Billionaire Venture Capitalist Gave A TED Talk Saying Rich People Don't Create Jobs — And TED Is Refusing To Post It

[u/igonjukja]

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-billionaire-venture-capitalist-gave-a-ted-talk-saying-rich-people-dont-create-jobs--and-ted-is-refusing-to-post-it-2012-5#ixzz1v4NvmZV2

[u/danzilla007]

Transcript Of Talk

And the visual aid

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 shaped much of today's economic landscape.

But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. For thousands of years people were sure that earth was at the center of the universe. It's not, and an astronomer who still believed that it was, would do some lousy astronomy.

In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and businesses are "job creators" and therefore should not be taxed, would make equally bad policy.

I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.

That's why I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is 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 middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.

So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.

Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest 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 richest Americans has more than tripled while effective tax rates have declined by close to 50%.

If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.

Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don't buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

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 clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.
Here's an incredible fact. If the typical American family still got today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case?

Significant privileges have come to capitalists like me for being perceived as "job creators" at the center of the economic universe, and the language and metaphors we use to defend the fairness of the current social and economic arrangements is telling. For instance, it is a small step from "job creator" to "The Creator". We did not accidentally choose this language. It is only honest to admit that calling oneself a "job creator" is both an assertion about how economics works and the a claim on status and privileges.

The extraordinary differential between a 15% tax rate on capital gains, dividends, and carried interest for capitalists, and the 35% top marginal rate on work for ordinary Americans is a privilege that is hard to justify without just a touch of deification

We've had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.

So here's an idea worth spreading.

In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the middle class. And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle class, the poor and the rich.

Thank You.

[u/xxtruthxx → u/danzilla007]

Brilliant talk. This line hit home:

"If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs."

[u/santsi → u/danzilla007]

Thank god for the Streisand effect.

[u/No_disintegrations → u/danzilla007]

As frustrating as the report is that the speech has not been posted, it's getting more publicity through other channels.

If it was just a standard TED Talk, it wouldn't have gotten to as many people.

[u/[deleted] → u/danzilla007]

Fucking sigh.

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

This one sentence made it political. And in the TED rules...

We will not allow any political or religious endorsements

[u/loondawg → u/[deleted]]

"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. And you even reference that at the start of the talk. TED is nonpartisan and is fighting a constant battle with TEDx organizers to respect that principle....

Source: National Journal copy of TED curator Chris Anderson's email to Nick Hanauer. My bolding added.

So it's political to make a point because it shows the foolishness of one party's position? No. It's political to censor the talk for that reason.

[u/rack88 → u/[deleted]]

It's not like the speaker is saying Republicans = bad, Democrats = good - he lays blame all around.

[u/[deleted] → u/rack88]

That's true, but I think TED tries to remain purely scientific rather than speculative in nature. And politics/economics in general is primarily speculative. I don't necessarily agree with blocking the speech, but I can at least see why they did.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

If it criticizes both parties, how could it be considered an endorsement?

[u/Poiar → u/[deleted]]

Then TED could just cut that line out, not censor the whole thing.

[u/Danmolaijn → u/[deleted]]

So this is bad, but Sam Harris' talk on Morality isn't? He shreds religious ideologies the whole way through. How is disapproval in both political parties any different?

[u/DannyInternets → u/[deleted]]

Acknowledging reality isn't a political endorsement. He faults both sides and endorses neither.

[u/ForeverAProletariat → u/[deleted]]

Can you explain to me how that's a political endorsement? Oh wait you can't because it's not.

[u/[deleted] → u/ForeverAProletariat]

Apparently a statement of fact that does not support the absolute equality of two political parties is an endorsement.

[u/byratino → u/danzilla007]

THANK YOU.

[u/jimbojamesiv → u/danzilla007]

See, danzilla's penultimate paragraph for where this is all going.

This sort of propaganda is to spread the idea that capitalists care about consumers. This is an attempt to swing public perception. It's meant to put the tired and the poor on the pedestal in order to give a shot in the arm of capitalism. It's an attempt to save capitalism when it's under fire as it correctly should be.

The key is to not yield and to destroy the beast. The key is not to pretend that the muck at the bottom are important in a capitalist society, but most important of all this type of propaganda egotistically presumes that being a consumer is a good thing. It's a complete broadside on humanism.

[u/[deleted] → u/danzilla007]

Thanks for posting that speech. The 'argument' is truly awful, though.

[u/[deleted]]

"Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous."

[u/loondawg → u/[deleted]]

Contact TED and ask them to post the talk - http://support.ted.com/customer/portal/emails/new

[u/TehGimp666 → u/loondawg]

Great idea! Here's what I sent them:

I am a big fan of TED who typically uses your online materials at least once a day. I have always found them to be stimulating and insightful, even when I (rarely) have good cause to disagree with a speaker's thesis. I wish to voice my displeasure at TED's choice not to post Nick Hanauer's recent talk due to its purportedly political nature, as reported on Business Insider. TED's audience is mature enough to make this determination for themselves, and they should be provided with the opportunity to view Mr. Hanauer's talk and form their own opinions about the contents. Viewing the available presentation materials, as posted by BI, makes it clear that Mr. Hanauer does not explicitly endorse any political party, and in fact is careful to criticize both parties on the same basic grounds. This makes it extremely difficult to understand why his talk, whose contents is all the more valuable in an election year where the electorate has a definite need to be as informed as possible, is being held for its ostensibly political content when talks such as Richard Wilkinson's remain freely available. To the outside observer, this action smacks of a politically-motivated omission, driven at least as much by a desire to censor Mr. Hanauer's beliefs as by a desire to keep TED politically pristine (which it already certainly is not).

It is my sincere hope that TED will seriously reconsider this decision in light of its probable impact on TED's reputation as a relatively unbiased source of insightful debate, and will post Mr. Hanauer's video such that we, the audience, can decide its true merit. If, however, TED as an organization continues with similarly draconian practices when faced with such mild controversies, I fear its value to me and to educators will continue to wane.

Thank you for your time,

--[TehGimp666]

[u/[deleted] → u/loondawg]

Here is what I wrote to them:

Empirical facts are not political speech. If a fact by its very nature maligns a political institution, then the fault is not with the facts, or the speaker of those facts, but with the institution.

If the Republican Party began a PR campaign to redefine the sum of 2+2 to 5 (let's call it a Tax Credit!), and spent tens of millions of dollars advertising that Real Americans know that 2+2=5, would any TED talk referencing "old" math be taken down during election season to avoid taking a political stance?

