This TED Talk Was Banned For Attacking The Job Creator Myth; The Rich Don’t Want You To See It

[octoberlib]

Last edited Sun May 12, 2013, 03:15 AM - Edit history (1)

This TED talk isn’t posted on the TED website. Why not? Apparently they feel it’s too politically controversial. What that boils down to, essentially, is that the conservative strategy of bold lies to suck in the sheep has worked, and now if the truth doesn’t favor Republicans or isn’t neutral, it’s considered politically controversial. How can proven information be politically controversial?

Nick Hanauer talks for six minutes on why the rich aren’t the job creators — and as someone worth $1 billion USD, he knows a bit about the rich.

Unfortunately, as you can see, the video isn’t even partisan. Both Democrats and Republicans operate under the assumption that the rich are job creators, and that’s because, as mentioned in another talk, this time by Lawrence Lessig, politicians on the national level have to go through two electoral processes to get into office. Yes, they are voted on by the people. However, before that, they also have to win funding, and that means the rich pick which politicians run for major offices. Until we change campaign finance laws that isn’t going to change. In fact, the myopic vision of Congress is going to get worse, because the rich demand their attention.

And it isn’t a partisan problem. Even a third party, at a congressional level, would be controlled by the same wealthy influences, because without the money to campaign, they wouldn’t get the notoriety necessary to get the votes. The funders vote before the voters do, meaning that, by definition, well-known candidates are heavily influenced by wealthy interests. Once again, we can’t change that without reforming campaign finance laws.

Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/11/banned-ted-talk-job-creator-myth/#ixzz2T0zaqR00

Lawrence Lessig's video, We the People and the Republic We Must Reclaim is also an excellent talk .

There is a corruption at the heart of American politics, caused by the dependence of Congressional candidates on funding from the tiniest percentage of citizens. That's the argument at the core of this blistering talk by legal scholar Lawrence Lessig. With rapid-fire visuals, he shows how the funding process weakens the Republic in the most fundamental way, and issues a rallying bipartisan cry that will resonate with many in the U.S. and beyond.

Lawrence Lessig has already transformed intellectual-property law with his Creative Commons innovation. Now he's focused on an even bigger problem: The US' broken political system

Link here http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

[Robb]

1. Good stuff, but not really banned.

http://thenextweb.com/media/2012/05/17/banned-ted-talk-wasnt-banned-after-all-and-here-it-is-in-all-its-6-minute-glory/

[octoberlib]

2. I see. It wasn't banned , it just wasn't CHOSEN because it wasn't good enough.

Whatever. Addicting Info tends to be hyperbolic.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. Wasn't good enough? I get that they can only afford so many terabytes of storage capacity...

It's probably one of the top 10 TED videos (even though it's only available on YouTube) There are only a couple that I'd recommend higher and I've watched a bunch of them.

His talk is not on the site because they don't want to alienate funders.

[octoberlib]

39. +1

It's one of the best ones I've seen too.

[Posteritatis]

20. And people keep passing the wording along anyway; it's kind of sad. (nt)

[rocktivity]

14. TED blinked and posted it on YouTube as a compromise

under pressure of being called out on it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101628527

P.S. You're a year behind the DU learning curve.


rocktivity

[rhett o rick]

52. So is it the word "banned" that bothers you? Would you accept "censored"?

It was chosen not to be aired. The question is why? And I dont accept the answer given. Do you?

[NAO]

3. Watch this a few times and get the hang about how to talk

to a conservative about the role of redistribution. It makes plain sense and is the best I've seen/heard/read on this topic.

[Festivito]

4. Good written summary. Thank you. /nt

[WillyT]

5. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[99th_Monkey]

6. This should be REQUIRED VIEWING

in order to be A US Citizen

[Martin Eden]

16. Yes, "Job Creators" is one MYTH that really needs BUSTING

And he spelled it out in a simple and straightfprward manner that even a teahat should be able to understand.

[99th_Monkey]

33. Apparently a thought-crime in someone's book

It's always so revealing when people get scared of the truth.

[Initech]

7. The rich don't create jobs. They create wealth for themselves!

Case in point: while the world's economy collapsed, the fortunes of Charles and David Koch quadrupled.

[OneGrassRoot]

8. Mr. Hanauer is also featured in the HBO documentary "American Winter"

Hopefully it can be seen far and wide after the HBO contract is up. It's a must-see.

http://www.americanwinterfilm.com/

[Overseas]

28. Looks like an excellent movie.

[octoberlib]

40. Thanks! I just got HBO

I'll keep an eye out for it, if they're still showing it.

