Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TED and inequality: The real story

tedchris.posterous.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 202 posts

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#181

Post by nknight »

389401a wrote: post #176

It's kind of funny to hear wealthy individuals complaining about not taxing their class proportionally. As if they are saying "This is wrong. But unless the government tells us we have to pay, we're still not going to pay." Why don't these individuals, e.g. Buffett, this TED speaker, and others, just lead by example. Overpay their taxes to amount to whatever they think is fair. Why do they have to wait for the govern…

I'd say the "every man for himself" mentality you embody is what's child-like.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#182

Post by anotherthrow »

389401a wrote: post #176

It's kind of funny to hear wealthy individuals complaining about not taxing their class proportionally. As if they are saying "This is wrong. But unless the government tells us we have to pay, we're still not going to pay." Why don't these individuals, e.g. Buffett, this TED speaker, and others, just lead by example. Overpay their taxes to amount to whatever they think is fair. Why do they have to wait for the govern…

>Either they believe in paying a bigger share or they don't.

First, They believe in rules to enforce everyone paying a bigger share, and are lobbying to bring that about. There's nothing inconsistent in doing that whilst not individually making a bigger voluntary contribution. One might think that one's efforts are far better spent lobbying for a general rule then individually donating.

Second, people like Buffett have commitments to philantropy that I think would easily count as making a bigger contribution.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#183

Post by Tichy »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #75

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…

The first error is the assumption that creation of jobs is somehow desirable. Personally I have the goal of not needing a job anymore, for example by automating everything. I think the whole economy is working towards that goal in the end.

Likewise "more consumption" is not a goal in itself. Wellbeing of people is a goal, consumption might be a way to achieve it. But because you should be careful what you measure, trying to increase consumption is probably bound for disaster.

The problem is not creating more jobs, it is distribution of wellbeing.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#184

Post by zooey »

josh33 wrote: post #159
WalterBright wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His talk makes the mistake that spending money is what drives the economy. This is a fundamental error. What drives the economy is people creating value. When people have created value, they can exchange that value for things they want from other people who have created value. Simply handing people money to spend is not stimulative because it does not create value. Put another way, taking money from A and giving it t…

I cannot up vote this enough. Value creation is key. One new theory I've been exploring lately is that, while people can value good and bad things (moral and immoral, sustaining and destructive, etc), the creator of value has a responsibility not only to give people what they want, but actually what they deserve. The distinction this makes can be explained with an example: John makes software for law firms. His softw…

Value creation is bullshit. You create job when a. you need a service b. you can't do it with the resource you have c. you can't automate with a machine d. you can afford hiring someone d. the income you generate can support it

Value does not exists per se.

You are so simplicistic here, guys, when you talk about rich and poor.

I know you are not so young, but sometimes it seems you are a group of small kids talking about life.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#185

Post by zooey »

liber8 wrote: post #143
Androsynth wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats a good point. Wouldn't the logical conclusion to that point be that it is a mistake to think that a businesses purpose is to create jobs (as opposed to value)?

(Not trying to be snarky) Who ever said (or honestly believed) that the purpose of a business is to create jobs?

Business lives in a community of people , a State. We, as the People, can decide the rules.

Economy has no rules outside the square we create. So, there's no such thing as Economy per se.

You have to remember that the reason a group of people doesn't go out and take what they want is that there is a State, there are laws, there is a monopoly of legitimate force (the police): all of this can survive only if there is a contract between state and the people. All the people, not just the rich or who has a job or

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#186

Post by thaumaturgy »

dmpk2k wrote: post #134
thaumaturgy wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems entirely possible that families are trying to put food on the table, whenever possible, rather than save for the future. That's actually what I was trying to say, I probably just wasn't clear. I was responding to webXL's opening sentence, "When a consumer chooses not to buy something, i.e. commerce does not take place, saving occurs." I don't think that saving is occurring, I think that people are trying t…

As an aside: are mortgages even a good thing? They seem to create their own market. I.e. if there are no mortgages, people buy what they can afford and housing prices remain low. If there are mortgages, suddenly house prices skyrocket since buyers can afford vastly higher prices, making mortgages a requirement for owning a home. A good position to be in if you're a bank; now you get a big slice of all action.

I'm undecided on that one. The theory of course is that it makes it possible for a family which can't quite make the up-front cost for a home to still buy a home, which consequently helps keep rents reasonable, which helps poorer classes get by.

But there are also the unintended consequences: people buy things they can't actually afford, like you said, and people begin to qualify for buying homes as investment vehicles, which really screws with things.

So I'm not smart enough to figure that one out.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#187

Post by shele »

emmelaich wrote: post #178
alecco wrote: post #17

Released video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI "This idea is an oracle of faith for republicans and seldom challenged by democrats." Clearly against bi-partisan and not pro-democrat. Very bad move by TED. Also, the quality of many TED presentations is a joke so they can't pull that card.

1. You've mistranscribed. It's article not oracle of faith. Whoever heard of an oracle of faith?! 2. Calling an idea an 'article of faith' is insulting as it implies a lack of reasoning.

Believing firmly in something which is wrong often indicates a lack of reasoning.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#189

Post by newbie12 »

zooey wrote: post #185
liber8 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Not trying to be snarky) Who ever said (or honestly believed) that the purpose of a business is to create jobs?

Business lives in a community of people , a State. We, as the People, can decide the rules. Economy has no rules outside the square we create. So, there's no such thing as Economy per se. You have to remember that the reason a group of people doesn't go out and take what they want is that there is a State, there are laws, there is a monopoly of legitimate force (the police): all of this can survive only if there is a…

I'm guessing you are from a part of the world that is/was recently totalitarian.

The community of people is far, far more than the State. Cultural/religious norms shape the State and the rules. If corruption is tolerated, for example, it doesn't matter what the official State rules are.

Furthermore, economics are baked in to human nature. Indeed, gender differences are a kind of specialization of labor. Economic activity and surplus allows the creation of the State, not the other way around. In fact, while certain State activities like protecting property rights advances the Economy, most activity by the State is parasitic on the Economy.

Re: TED and inequality: The real story

#190

Post by Peaker »

WalterBright wrote: post #151
utunga wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its fair to describe that as a fundamental error. Rather, your explanation while OK as far as it goes is overly simplistic. Yes, its the real value not the currency that we are after, but you also have to take into account secondary effects like 'aggregate demand'. Perhaps that's an ideological bent of yours or perhaps just omission? Either way, the process of creating 'real value' on both sides cannot…

Money in bank accounts is not idle. It is loaned out - and nobody is going to borrow unless they have plans to spend it. (As eloquently put by Jimmy Stewart in "It's a Wonderful Life".)

Value can be measured in currency. When the target audience of some product has no currency, you could say that economically it has no value. Whereas if you ask these penniless people, they will tell you that it has enormous value to them.

Therefore, placing currency in the hands of the masses can and will drive value creation, because it will assign economic value to what brings value to the masses.

Post reply on HN