TED Conversations

Brian Adam

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Why is the Nick Hanauer talk not posted?

I haven't been a member for long, but I've been watching TED talks for years now consistently checking in for new videos. Frankly, the talks have gotten a little bland in the past few months. Then I hear through the grapevine of Nick Hanauer's lecture and how Mr. Anderson has decided to censor it. I'm extremely disappointed in the decision. This is an issue on the mind of many people in America and those interested in American politics and economics. It's an something that deserves to be heard by many more people than the elite TED audiences, and what better way to spread this worthy idea than posting the lecture online, sooner rather than later. The cited reason for omitting the lecture was that it was "too political." I have to say that is a terrible excuse. When has TED attempted to remain apolitical? Speakers have discussed societal ills like poverty and war; Jonathan Haidt has put forth an explanation of the psychological differences between the Republicans and Democrats; Sam Harris proposed science can substitute religion as a source of morality, and very early on in TED's history Richard Dawkins was allowed to promote militant atheism; other hot button political issues like contraception and climate change have been discussed here (often more than once); and all of these speakers had the video of their quite political talks posted. All of a sudden we can't view here a perspective on the issue of income inequality from Mr. Hanauer? I seem to remember Richard Wilkinson discussing a very similar topic posted back in October 2011. Mr. Anderson, I think a more substantial explanation is in order regarding your decision not to post Mr. Hanauer's talk online other than it being "too political." I can't speak for anyone else, but I see the decision as an act of cowardice reflecting on the organization as a whole. It suggests that we, the public, have lost TED as a forum for intellectual discussion and consideration regarding important issues, political or otherwise.

Topics: censorhsip income disparaty national politics
+79
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Sarah Wolf

    • 0
    May 18 2012: @Krisztian Pinter:

    Thanks for your well thought-out reply.

    However, you say that "the economy can only be boosted by creating capital" - I agree that capital is necessary to get production going, start a business, etc., but - you have yet to convince me that it is the only way to boost the economy. Sure, maybe capital is another necessary "ingredient" I missed in my above thought process, but it seems to me that it would still fit with my "limiting reagent" way of looking at things. Thus, in my line of thought, availability of capital would only start to make a difference in an economy where it is relatively scarce compared to demand and entrepreneurship. I don't think we currently live under those conditions. In a historical context, wealth is extremely concentrated at this time, and yet... the economy is stagnant.

    Your reasoning also seems to not fit with Keynesian economic theory, which, I think, is fairly well substantiated and supported by many respected, well-credentialed economists. Can you produce any sort of experimental/ real-world data to support your position? Just to clarify, are you more or less endorsing supply-side economic theory?
    • thumb

      Krisztián Pintér 200+

      • 0
      TED Translator
      May 18 2012: as i have said, consumer and worker is the same person, it is the two sides of the same coin. desire to consume is never a limiting factor, we can happily consume as much as we have access to. production is limited by workforce, but workforce is more or less constant, it is the population. the only thing that can grow limitless is the factor between a work hour and the product of it. that is, capital.

      there is no such thing as scarce capital vs abundant capital. there is no such thing as enough capital or optimal amount of capital. simply the more the better. since the beginning of civilization, capital and thus production is multiplied by a factor of 100? 1000? more? and we see no reason why should it stop.

      keynesian economics is a failure. it is from the beginning. it is on logical level, and it is on practical level. when it comes to economic policy making or forecasting, keynesian economics has a pathetic track record of being 100% wrong. i would not parade around with such a record. and it is especially hilarious when keynesians refer to data. you should now, with scientific background, that the data they using is laughable by any real scientific standards. nobody could publish such weak data in a chemical journal.

      i'm not endorsing any such oversimplifications as supply-side economics. i follow the teachings of the only economic theory that follows a rigid logic that pleases real scientists as well: austrian economics. disclaimer: don't try to get information from wikipedia. an anti-austrian zealot took over the article, and it is now thoroughly misleading. instead, look up some introductory materials on the mises institute or the mises wiki.
      • thumb

        Joanne Donovan 30+

        • 0
        May 19 2012: 'there is no such thing as enough capital or optimal amount of capital. simply the more the better. since the beginning of civilization' Krisztian, you cannot support this idea at all, its just silly. What do you mean by 'enough'? enough for what? To feed everybody? To people need to 'feel' they have enough? If so, you are talking about psychology. This is not something that is fixed, it can change and be manipulated. What about real terms instead?

        Now we are advocating 19th century profit-equals-progress austrian economics. For those of you who don't know, its worse than a failure, never been tried, never has occured naturally around the world, except in a few horribly brutal communities, where life is cheap and human suffering inconsequential.
        • thumb

          Krisztián Pintér 200+

          • 0
          TED Translator
          May 19 2012: don't add new parts to my statements, and then question the result. it does not make sense. i exactly said that there is no such thing as enough capital. period. end of sentence.

          the rest does not deserve a reply.
      • thumb

        Joanne Donovan 30+

        • 0
        May 19 2012: ok try this then Krisztian. 'exchange with mutual consent benefits both parties, otherwise would not happen. ' This is the perfect philosophical pearl upon which the great theory is balanced. Unfortunately though, in the real world, exchanges never occur in a vacuum. No exchange is ever perfectly even, one side will always have more power, even if it is slight or imperceptible. Only if exchanges are mutual and perfectly even, can they work in the mutually beneficial way you suggest. As soon as some advantage benefits one side of the exchange over the other, you have the beginnings of monopolisation and exploitation. That is why your theory can never ever work, not even on paper.
      • thumb