[Dustlawyer]

9. I have been saying this for years! We need to rally around

COMPLETE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM (CCFR)!!! All our other complaints about gun policy, gay marriage, climate change... Will not be dealt with properly until, and unless we get CCFR!

[Egalitarian Thug]

12. Drop the 'F' entirely and adopt some version of the UK system.

Set campaign season time, taxpayer financed with an absolute budget, and I'd require media to contribute exposure to all candidates during that time at no charge. Just ban all private money from the whole process.

Under this system, when a citizen gets so fed up with the theater that they are moved to participate directly, it is possible.

Next step, rid this nation of its House of Lords and expand the Parliament.

[Dustlawyer]

21. That's right, the media could be required as part of their license to carve out time to each

candidate.

[Egalitarian Thug]

35. That's right. They are granted their special license in order to serve our society.

They are shielded from power and constitute a protected class. Informing the public for a few weeks every other year is a small price to pay for their privilege.

[Nye Bevan]

61. That's all possible in the UK because they have no First Amendment.

You would need a major constitutional amendment to do that here.

[octoberlib]

41. Couldn't agree more. nt

[Delmette]

10. This should be required viewing ...

Before you vote!

[love_katz]

11. Wow, wow, wow, wow.

This needs to go VIRAL.

Lets help it do that. Go, DUers!

[Rex]

13. I've never seen anyone that spot on about the economy.

He walks us through our 30 years of plutocracy. Amazing man.

[deutsey]

24. I agree...you might want to check out Richard Wolff

http://rdwolff.com/

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/3/25/watch_extended_interview_with_economist_richard_wolff_on_how_marxism_influences_his_work

[Rex]

26. Oh wow, TY for that information!

That is going into bookmarks.

[Ruby the Liberal]

31. Thanks for the links

Listening to the Amy Goodman interview now. I like this guy.

[octoberlib]

45. I love Richard Wolff. Thanks for the links! nt

[rocktivity]

15. TED had roughly three dozen reasons for their attempt at censorship

Their corporate partners.


rocktivity

[octoberlib]

42. It's illustrative of the problem.

Accept money from corporate or wealthy donors and it influences your actions.

[truedelphi]

17. When even someone as Influential as David Stockman says that

Both parties are in cahoots with the agenda of the Upper One Percent, you realize how broken the situation is.

The Federal Reserve is allowed to be the cookie jar for Wall Street, and the creator of serial "bubbles" at the expense of the middle class, and even at the expense of those who are millionaires but somewhat out of the loop in terms of "Insider Congressional Information."

Anyway thank you for posting this banned "TED Talk."

[xtraxritical]

19. Preaching to the choir but it helps.

[ProSense]

22. This is

"the rich are job creators"

...the primary problem with economic policy. It was the basis of the debate around the Bush tax cuts. Those who buy into it do everything they can to push tax cuts and loopholes for the rich and corporations, deregulation and privatization.

[AAO]

37. I always saw a slant to "supply and demand".

It's demand first, then the supply is created to satisfy the demand. In order to create the supply, you need to hire employees. As long as we put demand last, we put the people last.

[Honeycombe8]

23. Well, we had a chance to vote for someone who wanted campaign finance laws. McCain.

When I voted aganst him, I voted against that, I guess. As did you, and her, and him, and millions of others. But that was the chance. He was a lone voice on that issue. He later changed his stance...the far right got to him. But there was a time....

[Starfury]

25. Hanauer on the Job Creation Myth

Here are a couple Business Insider articles, definitely worth reading:

Finally, A Rich American Destroys The Fiction That Rich People Create The Jobs
A Message From Us Rich Plutocrats To All You Little People

We used to call this divine right. Today we call it “economics”.

[octoberlib]

44. Thanks for the links! nt

[FarCenter]

27. Also "The Myth of the Small-Business Job Engine"

The trouble is, small business’s role as the star of job creation is not completely accurate. It’s true that small businesses—defined generously as companies with fewer than 500 employees—account for more than half of all private-sector employment, but the repeated emphasis on those businesses may overshadow some broader truths about the job market. Small businesses do create the most jobs overall, but as the businesses shrink or die off, they also eliminate the most jobs, leaving little net gain. And while the Small Business Administration says companies with fewer than 500 employees have generated nearly two-thirds of all net new jobs over the last 15 years, economists who sliced the jobs data differently reported in an August 2010 paper that the size of businesses doesn’t really matter when it comes to adding jobs — but their age does.