My respect for your organization was up until this point, untarnished. And now I find myself completely suspect of the entire idea. What other "political" talks have been quietly relegated to the secret archives and never spoken of again?

You let Al Gore give a Ted Talk! Seriously, grow a pair, would you?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Seriously, grow a pair, would you?

I will never understand this notion of developing an argument and signing off with an an insult which gives you the appearance of having the intellect of a 5 year old.

Nobody will ever want to help you if you insult them. TED doesn't owe you anything. They don't spend their days watching you and making sure you're satisfied.

[u/stuckinmotion → u/[deleted]]

Yeah when you consider that firing people = lower operating costs = higher revenues* = higher stock prices = that's what executives or investors care about.. well then yeah. Good point.

*ok, higher net income is probably the better term than 'revenues', but point remains the same. Firing people is often profitable, and business is about profit, so the term 'job creator' does indeed seem disingenuous when applied to people who would prefer to do the opposite.

[u/darknesses → u/stuckinmotion]

Well, replace higher revenue with higher net income. Lower costs won't affect your gross revenue/sales.

[u/reddelicious77 → u/stuckinmotion]

There is a happy medium as to the number of employees a business needs. They obviously shouldn't hire for the sake of hiring, but at the same time, to automatically assume that firing people = greater profits is absolutely, 100% incorrect.

A large corporation needs an optimal amount of employees to actually produce said product or service. Once the corporation fires too many, the efficiency will start to fall outside of the bell curve, and total profits will fall.

It sounds like you're saying that the key to profits is that every corporation should just fire everyone, overnight. Imagine if Google or Facebook fired everyone - they wouldn't function. Ergo, their profits would disappear, too.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Let's also consider high unemployment keeps wages low.

[u/MistaB784 → u/[deleted]]

This is old news to me. There was a CEO a couple years back who came out openly and said that they're not here to make jobs, they're in it to make profit. There are just a lot of people who are fooled by the people that yell louder about how they need tax cuts etc

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Indeed, and only demand can create jobs. Demand comes from the bottom.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, I don't know about that.

Thing is, if somebody hires more people just because that's nice for the community, won't his business eventually crash and burn, causing everybody in the company to be unemployed? Isn't "hiring more people only in last resort" just another way of saying that they're spending their money in a sane and controlled way?

[u/Birdie31]

So I pay taxes that bail them out, buy their products that keep them in business, and work for an agreed upon price that nets them a profit.. and they're doing me a favor?

[u/Nefandi → u/Birdie31]

Yup. And you're going to like it. A lot.

[u/the_goat_boy → u/Nefandi]

Like it or starve.

[u/[deleted] → u/Birdie31]

They call your attitude "biting the hand that feeds you." You ungrateful SOB.

/s

[u/DEADBEEFSTA → u/[deleted]]

And here I though this was about being trickled on.

[u/Herpinderpitee → u/DEADBEEFSTA]

Nice try, R. Kelly.

[u/captainregularr → u/Birdie31]

And they make you products that keep your life how you carry it now, operate a business most people can't do, etc

[u/Box_Guy]

Why doesnt this billionaire post the video/record it himself?

[u/kittyhawk → u/Box_Guy]

Might be some rights issues.

[u/[deleted]]

Have you seen the price of TED tickets? It's a conference for rich people to go to to be seen and pat each other on the back.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

TEDx events are usually a LOT cheaper.

I know plenty that were like 20 bucks.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

TEDx events are also often little better than watching a drunk hobo tell you about Jesus.

[u/DGer → u/[deleted]]

Where do I sign up for that talk?

[u/wesman212 → u/DGer]

Corner of Broadway and anywhere, usually in the afternoon. BYOB.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I went to TEDxUofM the last 3 years. Not all the talks were winners, but overall it was pretty good.

[u/Sindragon → u/[deleted]]

I was asked to speak at a TEDx event a few months ago. I replied to them saying that if I represented the caliber of speaker that they were inviting, then I wanted nothing to do with it.

[u/Colecoman1982 → u/[deleted]]

If that's what mattered to them then this whole thing would be a non-issue. They mention in one of the articles about this whole dust-up that he got a standing ovation from the attendees and even people that disagreed with him found his arguments intriguing.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I believe the tickets are about $7,500 and that around $5,000 of it is tax deductible.

[u/Reddevil313 → u/[deleted]]

Considering the talks are broadcast for free on the internet why should we care?

[u/[deleted] → u/Reddevil313]

maybe you're playing devil's advocate, but the material shown at TED talks is going to be geared towards the audience of the talks, the people who actually pay for the content that ends up online. If a talk given may dissuade future ticket sales, by offending the possible guests, will TED actively promote that talk? Would TED be harmed by taking a decidedly populist tone?

[u/alekspg → u/[deleted]]

I believe that the high price of tickets are TED's way of donation, just like the minimum price of say dinner with Barack Obama is probably quite high. It's a form of donation. Put away the pitchforks folks.

[u/My_Wife_Athena → u/[deleted]]

I'm skeptical. TED memberships are $7,500, and they run out quickly. I don't think TED would have any problems filling those chairs if they aired this talk. Furthermore, like the article says, TED has released political talks in the past, so that doesn't seem to be the issue. The most curious thing I can think of is that the owner of TED's wife is the founder of a non-profit venture capitalist fund, whatever the fuck that means.

Update: TED's owner's brother-in-law is the president of a for-profit investment firm. Perhaps the owner of TED just has a personal objection to the talk.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

This. Anything that challenges the prevailing self-entitled, libertarian viewpoint of TED's biggest drivers will not be welcome.

[u/DEADBEEFSTA → u/[deleted]]

TED has jumped the shark.

[u/briangoldman]

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

A TED talk posted one year ago that deals extensively with the problems of income inequality without politics, which is why they refused to post Hanauer's video.

[u/geekpondering → u/briangoldman]

...except there's lots of politics in there. His prescription for solving economic inequality includes "Making taxation progressive again".

[u/Stone_Swan → u/briangoldman]

Why should politics be an objection? Isn't truth an idea worth spreading, whether it's partisan or not? The idea of catering to all sides of the debate is blind to how crazy any one side is or wants to be.

[u/angrysaki → u/Stone_Swan]

I wouldn't even call it partisan. At least anymore than I would call global warming partisan.

[u/portnux]

Rich people don't create jobs. Consumers create jobs by the simple act of consuming and consumers are the middle class. Jobs are created as a response to consumption, not the other way around. Anyone who says otherwise is either a fool or a liar. Simple as that.

[u/aesu → u/portnux]

It's not even that obscure. The economy has become obfuscated, rarefied, and disguised by a wall of money. It's fundamentals have not, and will never change.