        Joanne Donovan 30+

        • 0
        May 19 2012: I do not try to change this idea. Re read my comment. I say instead, there is no such thing as perfect mutual exchange because there is always a power differential in the equation. This is the problem with your economic 'theory', and it is why it cannot work. If there is a power differential in the equation, the exhange is no longer equal, the trajectory toward monopolies, exploitation and explosive economic situations is set.
        • thumb

          Krisztián Pintér 200+

          • 0
          TED Translator
          May 19 2012: "there is no such thing as perfect mutual exchange because there is always a power differential in the equation"

          can you translate this to plain english?
      • thumb

        Joanne Donovan 30+

        • 0
        May 20 2012: Let me put it in other words; when a power structure exists between the participants in a mutual exchange, then the exchange cannot be truly voluntary, but must include an element of coercion.

        For example, if you could choose not to pay rent, you would not pay it. You often only pay your rent because you fear the consequences if you dont pay. Therefore, you do not 'freely' pay your rent, instead you are forced to pay your rent. You and your landlord are not on an equal playing field, the landlord has more power in the transaction than you. This is a simple example, but actually there is always a power structure in any transaction, sometimes its not obvious, nevertheless, its effect is real. This imbalance can and is always capitalised on.
        • thumb

          Krisztián Pintér 200+

          • 0
          TED Translator
          May 20 2012: so your point is that if the exchange is not voluntary, then voluntary exchange is not necessarily beneficial to both parties? what kind of logic is that? my claim was about voluntary exchange. you can't dismiss that analyzing non-voluntary exchanges. i didn't say all exchange is voluntary. i didn't say nonvoluntary exchange benefits both parties. so who do you argue with here? btw it is good that you finally understood how important the voluntary nature is. that's why i promote free markets as opposed to state. free market is based on voluntary exchanges, the state is not.

          i'm still in shock that you are having problems getting this very simple case of renting. i believe it is a non-problem for like ... everyone? you are the only one i've ever saw dwelling on the ethics of it. rent is based on voluntary exchange. you can choose to rent a flat or house and pay, or you can choose not to. the owner also can decide if he wants to rent it to you or not. if you agree, a deal is made. if not, you walk off. where is the question here? where is the moral problem?
      • thumb

        Joanne Donovan 30+

        • 0
        May 20 2012: You are in shock? Ok. I use this simple example again and again in order to try to get you to think out of the box just a little. the things you take for granted, property rights, ownership, a contract, are only powerconstructs, social paradigms like money itself. The principles behind such power constructs lie a little further a field and when we talk about the root of these things we begin to discuss the real nature of humanity. On this level, anarcho capitalism is just an ugly blight, a social idea based on dominance and violence.

        Coming back to your main 'thesis', 'voluntary exhange'. I did show you, but you are still unable to accept it, that there IS NO SUCH THING as a purely voluntary exchange in a society based on dominance. There must always be some kind of power construct inherently within. The accumulation of capital itself is an act of dominance, one that I agree to under certain conditions. Orlando and other more peaceful, optimistic people, who call themselves anarchists, do not.
        • thumb

          Krisztián Pintér 200+

          • 0
          TED Translator
          May 20 2012: holy cow. i just realized that you don't even try to refute what i'm saying. you just don't like it. it is okay, but please don't present it like counterargument. this is confusing.

          if your moral opposes property, it is fine. i disagree. if you think that voluntariness is absent when need is present, it is fine too, it is just a matter of definition. these questions are non-questions for me. i'm not interested in debating any of these. if you can convince anyone that property is immoral, or nothing is voluntary, go ahead, good luck with it.

          but that does not, in any way, affects the validity of the austrian economics. you probably don't get the difference between libertarianism and austrian economics. what you are saying here goes against libertarian teachings, but not austrian views. the latter is just a collection of logical statements, like the one i cited. these can't be refuted.
      • thumb

        Joanne Donovan 30+

        • 0
        May 22 2012: Are you capable of questioning the premises upon which your 'logic' is based? Then we may have a decent conversation. Everything can be refuted. Everything.

        It's the framework that any logical idea is built upon that must be examined. I think you should be willing to do this for one reason alone. Austrian economics were conceived worlds ago in the 19th century. The view of our world, for thinking people anyway, has evolved, even revolutionised to use a more emotive word. Your intellectual feet still wear 19th century concrete shoes.
        • thumb

          Krisztián Pintér 200+

          • 0
          TED Translator
          May 22 2012: lemme see.

          IF (premise) people voluntarily engage in exchange

          THEN (conclusion) they are both benefited.

          how could that logic be refuted? show me.

          mechanics were conceived in the 1600's. guess we should through it out too.

          and then there is that remark "for thinking people anyway". can you please elaborate what do you mean by that? i can only hope you are not implying that i'm not a thinking people, do you? because it would be very bold from you, considering that you still didn't manage to understand the simple logical structure above.
      • thumb

        Joanne Donovan 30+

        • 0
        May 23 2012: Clunk...clunk....clunk...clunk...CLUNK!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.