“The only group that disproportionately creates jobs is startups,” says Ron Jarmin, assistant director for research and methodology at the U.S. Census Bureau and coauthor of that research paper, titled “Who Creates Jobs? Small vs. Large Vs. Young.”

Startups account for only about 3 percent of U.S. employment, but they are responsible for nearly 20 percent of the gross number of jobs created year to year, according to Jarmin and his coauthors. And the net new jobs from startups can be credited for all the job growth in the U.S. over a stretch of roughly three decades starting in the late 1970s, according to Robert Litan, vice president for research and policy at the Kauffman Foundation, which promotes entrepreneurship. That’s because while other businesses both create jobs and destroy them as they grow and shrink in a changing economy, startups by definition only add workers initially.

Many of those startups will fail, of course, and kill off jobs in the process, but some new businesses that survive go on to thrive and grow—think Google, Facebook, or Groupon—rapidly adding lots of employees. That historic importance of young businesses may be why Obama made a point of specifically mentioning startups along with small businesses his remarks last week.

Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/08/29/The-Myth-of-the-Small-Business-Job-Engine.aspx

So the "small businesses are the job creators" mantra of the GOP is also bullshit. The businesses that create jobs are the startups that grow to be medium or large businesses.

Most small businesses start small, stay small, hire and fire for years, and eventually die.

[octoberlib]

46. What's the GOP small business meme?

" small businesses won't be able to hire if we raise their taxes." And they always emphasize small businesses , never large corporations because they want to make it seem like they're looking out for the little guy. What bs. Interesting article. Thanks!

[Ruby the Liberal]

29. Hanauer akways does a great job of explaining growing an economy from the bottom up

not the top down.

Thanks for finding/posting this. Watched it twice.

K&R

[Overseas]

30. K&R. So glad this is popular. Tells the truth very clearly.

Perhaps TED folks think their elite audience already knows that.

And maybe they do, but we need more action to correct this major design flaw in our economy and stop the lying, so it needs to be said in these gatherings.

[KoKo]

32. Thanks..Will check it out!

[blackspade]

34. Well done.

[grandpamike1]

36. Read

His book The Gardens Of Democracy for a more in depth analysis.

[octoberlib]

43. Thanks ! I'll have to check that out. nt

[Fuddnik]

38. Kick and Rec!

[dotymed]

47. Imo, we must do wawy with our current 2 party system.

This would make it much harder for the 1% to control candidates. It would also give us an opening for electoral finance reform.

[savebigbird]

48. Hey, he read my mind!

I've been thinking this for a while, and now I know how to articulate it more eloquently.

[Nika]

49. This video goes into much more detail on this

[octoberlib]

57. This was a great interview! Thanks for posting.

It sounds like Hanauer is working to change things by endowing university chairs. We definitely need people combating Koch's influence in economic departments.

[harun]

50. Without the rich where would people who trained to be cotton and tobacco pickers find jobs?

[rhett o rick]

51. It was so much easier to understand when we were simply told that God made people rich

to take care of the rest of us. I think we should just go with that and forget the supply-side crap.

[Tippy]

53. K&R

[rhett o rick]

54. An important question is why wasnt this video chosen? Were the TED people surprised by what he said?

It would be interesting to know what the process is for selecting what should be published. Also, we should probably look into who sponsors TED.

[octoberlib]

58. In the interview posted by Nika above

Hanauer said he was told by Ted organizers that the talk was too political and controversial.

[rhett o rick]

60. I havent watched the complete video yet. Sounds like someone is lying.

I am new to TED and thinks it sounds like a good idea. But I can see how they might not want to be forced into publishing everyone's opinion. For example should they give time to Glen Beck?

I checked out their website but couldnt find anything about how they screen speakers.

[colsohlibgal]

55. The Admirable Wealthy

I admire then so much as they plead "please tax me!" ala Warren Buffett.

The problem is we have too many Gordon Gekko disciples. Greed piggies in the trough.

We need a true progressive tax structure in the US. As I see it, the mistake the left tends to make is lumping everyone with income at $400,000 or above in one bracket. I think someone in Warren Buffett's range should pay a considerably higher rate.

Do that, add a VAT, legalize and tax pot, pare the military funding down from overkill, slash the heck out of it and we'll still be safe as we can be. People out of work from the pare down of the military can be put to work right away fixing our crumbling infrastructure and fixing up our state and national parks.

Win-win-win etc. The suffering? Some Richie Riches getting by with 83 million rather than 110 million. I understand that will be tough for them, but I doubt people now eating cat food so they can have that 110 million would shed a tear.

[Electric Monk]

56. kick nt

[closeupready]

59. K&R for later.

Thanks.