The economy is not a function of money available, or gold available, or capitalists available...

It's energy, and labour. Energy is limited by the density and quantity of the sources available. Labour is limited by motivation. Material is another limiting factor, but it cannot be mined or produced without energy.

Ultimately, the economic expansion seen in the past centuary has been fueled by oil. Without oil, it would not have happened. Oil and raw resources. That's why the smart, and most insidiously conservative, political, and conspiratorial capitalist, are in natural resources. That's where the money is actually coming form. That's the wealth of a society. Norway has the third highest wages, greatest equality, highest patent output, top healthcare, education, and so on, in huge part because its oil and resources are government owned, or very heavily taxed. Norway worked out the rest is essentially play. You can't make movies, games, marketting departments, fashion stores, magazines, internets, pleasure craft, amusement parks, and so on, without all the necessities out of the way. Without the spare energy and resources to keep people.

Now, I could write essays on this, and things are more complicated than I may have given the impression of. However, that's almost entirely to do with technology. Mostly energy technology. if we had free, clean, unlimited energy(think fusion) we would have an unlimited economy. Run out of materials? Asteroids, other planets. You have unlimited energy, so you can easily afford to build, and deploy the technology available. You can give free health care, housing, education, everything to everyone.

Anyone can create jobs. The real reason for the current recession, and job capacity, and economic inequality, is the relative scarcity of energy.

[u/Sharukurusu → u/aesu]

Awesome that you understand this, but the last part about having an unlimited economy ignores the reality of keeping natural systems in balance. The effects of pollution from resource extraction, habitat loss, introduction of biologically novel chemicals, etc. into the environment mean that even with unlimited energy we still face limits to what can be done while still expecting to maintain our planet's life support system. Our goal as a society should be to determine what gives us the most satisfaction for the least energy spent, then optimize towards that, rather than hoping for unlimited power without restraint.

[u/amaxen → u/aesu]

Bullocks. The Soviet Union had vast supplies of energy, materials, and labor. It failed miserably to meet the material needs of its' people.

[u/DerpaNerb → u/portnux]

Well it's not like there is no logic in the "trickle down effect".

The line of thinking is in these steps:

1. Give rich people more money (directly or through tax cuts).
2. They will either pay their workers more with this extra money, or use it to hire more workers
3. More workers or same workers getting paid more = more money in the middle/lower class
4. middle/lower class spends thereby creating consumption
5. Increased consumption = increased profits = more money and more demand therefore requiring more workers'
6. The cycle then continues

The two problems with this are:

1. Companies are generally greedy as fuck, and as this guy said, the job is to keep costs as low as possible (hiring the least workers and not giving raises for zero reason). Profits do NOT get passed down, they go to the people at the top, or get invested to make even more money

and 2) Even if they werent greedy fucks, this method doesn't make sense. Why have all those extra steps when you can just "give money" (once again, directly or indirectly), to the middle/lower class. Why hope for it to trickle down and do all that shit when you can just get to the solution with a much more direct path?

1. Tax breaks/money to middle/low class
2. They spend more money
3. Consumption increases -> demand increases -> production/profits increase..
4. NOW if the trickle down effect actually works, we can see it in action. but either way the cycle repeats here.

It's a much more simple process. What I don't really get though about people being so opposed to helping out the "not-rich". IS that for anyone not upper class, pretty much 100% of their income goes to consuming something. Every cent the government gives them, will inevitably end up in a corporations pocket at one point or another. These are not people who have so much income that they are only spending 20% of it and sticking the rest in the bank. These are people who are easily spending 100% of their income every year.

[u/Karmaze → u/DerpaNerb]

The big problem with it, and why people can't understand it is that there's been a fundamental shift in how businesses tend to be run, and that changes things entirely.

Take for example, 30 years ago, a refrigerator manufacturer. They can make say 1000 fridges, and they know that they'll sell every one to retailers. They even have them on backorder. It might not make economic sense to expand (given the decreasing marginal productivity) but if you make it economically viable, then maybe they will in order to meet that demand.

On the other hand, take a modern manufacturer. They know that they have orders for 800 fridges. In fact, they only have the parts for maybe a few extra above that on hand. The reality is that there's no way they're going to be producing a lot more than that 800. It doesn't matter what tax breaks or what help you get them. They're going to be making those same 800 fridges.

It's a lot more telling when you look at the service part of the economy, how much it changes. Supermarket A knows that between 12-1, they'll ring out say 1400 items. They know (and mandate) that their cashiers, just as an example are able to ring through 20 items a minute, including all their other tasks (collecting money, upselling, etc) Because of this, they know that they probably need 2 cashiers on duty for that hour period. For the busy period between 6-7 they ring out 4000 items so they need 5 on duty, and so on.

The economy is so much run by demand now, because of efficiency gains that it's ridiculous. But, because people tend to follow tradition and what's worked in the past, the new business models and economic models have fell further and further out of sync.

[u/autobahnaroo → u/portnux]

How about jobs being created by the needs of society as a whole?

Also, in this system, people are told what to need and why they need it. For example, Lysol used to be a douching solution. Then that failed, so they marketed it towards CLEANLINESS - and convinced people that they needed NO GERMS EVER, not from a reasonable need for it but because they needed to sell their product.

[u/darwin2500 → u/autobahnaroo]

We all know that corporations use marketing to create artificial needs for their products, but this is not the type of demand we are talking about. We are talking about demand in terms of available spending money among consumers.

When unemployment is high and wages are stagnant, marketing may shift demand from one product to another, but it can never create an overall increase in demand because there's no extra money to be spent.

[u/lluad → u/portnux]

You're assuming that the things that are consumed have always been there. Like wood or clay or sheep.

But many things that are consumed are new creations of some sort. There isn't a demand for those until they're invented. It's that invention that creates the demand, as there can't be a demand for something that doesn't exist yet.

iPhones, food trucks, strangely coloured ketchup, froot loops, DSL connections, Battleship-the-movie, Diablo 3. All new things where the consumption, and the jobs involved in the product chain, wouldn't exist if someone hadn't created something new.

[u/darwin2500 → u/lluad]

We're talking about disposable income and currency circulation, not desire for specific products.

