Nick Hanauers Banned TED speech

[melon]

Do you agree ?

http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-...nt-you-to-see/

m

[aidanjt]

Do you agree ?

Agree with Nick, or the censors?

Nick is absolutely correct. It's public demand for goods and services which drives employment. TED is absolutely wrong on it being 'partisan'. Blaming both parties for perpetuating a myth is completely non-partisan.

[melon]

Agree with Nick, or the censors?

Nick is absolutely correct. It's public demand for goods and services which drives employment. TED is absolutely wrong on it being 'partisan'. Blaming both parties for perpetuating a myth is completely non-partisan.

bah

m

[melon]

Agree with Nick, or the censors?

Nick is absolutely correct. It's public demand for goods and services which drives employment. TED is absolutely wrong on it being 'partisan'. Blaming both parties for perpetuating a myth is completely non-partisan.

Sorry, meant Nick .

So next question if wealth creates power ( esp over us ) how the hell are we meant to overthrow a system thats controlled by it ,unless we abandon the need for money ourselves ?

And how can we do that if this happens ?

Not just there too.

m

[TeePee]

He is right and wrong. Rich people do create jobs, but they can't do that without consumer demand. Consumer demand alone cannot achieve anything, and nor can rich people. The cycle is important. But the jobs are created by the person seeing the demand, and investing in meeting that demand in order to profit for himself. Consumer demand then increases as a result of improved employment.

TED shouldn't hide opinion, they should promote different viewpoints.

[Andy3536]

The guy is absolutly right.
Most businesses are not created by rich people, but by normal people filling a demand and getting loans from banks.
It just so happens that if they do very well they may well become rich. But most jobs and companys are started from small acorns.

[melon]

He is right and wrong. Rich people do create jobs, but they can't do that without consumer demand. Consumer demand alone cannot achieve anything, and nor can rich people. The cycle is important. But the jobs are created by the person seeing the demand, and investing in meeting that demand in order to profit for himself. Consumer demand then increases as a result of improved employment.

TED shouldn't hide opinion, they should promote different viewpoints.

And that is perhaps the most revealing thing of all, the rest of what you said I agree with, the point being they need us , as much as we need them .

Trouble is all the niches that used to require mid-class are filled and dominated by super rich to the extent few get in . ( Tesco in the uk being one example )

m

[directhex]

Supposedly not "banned" just "crap". http://tedchris.posterous.com/131417405

[TeePee]

Sorry, meant Nick .

So next question if wealth creates power ( esp over us ) how the hell are we meant to overthrow a system thats controlled by it ,unless we abandon the need for money ourselves ?

And how can we do that if this happens ?

m

I'd define myself as a libertarian, and find your link very interesting. But to advocate against a powerful government, and then to suggest that same government should restrict, or legislate against free capitalism is a contradiction.

[melon]

I'd define myself as a libertarian, and find your link very interesting. But to advocate against a powerful government, and then to suggest that same government should restrict, or legislate against free capitalism is a contradiction.

Im not suggesting government do anything , but what we can do to free ourselves from it ?( as clearly they wont change ).

m

[TeePee]

The guy is absolutly right.
Most businesses are not created by rich people, but by normal people filling a demand and getting loans from banks.
It just so happens that if they do very well they may well become rich. But most jobs and companys are started from small acorns.

Who owns the banks?

Shareholders, who are generally wealthy, and are investing their money in businesses to make a profit for themselves. While banks are one way that an ordinary person finances starting a business, venture capitalists are another. The TV show 'Dragon's Den' being a great example. You have rich people who are prepared to risk some of their money in order to make a profit from investing in a business, gambling that it will be a success. The money is used to increase production, hire more staff, or whatever the business needs to make money. Without the investment, the chances of success are fewer.

So what happens when you increase the TAX on capital gains? Well now you effectively reduce the rate of return on their investments, effectively making that investment less profitable, or potentially losing money. So now the 'Dragon' has to be more critical about where the money is invested. They are less inclined to take risks. That means less companies getting funding and less jobs! Reducing the TAX means an easier or greater profit on investments, which means more risks, and more companies!

Banks work the same way. They are trying to make money for their shareholders, and so are seeking to make a profit from their loans.

