TED and inequality: The real story

Censorship is censorship. End of story.

Always assume malice.

I know it goes against the conventional wisdom, but in subjects such as politics I haven't been wrong about it yet.

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 creation will go
       down. This idea is an article of faith for
       Republicans, and seldom challenged by Democrats, and
       has indeed shaped much of the economic landscape."

The first line of his talk is a bit fluffy, but I don't see anything else here that isn't objectively true. Supply-side economics and increased benefits for the rich are a major part of the Republican platform, and because this idea has been accepted as true by society at large, it is not being directly challenged by the Democrats. (Who, arguably, want just as much to protect the interests of the rich & powerful as the Republicans do.)

    2. "But sometimes the ideas that we are certain are
       true, are dead wrong. Consider that for thousands of
       years, humans believed that the Earth was the center
       of the universe. It's not, and an astronomer who
       still believed that it was, would do some pretty
       terrible astronomy. Likewise, a policymaker who
       believes that the rich are job creators and therefore 
       should not be taxed, will do equally terrible
       policy."

This is just bad rhetoric and bad logic, IMO. I get the point he's trying to make, but he's not making it well -- and this is where I begin to really understand TED's decision not to highlight his video on their front page.

    3. "I have started or helped start dozens of companies,
       and initially hired lots of people, but if there was
       no one around who could afford to buy what we had to
       sell, all those companies, and all those jobs, would
       have evaporated."

I can't agree more with this. I think this should be obvious to anybody that thinks about economics at all, and I think this is the absolutely massive achilles' heel for supply-side economics, the elephant in the room that people don't want to talk about.

    4. "That's why I can say with confidence that rich
       people don't create jobs, nor do businesses large or
       small. Jobs are a consequence of 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 consumer is more of a job creator than a
       capitalist like me. That's why when business people
       take credit for creating jobs, it's a little bit like 
       squirrels taking credit for evolution. (audience
       chuckles) It's actually the other way around. Anyone
       who's ever run a business knows that hiring more
       people is a course of last resort for capitalists.
       It's what we do if and only if rising consumer demand 
       requires it. And in this sense, calling ourselves job 
       creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous."

Again, the delivery here is terrible, IMO, but I think his overall point is largely correct. But, there are exceptions. It would be hard to argue that PG, for example, isn't a "job creator" -- or at least a wealth creator. He, and others like him, are lowering the barriers to opportunity for many people and businesses. However, there still needs to be demand for the products and services those businesses offer -- as PG himself would tell you.

Would you, for example, deploy 100 times more servers than you thought you actually needed to meet demand for your SAAS or PAAS? No? Then why would somebody running a large corporation hire more people than they thought would be needed to meet consumer demand?

    5. "That's why our existing policies are so upside-down. 
       When the biggest tax exemptions, and lowest tax
       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 top
       1% of Americans has more than tripled while our
       effective tax rates have gone down by 50%. If it was
       true that lower taxes for the rich and more wealth
       for the wealthy led to job creation, today we would
       be drowning in jobs. (audience laughter and applause) 
       and yet unemployment and underemployment is at record 
       highs."

Again he kills an overall good point with a terrible statement -- unemployment and underemployment are high, yes, but nowhere near record highs.

    6. "Another reason that this idea is so wrong-headed is
       that there can never be enough super-rich people to
       power a great economy. Somebody like me makes
       hundreds or thousands of times as much as the median
       American, but I don't buy hundreds or thousands of
       times as much stuff. My family owns 3 cars, not 
       3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and shirts a year
       like most American men, occasionally we go out to eat 
       with friends. 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 cars, any
       clothes, or enjoy any meals out. Nor can I make up
       for the falling consumption of the vast majority of
       middle-class families that are barely squeaking by,
       buried by spiraling costs, and trapped by stagnant or 
       declining wages."

    7. "Here's an incredible fact: that if the typical
       American family still retained the same share of
       income that they did in 1970, they'd earn like
       $45,000 more a year. Imagine what our economy would
       be like if that were the case."

    8. "Significant privileges have come to people like me,
       capitalists, for being perceived as job creators at
       the center of the economic universe, and the language 
       and metaphors we use to defend the current economic
       and social arrangements is telling. It's a small jump 
       from 'job creator' to 'The Creator'. (audience
       laughter) This language wasn't chosen by accident,
       and it's only honest to admit that when somebody like 
       me calls themselves a job creator, we're not just
       describing how the economy works, but more
       particularly we're making a claim on status and
       privileges that we deserve."

While perhaps true, I think that this part really detracts from his talk.

    9. "Speaking of special privileges, the extraordinary
       differential between the 15% tax rate that
       capitalists pay on carried interest, dividends, and
       capital gains, and the 35% top marginal rate on work
       that ordinary Americans pay, is kind of hard to
       justify without a touch of deification."

Man, this is just so bad right here. He really ruins his talk with this. Stick to the points, stick to the points, stick to the points.

    10. "We've had it backwards for the last 30 years. Rich
        people like me don't create jobs. Jobs are a
        consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop between 
        customers and businesses. And, when the middle-class 
        thrives, businesses grow and hire, and owners
        profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for
        investments that benefit all is such a fantastic
        deal for the middle class and the rich. So, ladies
        and gentlemen, here's an idea worth spreading: in a
        capitalist economy, the true job creators are
        middle-class consumers, and taxing the rich to make
        investments to 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. Thank
        you."

I really think his conclusion here is a little bit overwrought. Again, I agree with what he's saying, but the delivery, especially the references to TED's "ideas worth spreading", is just unnecessary and superfluous.

As for TED's response, they justified their decision not to post the video with several points: that it was unnecessarily partisan, that it was unconvincing, and that it was mediocre.

I do not see that it was unnecessarily partisan at all. He mentions political parties exactly once, at the beginning of his talk, and I don't think he said anything there that wasn't true.

But, I could agree that his talk was unconvincing to anyone who steadfastly believes in supply-side economics. He didn't present facts well enough, and his talk was salted and peppered with too much opinion, hyperbole, and fluff.

And, I agree wholeheartedly that it was mediocre. Compared to the talks featured on TED's home page, it just doesn't have the substance, the impact, the original research, or the delivery that those talks have. It's just not good enough of a talk. He's got good points. He clearly has something to say, and I would love nothing more than to hear more discussion like this in our national politics, instead of continuing to take a cargo-cult approach towards heaping benefits on the wealthiest class. However, he's a terrible speaker, and his talk in general needs a lot of work.

(39 comments on this thread when I started writing this, and none actually discussing the content of the video -- tsk.)

(edit: formatting.)

At no point the author insinuates anything about how hiring a PR firm speaks of person's character. The post just simply states the facts that a) a PR firm was hired, and b) he/this firm issued threats to TED.

I see your point, but I think the point of the complaint was that that kind of networking is only available to the wealthy.