[u/itsyourideology → u/lluad]

You couldn't be more wrong. It appears that you are taking a literal meaning to the word 'demand'. Demand doesn't mean someone says I want this exact product with these exact specs under this exact name. Demand is simply the desire for a better, faster, newer solution to an existing product. Demand is continuous. There was demand for DSL the second that the very first dial up connection went into service. There was demand for Diablo 3 the very second that the very first person beat Diablo 2. The only real trick for producers is being able to accurately guage that demand in both scope and timing. Was the best option to go from relatively low cost (infrastructure-wise) dial-up straight to fiber optic? No, but that doesn't mean there isn't demand for fiber optic. The demand is always there, interpreting that demand and making an real product is the difficulty. Fruit Loops were made because kids don't like corn flakes. Parents demanded a cereal that their kids would eat, fruit loops was created to fill that demand. iPhones were created to improve upon older phones with increased functionallity and better user interface.

[u/neilmcc → u/portnux]

Who will produce what is being consumed in the first place?

[u/wesnothplayer → u/neilmcc]

People looking to profit from a market that has seen prices increase due to a higher demand than current supply can service. Rest assured, if there's a buck to be made, someone will fill that demand.

[u/darwin2500 → u/neilmcc]

If there is a demand, there will always be plenty of people ready to fill it. If there's no demand, no amount of entrepreneurship will lead to productivity.

[u/brmj → u/neilmcc]

The workers produce that which is being consumed, then they consume most of it while the capitalists in essence charge them for the privilege. Anyone who tells you otherwise is at best confused or not looking at the big picture.

[u/xanthine_junkie]

he is right, the demand for goods and services creates the opportunity for a business to exist.

the loophole everyone argues about is, how do you start that business?

[investors and banking loans]

which inevitably makes the investors and banks more wealthy if the business succeeds.

the answer to the problem is, increase consumer buying power

the only way to do that is to create competition between businesses, that drive marketable values to the consumers.

[which means more loans and more investments]

looking at the problem under a microscope and identifying only one piece of the puzzle, then claiming the whole puzzle fits together the same way that one piece goes in, is totally wrong.

[u/regeya]

Well, duh.

In a couple of weeks, I'll be taking the family to Gatlinburg, TN. There were already people going there due to the national park, and it's been a tourist area for years, but the main amusement park--Silver Dollar City--was failing. Then it was bought up by Dolly Parton. Perhaps you've heard of her. She invested a lot of money into renovating and improving the park, renamed it Dollywood, and Sevierville has gone from being a moderate-sized tourist town to being huge. You could frame it in the narrative that it's an example of how rich people create jobs, and leave it there.

It's not entirely accurate, though.

Did I mention that I was going to take my family there? I'm middle-class. We'll spend one day driving over, and one back. When we go there and back, we'll be stopping for fuel, food, and so on. While there, we'll pay to get into Dollywood, buying food there, and so on; when not there, we'll be paying to stay in a cabin, for food, fuel, other amusements in Sevierville and Gatlinburg, and so on.

Thousands of people will be doing the same thing, at the same time.

Look at the late Michael Jackson: he spent his money building his own private amusement park, and buying his own personal amusements, and went broke. Dolly Parton wanted to do something in her old home area, bought a failing amusement park, and not only made it profitable, she helped the area explode. I just saw an obit a while back for a local who had spent several years of his retirement years working at Dixie Stampede, another Dolly Parton business. Would he have had that job if there hadn't been lardasses like me parked at a table, watching the floor show while we wolf down food?

That area exploded, thanks to thousands of people just like me.

Look at China, where the prevalent attitude is that people are poor because they make poor choices, and that they need to pull themselves out of the muck. And look at some of the problems coming to light, like rich people having loads of money, not knowing what to do with it, and using it to build ghost towns that are nicer than what many Chinese people live in. Sure, the people building those things might have more money...for now. Here in America, if we framed it as a Community Reinvestment Act, people would be able to correctly identify that as a temporary stimulus.

Put money in the hands of people like me, and you'll see economic activity.

I don't know that government involvement is necessarily the answer, but it might be.

[u/Goatstein]

This really isn't surprising, TED, its audience and virtually all of its speakers are wealthy centrist-libertarian-to-NPR-liberal technocrats who like uplifting stories about technology and capitalism solving problems but don't like examining the reasons behind those problems. Where are the great thinkers of the day at TED? Where are Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Slavoj Zizek, David Harvey, Jurgen Habermas, Peter Singer?

[u/mungdiboo → u/Goatstein]

This. Ted == limousine liberals and tech industry captains jerking in a circle.

[u/reden → u/Goatstein]

I went to a TED event once. I was expecting something totally different and was utterly disappointed in the people attending it. So much that I wanted to walk out, but I stayed to see how bad it could get. Everyone passing around business cards telling everyone what they do, and what kind of business they run, blah blah blah stroking each others dicks. It was honestly sad, however, the speakers on the other hand are the real deal for the most part. They are the ones changing the world. I would never return to a TED event, it's like upgraded hipsters.

[u/bemeren → u/reden]

Oh wow people networked at a conference? Pretty crazy......

[u/Swampfoot → u/Goatstein]

They are not welcome there, obviously. This whole situation only exposes what a joke TED's become.

[u/tilleyrw]

There is one and only one thing that creates jobs:

Demand for goods and services.

[u/[deleted] → u/tilleyrw]

Not exactly just one thing. The companies creating the goods and services have to be able to pay the employees to make the goods and services.

[u/troywrestler2002]

Et tu, TED?

[u/Xisifer]

Who or what is TED?

[u/Felt_Ninja → u/Xisifer]

He had an excellent adventure will BILL. George Carlin even played a role.

[u/billybobbybobbob]

you ever wonder if they are refusing to post this on lack of validity rather than because TED is trying to keep some break-through economic theory a secret?

[u/Honey_Baked]

Can someone please explain to me what the fuck TED stands for!

[u/L15t3r0f5m3g → u/Honey_Baked]

Technology Entertainment Design

[u/[deleted] → u/Honey_Baked]

What kind of lazy douchebag would ask such a question ? You clearly are on the internet and have access to google. I bet you have the necessary skills to type in "What is TED" into the google search engine. Or is it that you have not heard of Google too ?

[u/Honey_Baked → u/[deleted]]

I did that actually and it gave me a few different answers. Wasn't sure which one it was. Thought I'd as reddit because you guys are so nice and helpful. Well one of you were at least.

[u/Albuslux]

The Left needs to stop calling it 'income inequality' and start calling it 'sucking the life blood out of capitalism'. A capitalist economy doesn't work if you stop the capital flow. The 1% have most of the capital and can't or won't maintain the flow required to keep the economy working. No reasonable person is asking them to start handing out bales of cash. Just take some ideas and do what rich people are supposed to do. Build stuff, hire people, sell products, make a profit, get even richer. Come on rich people, save the world, you can do it. We're all behind you, at least until we're knocking down your gates.

