Welcome to Hubski. We share good ideas and conversation here.
Login or
Join Us!
The TED Talk TED didn't want you to see [video]
by
eb ·
#ted
posted 398 days ago · shared by: 5
share this:
twitter,
email,
htmlbasic link:
<a href="http://hubski.com/pub?id=30319">Discuss this on Hubski.</a>
new tab link:
<a onclick="_blank" href="javascript:L3f7=window.open('http://hubski.com/pub?id=30319');">Discuss this on Hubski.</a>
markupby fr33lunch 396 days ago · linkThis gets me thinking about a conversation I overheard the other day. A woman was talking to another about her failed start-up business. She talked about the trials and tribulations that any new owner might face. She then explained that "the economy" had caused her start-up company to fail.
"No one is buying these days", she said. And I thought,
fact or excuse? It depends...I sell things--lot's of things--on a daily basis. People are buying these days. They just weren't interested in buying things she was interested in selling. Giving people disposable income wouldn't have made her customer base larger. At least not for long. Her product was too niche and her customer base didn't exist. Assuming she was not independently wealthy, she would covered start-up costs through investors or loans. Without that sector, she wouldn't have had the opportunity to start a failed company.
by thenewgreen 398 days ago · linkI think this is interesting but not because I think TED should have allowed this but rather because I think they made the right choice. In fact, I wish they would have stuck to their guns. TED is supposed to be about sharing new and exciting ideas, there is nothing "new" about taxing the wealthy just as there is nothing "new" about trickle down economics.
While I may or may not agree with the sentiment of the talk, I absolutely agree that it doesn't seem to fit the TED protocol.
Next time, stick to your guns TED!
by cgod 397 days ago · linkIf the bar for TED talks is that a talk must be of significant importance and present new ideas then they should be censoring many more talks then just this one. They invited the guy to talk, they should post his video. The time to make the cut was before then talk, not after. Choosing to cut his talk after suggest another kind of censorship, of the sponsorship variety I would guess.
by thenewgreen 397 days ago · linkcgod, that's a really valid point. They must have known in advance what his talk would be. I really like TED when they focus in technology, education and design and think they toggle the sympathetic and even cheesy line when they tackle topics of the human condition or social issues. This talk didn't tell me much I haven't already heard many times. But I agree that they just shouldn't have allowed it to begin with. I'm not sure how the TED X platform works or if this was a result of one. Perhaps they need to more closely monitor their affiliate talks.
by cgod 397 days ago · linkI think he is pretty much on the button, especially in the current situation. If the economy is way below capacity there is no sense in giving "job creators" more capital, there is nothing productive for them to do with it. There might be an argument for giving the rich more money when an economy is operating below capacity because of a lack of capital, but that is in no way the situation we are facing right now, or a situation we have faced since the dollar became the standard international currency.
Consumers are the driving force behind business, it's strange to me how business has masquerade so long as the driving force of the economy.
by ecib 397 days ago · linkIt's a joke. Our business is slow right now. You could give our owner a million dollar check and it's not going to make more customers show up and need what we are selling.
He can so many Republicans be so very wrong on something as fundamental and basic as consumer demand. I guess that's what religion does to you.
by thenewgreen 397 days ago · linkThe usual response is "then why do European countries with higher taxes on the wealthy not have a higher employment rate?"
Could it be that jobs and progressive tax rates aren't all that intertwined?
by ecib 397 days ago · linkWell Germany is an economic juggenaut, but I think that is really besides the point. Producers don't create demand, which is essential to justify job creation. If you ate going to do monetary stimulus, stimulate consumers ability to do what they do best.
by thenewgreen 397 days ago · linkI would agree that if you give a middle class citizen more money, they are likely to spend it but if you give a wealthy person more money, aren't they likely to spend it too just in a different way? Investing in funds/markets that give liquidity to our financial system? -I'm no economist, I am literally asking here and not stating. Seems both could be important functions though.
by ecib 397 days ago · linkWell we are talking about the aggregate here, so a broad middle class base of consumers is going to drive more demand than a comparative handful of wealthy consumers is the idea. Wealthy individuals will of course invest money, but they are only investing in demand.
by thenewgreen 396 days ago · linkDemand is driven out of necessity first. If you have a product that people need or if you satisfy a niche that someone else doesn't you're likely doing alright even during times like these. Rising tides
don't raise
all ships, there will still be some that just can't make it based on the fickle nature of the consumer or a faulted business plan. You can tax the rich and give money to the middle class and it still may not save many businesses. They might just spend more at Target. There are so many factors that go in to consumerism, I'm just not sold on the fact that taxing the wealthy leads to more jobs.
For the record, I'm okay with taxing the wealthy at a higher rate in conjunction with spending cuts to get us out of this mess, but I don't think thats where "jobs" are created. I do think that's where deficits are eroded though. Again, not an economist.
12
