2012 Billionaire says "Rich don't create jobs". They banned his video from the TED website.

[madfloridian]

I did not see this video listed there at all. I did find it at You Tube.

On a search I see some of Nick Hanauer's words were posted here last year and before.

He said "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming."

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

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?

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.

The rich aren’t job creators. Even if we didn’t have people speaking out with evidence, we should be able to look at the last 20 years of income history and see for ourselves — the wealthiest Americans have reached previously unimaginable levels of prosperity, and if the job-creator logic held, we’d have evidence of it by now. It’s time for change.

[marym625]

1. wow

So disappointed in TED.

[hifiguy]

2. Kick and rec.

A TON of truth in just five minutes. Too bad nobody wants to hear it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. It's a great video, It's probably one of the most viewed TED talks ever.

but "banned"? The word is more related to guerrilla marketing than anything else.

[madfloridian]

5. Other videos of his are at the website, even the pitchforks one.

Strange this one is not.

[demmiblue]

4. K&R

[rhett o rick]

6. I think Ted Talks responded but I can't seem to find it. Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? nm

[madfloridian]

9. Here's the TED response which reeks of BS

http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-chris-anderson-nick-hanauer-income-inequality-speech-2012-5

Also from 2012

According to the Anderson's side of the story, Hanauer freaked out when TED did not choose his speech as the one of the select few that get featured on the organization's website.

Noting that TED only posts one talk per day on its homepage, Anderson explains that TED officials decided not to feature Hanauer's speech because they deemed it "explicitly partisan" and because it got "mediocre" reception.

Via Anderson's post:

"He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined and this time I wrote him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed.

So he forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter and the National Journal duly bit on the story. And it was picked up by various other outlets."

You can read the whole thing here. For good measure, Anderson also includes a link to a video of Hanauer's speech, which TED finally posted today.

If it's at the site I did not find it on a search today.

[rhett o rick]

23. I didnt find it either and agree that this is BS.

"Anderson explains that TED officials decided not to feature Hanauer's speech because they deemed it "explicitly partisan" and because it got "mediocre" reception. " Shame on Anderson. To censor something because it's partisan? or because it gets a mediocre reception?

The ironic thing is that it's gotten more attention because of the censoring.

on edit: If one says that we are being repressed, is that partisan? Seriously, is it? And even if it is, should that be a reason to censor?

[appalachiablue]

7. Hanauer's great article on The Pitchforks was in Politico last summer I think. Saw him

briefly on Thom Hartmann's program a couple years ago. Good guy- but the bad Billionaires are going ahead full steam-



*MadFlo, I just read this about Rick Scott, did you see?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026681436

[madfloridian]

8. I had recced it, went back and kicked it. Scott's hurting this state so much.

[sendero]

10. In the TED talks I have listened to..

.. there is often a thread of bullshit in subjects related to business and economics. Also in education, where I hear a lot of "corporations could do it better drivel". I don't listen to them any more. Just more propaganda for the rich.

[mb999]

11. Circulation of money creates jobs

When people have money to spend that creates jobs because there is more demand for goods and services. Stuffing all the money into bank accounts of a handful of billionaires while everybody else has nothing destroys the economy. We need the living wages the unions used to help us get before they have been eliminated throughout much of the workforce.

[hunter]

24. I think it's time to move beyond money, but I've not quite figured out the "how" of it.

Roman style silver and gold coinage was an inovation, and then silver and gold reserve banking was an innovation, and then no-metal token Keynesian national debt banking was an innovation, and all were progressive in their time, but modern technology demands further innovation.

What's the economy of the Star Trek world look like? We've already met or surpassed the computer and communication technology of that universe in some ways. So what about "money?"

I'm absolutely certain that future ain't Bitcoin, PayPal, or big box-store-chain-restaurant gift card, or motel-airline-drug-lord--hooker-casino "comp" card. At least not any future I want.

[calimary]

32. Welcome to DU, mb999!

Glad you're here! I think we should start calling them "hoarders" rather than "job creators." If they'd BEEN job creators all this time, if all those nice tax breaks had yielded new factories and new stores and new shipping centers and all the jobs that go with them, then I'd say okay. I'd say all that tax savings HAD gone into efforts that were indeed generating mass quantities of jobs. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED!!!! A lot of that money got socked away in secret stashes overseas, tax shelters and other schemes that only benefited the direct beneficiaries of those massive tax cuts. It went to padding the stockholders' portfolios and the boards of directors salary packages and the sultan-level CEO pay and buyouts and golden parachute arrangements and buying and merging with other corporations. VERY little actually - um - pardon the pun - trickled down to those who REALLY needed it.