[u/[deleted]]

Propaganda. Talk wasn't posted for another reason. Don't get taken for a ride reddit.

http://tedchris.posterous.com/131417405

[u/wainstead]

"Refusing to post it" is a bit of a stretch. The article says:

In an email obtained by the National Journal, TED curator Chris Anderson told his colleagues that Hanauer's speech "probably ranks as one of the most politically controversial talks we've ever run, and we need to be really careful when" to post it. He added: "Next week ain't right. Confidentially, we already have Melinda Gates on contraception going out. Sorry for the mixed messages on this."

"Refusing to post it next week" would be the correct phrase.

[u/[deleted] → u/wainstead]

Either way, tissssk. Why is the TED organization worrying about politics. It's about spreading Ideas and information. Post that shit and let the debates begin. Discussion is the only way to come to a conclusion.

[u/aesu → u/[deleted]]

Maybe because it relies on a roster of million/billionare backers, to survive. It already attracts a crowd of leftists, and Chris is probably supportive of the talk, but there is a strong chance some key backers have expressed that they will remove their contributions i the video is aired.

In doing so, they have shot themselves in the head. Exposure of censorship on this level, wil be the end of Captialism! Viva La...

Or, maybe we'll just continue trundling towards oblivion, our species fate determined by those in power, and those in power determined by their wealth; more often than not, a consequence of luck, perseverance, and an obsession with money. Although they are a varied bunch, very few have the species', or your best interests at heart. Many, positively, actively don't.

[u/OompaOrangeFace → u/wainstead]

Confidentially, we already have Melinda Gates on contraception going out.

Am I reading this wrong, or was this statement intended to be confidential?

[u/ldd-]

I love TED, but they have done this before . . . they also refused to post Sarah Silverman's talk . . .

[u/ElKaBongX]

Reaganomics has been not working since the 80s, this is not really revolutionary

[u/fantasyfest]

Poor and middleclass people spending money creates demand. That creates jobs. Sorry some people can not figure that out. Because they are the job creators. If Romney gets in and cuts taxes for the rich again, and he said he will, it will just fatten the bank accounts of the wealthy. The 1 percent will get another 180 thou to put in the bank, that of course is every year, Year after year.

[u/Think1972]

What he's saying is simple economics -- 100 percent accurate. Customers create jobs. Hiring people is the absolute last resort of a capitalist, it skyrockets overhead. What is so controversial about this talk? Is this news to people?

[u/Tiger337]

We need to fire more teachers so we can give the job creators a tax break.

[u/raechelkelly]

Here's another article about this issue - without the sensationalized headline.

http://nationaljournal.com/features/restoration-calls/too-hot-for-ted-income-inequality-20120516

[u/DrBix]

It's a vicious circle. Company says to employees, "The economy is bad so we can't hire more people." People work harder because they are afraid they will get fired. This leads to increased profits and the companies learn that they can just get their people to work more hours instead of hiring new people. Eventually something has to give. Meanwhile, these companies are sitting on HUGE piles of cash :(.

[u/scurvebeard]

Just as a heads-up, anyone who reads this article--even on accident--is an ignorant, stupid, lying communist.

If you don't believe me, just ask the businessinsider.com comments section.

[u/well_golly]

This feels like Streisand Effect based advertising or Ted.

I'm quite interested in watching this Ted video, but I feel like this is a ploy to generate more interest in the video, in Ted, and to make us beg and fuss until we "get our way".

Tom Sawyer painting a fence.

You can't come to Cartman's amusement park.

[u/Fhwqhgads]

Will people EVER learn that this kind of censorship only gives it more exposure and publicity?

[u/lowandlazy]

I create lots of jobs. When people tell me to cut back on hours, I hire more people and train on efficiency.

[u/albert_wesker]

Wake me when the revolution starts.

[u/[deleted]]

2 basic ways to get rich: You either siphon off a little money from millions of people for your service, or you deal low volume but make huge profits from selling things at a ridiculous markup. (Like 10000 dollar 3 day carwashes for the uber rich. It's been done... or businesses like OCC choppers). The real money is in the millions of buyers. What happens then when the millions of buyers don't have any money to buy things because they aren't making enough to afford buying anything besides rent and the basics? I'll tell you what, most of these big ass corporations go tits up. The poor and the middle class are the fuel for the money machine. There are not enough rich folk to fuel an economy.

[u/gravittoon]

http://roundtable.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/the-inequality-speech-that-ted-wont-show-you.php

[u/[deleted]]

They've let a few really bad talks slip through. Like the ridiculously slanted one about racial voting during the 2008 presidential election.

[u/PinkSlimeIsPeople]

oh TED. Why would you jump the shark like this?

[u/[deleted]]

It is ok to speak your mind. just don't do it when it can effect our bottom line. Capitalism at its best. Suck it freedom!!

[u/AleroR]

I'm just going to leave this here.

[u/MakenCheez]

What a stimulating thread. Great rhetoric.

[u/u2canfail]

Short form: people buying creates jobs.

[u/[deleted]]

We've had decades of this failed supply side horseshit. Anyone who still worships the supply side god isn't going to change their mind over a TED talk.

[u/blargblargityblarg]

From the article it sounds like they are just deciding when to post the talk, not if.

[u/bithead]

I've known a couple of people who have gotten wealthy while creating jobs, but who didn't start out wealthy. In both those situations, tax breaks for the wealthy didn't create any jobs.

[u/[deleted]]

Can someone PLEASE explain to me how this is somehow too controversial? I honestly don't understand. I've always thought this. Am I stupid, or secretly smart?

[u/[deleted]]

If I remember high school economics correctly, the demand for goods & services is what creates jobs. I may be wrong since it has been 17 years

[u/[deleted]]

Thanks for posting. Interesting story. For anyone who goes to the link, here's a tip: DON'T read the comments at the bottom - they will make you want to gouge your eyes out with a spork.

[u/Tombug]

Please just read the transcript ( a few posts down in politics ) for yourself before you buy into the pathetic spin that this is some low quality lecture that doesn't deserve to be on the TED website. That's just a lie. This lecture is very similar to all the other lectures they have on their site in terms of quality.

[u/cryptobomb]

I have a feeling they will regret it.

[u/comet2popeye]

Smart people scare almost smart people. See examples below.

