Live data from Hacker News

TED and inequality: The real story

tedchris.posterous.com

101–110 of 202 posts

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#101
post #2

The response is eloquent, but I think it sidesteps the point that concerns me and many others. Yes, for the reasons stated, this talk is not the right one to be highlighted on Ted.com. It's not censorship, it's a valid editorial decision. But I think the real point is this quote from the NJ article: "But even if the talk was rated a home run, we couldn't release it, because it would be unquestionably regarded as out…

If you read the transcript, you get the distinct sense that what you're listening to isn't intellectual discovery based on empirical data. It reads like a speech from a political candidate. It truly is not TED worthy, and this is from someone who fully believes every word that man uttered. TED is about sharing knowledge. Raw, unbiased, unignorable knowledge. Talks that are based entirely on anecdote and talking point…

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

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

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#102
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the transcript, you get the distinct sense that what you're listening to isn't intellectual discovery based on empirical data. It reads like a speech from a political candidate. It truly is not TED worthy, and this is from someone who fully believes every word that man uttered. TED is about sharing knowledge. Raw, unbiased, unignorable knowledge. Talks that are based entirely on anecdote and talking point…

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

No one has said they will avoid any topic at any time.

Anderson has said they will avoid overtly partisan talks during an election year.

You can talk about the topic, Anderson just won't promote if if you do it in a partisan manner.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#103

If true, the aggressively planned PR campaign indicates that this was more than just a politically-sensitive topic, but rather a politically-motivated talk: He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us . . . TED should allow sensitive topics, but to allow others to use TED manipulatively as a pawn in the larger political debate subverts their mission and damages their cre…

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

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

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#104

I watched the video after reading TED's response, and I'm skeptical of some of their claims, but I can also see why they didn't initially choose to publish it on their site. The video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI Since it's short, I'll go over it point-by-point. 1. "It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Consider this one: if taxes on the rich go up, job…

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

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

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

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

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#105
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that is the problem, in a nutshell. We don't want to "call out political parties", so we will ignore the truth that one of the political parties has deviated so far off course, in its anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-equality pursuit. But let us not speak of it.

No it isn't the problem, at least not according to TED, TEDs mission is not to spread the gospel about political parties. Want to spread the truth about Republicans and Democrats? Go on CNN. That's what it's there for, you can shout about how Republicans are anti-intellectual and Democrats are communists all day long on CNN, however TED doesn't want to be CNN. There's a big difference between saying Republicans are a…

Don't want to get "too political"? Then don't trumpet how you're in the "business of ideas"…

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#106
post #93
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

> Disagree. If the result of certain economic practices result in social inequality, is that entirely political?

The concept of social inequality is inherently political. You can formulate methods of quantifying anything, but if what you're quantifying is inherently political in the first place, it doesn't make it any more objective or empirical.

> Economics is a social science

Exactly. Most social sciences are based upon subjective value systems and not objective empirical data; they're not really sciences in the same sense as physics, chemistry, or biology.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#108

If true, the aggressively planned PR campaign indicates that this was more than just a politically-sensitive topic, but rather a politically-motivated talk: He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us . . . TED should allow sensitive topics, but to allow others to use TED manipulatively as a pawn in the larger political debate subverts their mission and damages their cre…

[deleted]

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#110
post #104

I watched the video after reading TED's response, and I'm skeptical of some of their claims, but I can also see why they didn't initially choose to publish it on their site. The video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI Since it's short, I'll go over it point-by-point. 1. "It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Consider this one: if taxes on the rich go up, job…

"And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring." When a consumer chooses not to buy something, i.e. commerce does not take place, saving occurs. Savings means there will be money available in the future. Money available for a small business loan. Money available to buy shares in a company, freeing up capital from the person you bought the shares from. That capital could actu…

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

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

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

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

Post reply on HN