[TeePee]

Im not suggesting government do anything , but what we can do to free ourselves from it ?( as clearly they wont change ).

m

Free ourselves from government? Or free ourselves from big government? In the US the answer is a simple one. Vote Ron Paul.

I don't think he will win, but the alternatives are a Big Government Democrat and a Big Government Republican. By voting Paul, hopefully there will be enough to influence the Republican Party to nominate a Small Government candidate next time out. No matter what, things will get worse over the next four years.

[Mblaster]

taxing the rich, to make investments that 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

The above quote seems to sum up his whole argument quite well.

I thought the point of lower taxes for the 'rich' (businesses) is that they make those investments. They invest in the people with ideas to start/expand companies (by way of bank loans or venture capital, etc.), and if the companies are successful they will create jobs.

I think he has far over simplified what is an incredibly complex question, of course consumer demand is a vital part of creating jobs, but it's not the only one, and then you have to look at what creates that consumer demand in the first place. I'm no expect on economics, but what he's saying seems to be a very narrow minded view.

And also, the 'I only buy a few shirts a year, I only have 3 cars' point was rubbish. When you earn lots of money you don't just scale up the number of things you buy, you buy more expensive versions of the everyday things and some entirely different things, but the money still goes back into the economy.

[melon]

Free ourselves from government? Or free ourselves from big government? In the US the answer is a simple one. Vote Ron Paul.

I don't think he will win, but the alternatives are a Big Government Democrat and a Big Government Republican. By voting Paul, hopefully there will be enough to influence the Republican Party to nominate a Small Government candidate next time out. No matter what, things will get worse over the next four years.

hehe , you know they even did a pc game on ol Ron ?

I meant getting away from the voting system altogether i.e. playing by new rules rather than ones that are setup for us.

m

[Andy3536]

Who owns the banks?

Shareholders, who are generally wealthy, and are investing their money in businesses to make a profit for themselves. While banks are one way that an ordinary person finances starting a business, venture capitalists are another. The TV show 'Dragon's Den' being a great example. You have rich people who are prepared to risk some of their money in order to make a profit from investing in a business, gambling that it will be a success. The money is used to increase production, hire more staff, or whatever the business needs to make money. Without the investment, the chances of success are fewer.

So what happens when you increase the TAX on capital gains? Well now you effectively reduce the rate of return on their investments, effectively making that investment less profitable, or potentially losing money. So now the 'Dragon' has to be more critical about where the money is invested. They are less inclined to take risks. That means less companies getting funding and less jobs! Reducing the TAX means an easier or greater profit on investments, which means more risks, and more companies!

Banks work the same way. They are trying to make money for their shareholders, and so are seeking to make a profit from their loans.

That's all very well and all, but it's still the company that has spotted the market, the need to create more jobs. Not the banks.
You can't really suggest the the jobs created at the place i work are there as a result of a bank loan rather than the owners hard work? It's helped yes, but it's the people that are running most businesses that create the jobs and the possibility for expansion. Many companys can and do achive this without banks too.
Those dragons are indeed good examples, and that is because they created jobs and multimillion pound businesses from nothing. They wern't rich when they started their first business. And taxing them more on thier personal wealth wouldn't have effected the businesses they ran.
It's really messed up to suggest it's right that the mega rich pay a much lower % in tax than those on the bread line.

[directhex]

So what happens when you increase the TAX on capital gains? Well now you effectively reduce the rate of return on their investments, effectively making that investment less profitable, or potentially losing money. So now the 'Dragon' has to be more critical about where the money is invested. They are less inclined to take risks. That means less companies getting funding and less jobs! Reducing the TAX means an easier or greater profit on investments, which means more risks, and more companies!

Adorable, but not true.

America's biggest increases in the economy have always happened during times of high taxation, and things have always gotten worse at times of low taxation. Periods of low corporate and top-rate tax have only ever increased wealth at the top.

There is one simple thing that drives business, and that's demand. No company is going to hire 100% extra people because its tax rate is low, but there's no consumer demand requiring 100 extra people.

And the only thing that drives demand is spending power at the bottom. Which has been eroded, year on year, by libertarian types demanding that the top-of-the-pile wealthiest get whatever they like, because somehow if they get enough money and low taxes, they'll finally decide to employ everyone. It's not true. It's Reganomics, which have been debunked time & time again.