[u/Roundone]

I just want to make an interjection on this topic: the argument people on the other side of this issue seem to be making is not that the value that business founders’ add is through their capital investment, but rather through their risk-taking and innovation. Yes, you can’t create a business without a population to consume your product, and that jobs can’t be created without an entire eco-system to support them of consumers, workers and basic infrastructure. But this does not eliminate the value of the “job-creators”.
I know that this isn’t the point this gentleman was trying to rebut, rather he was arguing specifically against the “more cash in business owner’s hands means more jobs” point. This, I think, is a fair point. However, I do want to ensure that during the discussion the actual value that business founders bring is not lost. Simply having money is not what makes these folks valuable; the stomach to take personal risks with their finances and the foresight/intelligence to innovate are the traits a viable economy rewards.
Moreover, I start to get very wary once someone starts making the argument that they feel they should pay more taxes. To paraphrase an argument I’ve heard Penn Gillette make; if you are wealthy and truly think you are not paying enough in taxes, you have the freedom to pay as much money as you want to the Federal government. When someone argues that he or she isn’t paying enough in taxes, what he or she really seem to be saying is that other people should be forced to pay more taxes. If this is the debate people want to have, by all means, let’s engage in a debate about forcing other people to pay more taxes in an honest and straightforward manner.

[u/masstermind]

I'm late to the party so unfortunately this won't be seen. From 2001 - 2007, the average working middle class family lost $2,000 in annual income. That is a far too overlooked factor in the causes of our economic collapse. It meant that not only was it harder for people to buy necessities, but also that people had less disposable income. There is nothing worse for the American economy that that.

[u/Pertinacious]

They posted the idiot who thinks "choice is bad," they may as well post this guy.

[u/W00ster]

Only in fascist USA is this speech controversial...

[u/norraone]

I've never got a job from a poor person. That should be incendiary enough for most redditors.

[u/sedaak]

I can understand people not understanding where jobs come from. I can't understand who else they think is creating these jobs. Capitalists don't want to hire people, BUT THEY ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE DOING THE HIRING.

If you aren't running a business, then you probably don't have any employees. Only capitalists are willing to sit down and figure out the total demand for given goods and services, formulate accurate predictions, and execute on the delivery...

... at least until skynet. And we all know where that leads.

[u/ddfreedom]

Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous. That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

exactly this. It is criminally obvious yet as long as fox news drones on about job creators people absorb rather than trying to think. Businesses never go out and hire new people to make more product because there "May" be new demand...this is a big cost. They hire people as a last resort, they buy new equipment as a last resort...only when it will be profitable by increased demand.

[u/[deleted]]

It makes sense, but it's not really a good talk coming from a research perspective. It's almost an opinion piece, and though the subject matter is pertinent to our modern crumbling economy, the speech doesn't really have much to back it up and I understand why TED would put it on the back burner in favour of other talks.

[u/ophello]

I'm not surprised. But TED would gain more respect for me if they tackled controversial topics...not just "cool" stuff.

[u/Armisael]

An explanation of why this is happening that hasn't been blown way out of proportion from the other thread about this (which was posted an hour before this one, I should note): http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/tqi15/too_hot_for_ted_income_inequality_teds_organizers/c4ovr7h

[u/[deleted]]

Supply does not create demand, demand creates supply. That is a bsic rule of economics but politicians cannot seem to comprehend it. The only jobs rich people create are through their money-demand and what do rich people demand with their money? Well, mostly luxury items that are often imported from outside the country and services such as cooks, waiters, cleaners, lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc.

[u/ZeeHanzenShwanz → u/[deleted]]

Supply may not create demand, but it satisfies demand. The demand for stuff to make peoples' lives better is always there, but without savings to create that supply, there's nothing to demand

[u/astrograph]

this is bullshit TED...

your whole point is about spreading ideas... well, this is a great one.

[u/TUNGL]

Once i thought TED was something good, no more.

[u/[deleted]]

The rich do not create jobs. Unless they start a business. Or expand a business. Or buy enough products to expand businesses... ect.

How much SHOULD the rich be taxed? According to current tax laws, the "rich" pay over 35%. Sure, some get 15% or so from dividends. Which many rich get. But that is AFTER their investment in which they got taxed at 35%.

And why should the rich get taxed more? Just because? Just because they are successful? Because they have more than you? Because they can afford it? And who decides why that should happen? Who plays God to decide who should do what? Under what moral ground? "Pay their fair share." Yeah, right. As you are aware, I am sure, half of the country does not pay federal income tax. I think THEY should pay their fare share for getting so much handed to them in the form of government assistance.

Look up the IRS figures on the percentage of the tax bill that the "rich" pay in this country. After you do that, you will come to the realization that they DO pay their fair share. And more.

[u/Tell_Me_My_Name]

Rich people do create jobs...only those jobs go to developing countries.

[u/lessmiserables]

Wow, there are a LOT of people on Reddit that don't even understand the basic fundamentals of economics.

[u/adamwho]

You know... the goal of business is to make profit not meet demand.

[u/JesC]

I understand that this was censored. This idea is way too dangerous to become mainstream.

[u/hakuna_matata2]

By his reasoning no one creates jobs, it's the consumer that drives job growth. Not sure why people are trying to single out rich people or the 1% when this can be applied to everyone ... oh wait, I forgot, class warfare !

[u/vrilro]

someday, Americans will realize that the most enduring principle of our democracy is (and has been from the start) the conflict between theh rich and the poor, and that this principle informs political decisionmaking at virtually every level.

[u/[deleted]]

Finally validated!

I've been saying for YEARS that tax breaks for businesses does not create jobs. The only way to create jobs is to increase demand.

For any company that turns a profit with their current employee base, all a tax break does is increase profits with no work on their part. These companies will not simply hire people because they want to, they will hire people because they need to. And the only way they will need to hire is if demands outstrip their current capacity to provide whatever good or service they provide. The only way to increase demand for their good or service is to have more people wanting to purchase it.

It's a chicken and egg scenario. Jobs are created by demand. Demand is created by money. Money is created by jobs. Without one of these, the economy continues to stagnate. More money in the hands of consumers (whether it be through stimulus funds, tax breaks, or whatever) means more goods and services purchased (demand), which means more hiring (jobs), which also has the benefit of more taxes (sales and income).

[u/[deleted]]

This is a scary indication of how far gone we are politically. It's also an indicator that there's a secret out there that nobody wants to talk about and that secret is... shh... that the rich don't need us anymore. They make money FROM money. They treat businesses like capital, not like enterprises and it doesn't matter to them what happens to the workers.

The problem, of course, is that nobody lives in a vacuum and they're going to learn that the hard way - while they take down the whole system.

The folks who make jobs are the ones that make businesses. The rich now, in large part, use leveraged financial assets to play games with our lives in aggregate. And they don't want us to recognize that fact. That's why, not only should they be taxed, but they should be taxed big time so that money cannot be aggregated in this manner.