Only consolation: the fact that high-profile people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are talking about it all the time AND getting media attention for it, and that articles and studies that support this are circulating, and we now even have a pope who's gotten behind the idea, I think the climate is changing in this regard also. It used to be nobody was talking about this. Income inequality and the lopsidedness of the money flow in this country and the whole 1% versus the 99% - all that used to be something you NEVER heard about. Now, it's being talked about almost everywhere. It's slowly seeping into the national consciousness.

Before you can begin to solve a problem, FIRST you have to recognize and/or admit that there IS one. We may now be in the recognition phase. At long last.

[madfloridian]

36. Well said.

[BeanMusical]

12. Kick and R.

[octoberlib]

13. This bears repeating.

But let’s speak frankly to each other. I’m not the smartest guy you’ve ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I’m not technical at all—I can’t write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?
I see pitchforks.
At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country—the 99.99 percent—is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.
But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.
And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won’t last.
If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#ixzz3aLDd5CK5

[madfloridian]

20. Thanks for the link to his whole pitchforks speech.

Powerful. I missed this when it was posted before.

[Dont call me Shirley]

14. K & R

[Octafish]

15. That would bother TED.

Seeing how they, uh, have done a lot of stuff.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

16. The rich don't even want to get a phone call....

If their lawyer or broker calls their first thought is, "I pay you to take of this for me!"

[MrScorpio]

17. Nick Hanauer speaks truth to power

I wasn't surprised by the reaction of the oligarchs.

[eridani]

18. Hanauer personally caucused for Obama in 2008 n/t

[madfloridian]

25. Thanks, did not know that.

[Gothmog]

19. This was a great TED speech

[NuclearDem]

21. "Not selected for the website" is not the same thing as "banned."

[madfloridian]

22. Go argue with Addicting Info. I used their subject line.

[AZ Progressive]

26. Nick should join Bernie

A class traitor like Nick would give added credibility to Bernie Sanders when it comes to centrists and professionals.

[WDIM]

27. A strong middle class creates jobs. nt

[Exilednight]

28. One of the best talks I've seen in a decade.

[madfloridian]

29. I agree.

He speaks powerfully.

[hfojvt]

30. well, candidates don't HAVE to win funding

but curiously enough

a) the press will only treat a candidate as "serious" if they raise lots of money
b) the press will give free space and publicity to the incumbent, especially if that incumbent is a Republican
c) the press will provide very little information about issues, or where the candidate stands on various issues, if they do, THEY will ask the questions, not allow a candidate to promote their own ideas or issues. Most of the local papers will only provide these basics about candidates - a picture, how old they are, where they live, what they do for a living. That is all the information they provide to the voters.

[joshcryer]

31. Reminds me of this video:

[madfloridian]

33. Nick Hanauer: Small price to pay to raise wages a little bit. UK interview.

[daredtowork]

34. I Learned Today the Google Bus Is At the Local Train Stop

I knew the Google Bus had made an appearance on the wealthier far side of town, but I didn't know that it was officially pervasive. Suddenly the pattern of big development and the housing crisis makes a lot more sense.

Anyyyyway...campaign funding here is very dark but recent development issues and questions about special tax measures are making people start to look a little more closely at what's driving our political processes. There is clearly outside money coming from somewhere. Traditionally people invoked "the unions" - but now it could be "the big developers"...or "venture capitalists" or even Google scions "doing evil"! There was even a lame gerrymandering attempt to weed the progressive voices out of the City Council last year!

[Revanchist]

35. They did post this one,

seems like the same topic

https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming#t-516130

[madfloridian]

38. Same topic, different clothes, apparently different speech.

I really can't figure why one speech would be posted and the other one not.

I posted TED's response further on in the thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026681478#post9

[dilby]

37. TED is a joke, it's basically Scientologies little brother.

People pay shit loads of money to listen to messages that are supposed to make them better people.

[madfloridian]

39. I think the Scientology comparison is a little over the top.

TED has an agenda like most non-profits, but comparing with Scientology is a little much.

[dilby]

40. It's a cult. n/t