector/govt jobs...jobs that pay tax but who are paid and supported by the tax money... private companies bring fresh resources into govt and the public support mechanics.... in a global economy where do the private sector jobs go...?

well, ask Starbucks why central European operations are centered where they are... best tax breaks and economic incentives...and that country gets the revenues of taxing the Starbucks head office and private sector staff within the entire euro union...but capitalism is really taken to the max in communist China where they'll cut costs on safety, health, and the environment to save 2 cents per widget to build a cellphone for over here...and we accept the big box marts let it happen!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKv6RcXa2UI


You want to fix the problem you need global agreement or you need to accept that flat screen tv should be $14,000 not $1,400... good luck!!!

I didn't make the rules but I understand how they work and basically they're set up to work but in the 1945 post ww2 era... not with the fore-site of globalization and global economies. The rules needed changing 35 years ago but they've left it too long since the end of the 60's and now the gap is too great for most middle class to catch up unless you're willing to make due with less than your parents had.

 

[Tugela]

But you have just restated the original thesis that this speaker has refuted which is without taxing the wealth of the capitalist the poor will not have the extra money to consume the goods and services produced by those enterprises. Presumably the revenue from higher taxes on the wealthy could be allocated towards investment in human capital and socializing the costs of basic institutions which would alleviate the costs on lower income users for certain basic needs. Education, health care, and childcare are the obvious examples. The less money people have to spend on a broken arm, or school for their kids the more money they will have to give back to a capitalist enterprise so that it can invest in further innovation. I believe that's why he favours the concept of 'feedback' in his little talk. Its a 5 minute talk, not a PhD dissertation.

Taxation doesnt give extra money to the poor, what it does is direct money into the service industry. The problem is that the service industry does not create real wealth, rather, direct investment does.

Any sort of new industrial endeavor requires a large body of capital to finance it, or it does not get created. As society matures we need new industry to make use of new technology as it comes along. If our society does not develop and constantly renew this new industrial base, some other society certainly will, and we will eventually become a stagnated backwater in the larger world.

Small individuals do not have the capital to do this.

Governments do have that sort of capital, but they only spend it on the service sector and infrastructure (such as roads and that sort of thing). Some governments have taken on the role of directing growth in production. It is called communism. We all saw how that worked out. The issue there is that in theory production can be focused, but in practice the lack of accountability results in corruption and inefficiency.

For the economy to grow we need constant development of our production base. Factories do not pop out of nowhere just because someone can consume what they might produce.

Who is going to do this in your economy? The working poor? No. They will not. All the working poor will do is expand the number of McDonald franchises.

 

[ReluctantPooner]

As an environmentalist, the idea of the economy needing more and more people buying more and more crap really disturs me. Let's just totally rape our planet so that everyone can make money! There must be a better way......

Of course, what I really believe is that our planet needs to have about 3 billion less people.

 

[Poseidon]

Posted by Reluctant Pooner

As an environmentalist, the idea of the economy needing more and more people buying more and more crap really disturs me. Let's just totally rape our planet so that everyone can make money! There must be a better way......

Of course, what I really believe is that our planet needs to have about 3 billion less people.

Yep, overpopulation and exploitation of the world's resources will be the main concern in a few decades. What needs to happen is a natural disaster or another big meteor hitting the planet to decrease the world population. Or maybe a zombie virus. Unless we find the means to travel to another earth like planet but I don't see that happening anytime soon.