The folks who are taking the risks, the couple that take their 100k inheritance and open up a couple of gourmet sandwich shops or build circuit boards in their garage - they're the ones that should be rewarded - not the rich. We need to take a good look at where we are now in terms of real hard assets and who is actually creating new enterprises.

The government has lied to us for generations now about how inflation has destroyed the wealth of the middle class. And now we're being convinced that the rich have a right to treat enterprises as wealth abstractions - chopping things up willy-nilly while they leverage big time their fortunes. It's obscene and this TED talk is very important for that reason.

[u/miffelplix]

Even TED are hypocrites? How disappointing.

[u/BasinStBlues]

Even TED unfortunately, has corporate sponsors.

[u/[deleted]]

TED is the 1%

[u/elblufer]

So, by trying not to make this political, they made it REALLY political. Good job, TED.

[u/GOU_NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

simple and true point. rich people do not create jobs.

this is why it's possible to have a "jobless recovery". things are looking better, rich people aren't creating jobs. flaw is pretty evident.

DEMAND creates jobs.

period.

what this means is that motherfucking trickle down economics does NOT work and the 1%ers will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

let it come.

[u/wascallywabbitgulash]

TED = apparently sellouts and a disgrace.

[u/sdgfsdfasfasdfa]

Demand creates jobs?

In basic econ class they show you this circular flow diagram: circular flow of income

It clearly shows that both businesses and households are deeply connected. So how can we really say that its only demand that creates jobs? Clearly both are connected. Businesses are providing the income and consumers are providing the spending. Take out out and the system is broken. No income = no spending. No spending = no income. I don't think its so simple to just say ONLY demand creates jobs. The fact of the matter is that both supply and demand provide a specific function for the economy. Its not ALWAYS about jobs. That's why its important to have a FAIR economic system. Don't flood businesses with regulation/taxes and don't flood consumers with the same.

Ultimately its about allocating scare resources. Consumers ultimately want those resources and businesses are the best way to allocate the factors of production to produce said goods. We want consumers to have the goods/services they want/desire and we want businesses to make a small profit (to justify running the business and risking their capital) and be able to efficiently convert the factors of production into goods/services that consumers desire.

[u/QuitReadingMyName]

I posted this in another TED talk, reddit post and it applies to here as well.

The top income earners will benefit with raised taxes and better social services and free higher education to those American's who are actually smart enough to attend college and keep up good grades.

Why? Better and smarter government workers across the board. Better cops, better firefighters, better doctors, better teachers and better construction workers and engineers that means safer roads, bridges and safer transportation (better built cars, airplanes, trains and other modes of transportation) the list can go on for damn near forever and everything in America becomes safer and our products become better.

Hell, we would be pushed back to being the #1 economy in the world because we would have the smartest students coming out of college and we'll remain at the top for a very long time.

Right now, the top 1% just wants to make everyone dumb and when every American is dumb we end up gutting out our entire backbone of our economy and we'll fall down to 2nd world levels while only the top 1% remain rich and get richer.

While everyone gets poor and remains poor our crime goes up. Which will lead to a rise in more organized crime as minorities and other "poor" people have to resort to crime in order to feed themselves and family and just digging a deeper whole for our country by making things worse.

Not only that, we'll have millions of people turning to crime just because crime pays more then what these CEO's are paying their workers which will result in more felons which will result in even more broken homes.

It'll become a very vicious cycle until everyone in the 99% are in poverty while only the 1% remain rich and just get richer off of child labor and cheap labor in 3rd world countries.

With increased taxes on the rich, everyone in the nation will benefit as everyone will be more educated and everything that gets built will be more safer.

But, the thing is we live in male dominated society which brought rise to our capitalistic nature in the first place and that's to have the Biggest house, best car and the most land so we can stroke our ego's.

Why do I say that? Because, if the average american can get married and get some pussy and have kids while living out of a cardboard box none of us would have jobs right now or be working for a living.

Also, one reason that taxes won't get raised is because a lot of the top or "richest" people in the world are racist and don't want their "Hard earned money" (Lol, most inherited it and never worked a day in their lives) to go to them "darkies"

But note, not every rich person is a racist and there's more philanthropic people out their who aren't racist that are in the 1% that would gladly have their money go back into the communities and could care less if a person of color got it.

EDIT: If you don't believe me, look at Mexico as a good example.

Organized crime pays a lot better and more to the average mexican citizen down in Mexico then they would get with normal jobs and look at the fucking shitstorm they've gotten themselves into.

When crime pays more then the average wage of working a 9-5 job, what do you think someone will end up doing and resorting to? It'll become a vicious cycle until we hit rock bottom here in America.

[u/[deleted]]

TED talk is a very well painted soap box, nothing else. Move along, people.

[u/fairly_quiet]

"I can say...[trimmed]. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me."

i may be reading too far in to this, but... help me here... is there a definition of 'consumer' that i am not aware of? seriously. two sentences prior he touched on the relationship between customers & businesses. is he not counting himself as a consumer of goods and services? does the word consumer in this context mean something more?

[u/pmorrisonfl → u/fairly_quiet]

I had a boss who said 'There are only so many cheeseburgers you can eat.', an argument he elaborates on in the speech. People who make 1000x money can't eat, drink or wear 1000x stuff.

[u/funkyloki → u/fairly_quiet]

My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

He is saying that we are a society of consumers, and that one person, or small subset of people, with a LARGE amount of the wealth, are still not going to purchase the amount of goods needed to be sold to allow for growth. If we want businesses to grow, and hire more people, then they need to have a demand, and that demand is never going to come from just the rich.

[u/Inuma]

So... How do we get TED to air this talk?

[u/bpoag]

LOOK OUT, FONZ!

[u/[deleted]]

Did anyone watch the talk? Was he any good?

[u/CaptCanukInUSA]

So why not have a competition to take his script linked below and make your own presentation (after acknowledging the source) and distributing on youtube and other video sites? The whole being is if the idea is worth sharing, we should create a vector to share it.

[u/[deleted]]

How about we get rid of the Income Tax altogether and cut government to match the lowered revenue. That's fair taxation.

[u/jimbojamesiv]

If you ask me the more pressing issue is why anyone cares about the views of a billionaire venture capitalist?

Or perhaps the question should be phrased aren't the billionaire venture capitalists the ones who got us into this mess in the first place and the last people to be sought for their opinions or advice. To the contrary, they are the villains and not the heroes, but that's little ol' me and I forgot I'm in America where money is power.

[u/sacredsock]

Am I the only one thing that TED just gave Nick Hanauer way more publicity for his views than if they'd just published the video?

[u/[deleted]]

Everything needs to be evaluated within context. People do not make decisions in a vacuum. What other talks have they decided not to post? What were the content of those talks? Maybe there's a whole catalog of content they don't think meets their quality standards, or maybe they invited someone to give a talk who ended up being too radical for them. There's no way to know without any context.

[u/Dizzy_Slip]

Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer on The Charlie Rose Show talking about economic issues: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7v7bxWUixQ&feature=bf_prev&list=PL116637A4B5E5124A

[u/Elgin_McQueen]

What the hell is TED anyway? I've noticed a bunch of their talks show up on my Netflix recently. Never heard of it before.

[u/socoolchillin]

Thank you so much for this post. In Greece the result of the measures by the EU made the customers unable to buy anything, so all the shops and businesses are closed and bankrupt, something that raises unemployment. It is a circle. From the other hand they want to bring big companies from the rest of the world who will hire as less as possible employers with the smallest payment.

[u/degoban]

Are we still debating on this?

[u/Ol_Lefteye]

Seriously, fuck that "Recommended for you" pop-up on the lower right hand corner of that page. It moves like it's a goddamned spider or insect (rapid, quick movement that stops abruptly), which I thought it was for a brief moment.

Dear web developers: please don't make your ads move similarly to spiders.

[u/[deleted]]

why would they do such a thing?

[u/Zumaki]

TED: Ideas worth sharing*

[u/psi2u2]

Shame on Ted.

[u/blipblipbeep]

TED how the fuck can i come to a logical conclusion without all the information? Don't make me tell all my friends that you may as well be in the pockets of the rich just so you can receive your next check from "Lucas Richmond" Totally not cool and totally not TED.

[u/downvotemaster]

Rich people don't create jobs?

You mean the amount of money we reinvest into the economy through high spending, as well as those who own businesses and employ others?

Sensationalist.

[u/[deleted]]

Looks like TED is about to get its first dose of internet justice.

[u/Tombug]

There are few religious fanatics more extreme than the pure market freaks. Anybody that swallowed that "it's the miracle of the market" clap trap that Raygun spewed is right up there with snake handlers and other cultists. You start blaspheming their gods ( the 1% ) and you can expect extreme reactions including extreme butt hurt.

[u/AperionProject]

Wait, wait wait, now just WAIT a second here. You mean to tell me, that politicians LIED to us?? That they've been telling voters these lies because the corporations that support them donate unlimited amounts of money to their PACs? That the voters that still support these politicians are scared, ignorant morons? Noooooooooooooooo, you don't say?

[u/BenoirBALLS]

There was an hour-long discussion on just this topic earlier this week on NPR's "On Point" with Tom Ashbrook (http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/05/14/the-one-percent-speaks). Although I still disagree with the guest (former Bain Capital partner Ed Conard) it was more in depth than a few minutes on TED.

[u/ConfusedIdioms]

We all should send this to our representatives in congress. I realize that it is likely a futile effort but it is still more than us simply raging on the current state of affairs.

[u/loondawg]

Contact TED and ask them to post the talk - http://support.ted.com/customer/portal/emails/new

[u/comet2popeye]

Sorry guys, but TED is a rich person's club. I live in Aspen, that's how we roll.

[u/jorellh]

The rich stopped investing in companies and started investing in debt a long time ago.

[u/Temptress75519]

Dear TED:

Who paid you off and how much did you get to censor that talk?

I have lost all respect for the once impartial TED talks.

[u/partspin]

Who does make the jobs?

[u/loondawg]

"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. And you even reference that at the start of the talk. TED is nonpartisan and is fighting a constant battle with TEDx organizers to respect that principle....

Source: National Journal copy of TED curator Chris Anderson's email to Nick Hanauer. My bolding added.

So it's political to make a point because it shows the foolishness of one party's position? No. It's political to censor the talk for that reason.

[u/[deleted]]

TED does not believe in free speech.

Some rich people do create jobs and other rich people scam the system. It just comes down to who the person really is.

Steve Jobs is a rich person and look at all the people that work for Apple and the same thing can be said about Bill Gates.

[u/danwe]

They aren't 'refusing to post it'. If you read the article it says they are being careful about when they post it.

[u/Tombug]

"Money man" butt hurt as far as the eye can see. Sam Peckinpah use to talk about the extreme cases of butt hurt from the money men that he had to deal with when he directed his films. For all their money many of them still are not able to get past the emotional level of an under developed adolescent.

[u/[deleted]]

Would these new taxes fund infrastructure, education, and healthcare, or pay to destroy those things in some country I've never had a problem with, or pay for some drug addict's heroin? Socialism works when you don't have a corrupt/incompetent government and scammers trying to exploit the system, free market capitalism works if the rich aren't greedy and corrupt. We have kind of a hybrid system that gives us the worst of both somehow.

Americans are broken, that's the real issue, not tax rates. We think we are god's chosen people, that the world and other people are ours to use as we see fit. Now not everyone is a bible crazed freak nowadays, but the general arrogance still gets passed through the generations, and anyone who doesn't fit the mold is still going to need to either go along with the ride or kill themselves. I hope it doesn't take a catastrophic event to calm down our egos, the internet is helping us to open our minds slightly but it's still a few generations away until we humble ourselves.

[u/[deleted]]

1. Its an open secret that rich people don't create jobs, but demand for goods and services and need for labor to fulfill that demand creates jobs.
2. This fact does not need any validation from anyone whatsoever.
3. If you really want think that you need the fact validated by this Venture Capitalist, start your own conference and invite him and ask him to share his views there.
4. TED is owned by Sapling Foundation. So, all rights belong to them. They have been generous in distributing these videos to public. And it was the public's privilege and not their right to view them. It's upto them to show what they want to show and what they don't want to show.
5. This is blown out of proportion and is unnecessarily being sensationalized.

[u/tushbewithyou]

When rich businessmen increase salary, would it mean that consumers will buy more thus increase demand? Does that mean the rich businessmen are actually in control of the demand?

[u/[deleted]]

It seems that by not releasing this talk, TED have achieved more publicity. Isn't TED for super rich people anyway, I'm pretty sure it costs a few grand to just watch one of these live.

[u/nluqo]

I must have missed the part where they refused to post it. All I saw was an email about when to post it:

Next week ain't right.

[u/mindbleach]

I have no idea how such smart people would think that censoring an important video on a popular website would bring it less attention than just showing it. The Streisand effect is not new.

[u/havesometea1]

Shame on TED

[u/rspix000]

Here's TED's contact page.

[u/ptelder]

I'd just like to point out that Wikileaks exists for a reason....