The Washington Post notes:
Chris Anderson, head honcho at TED, has responded to Nick Hanauer’s claims that his TED talk was censored. TED, Anderson says, tries “to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people” and that Hanauer “framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan.” The upshot, though, is that he’s letting viewers decide for themselves.
Chris Anderson was abysmally wrong to call this partisan. Who’s funding Ted anyway?1
See Also:
_________________
1AT&T, Autodesk, Blackberry, Cokacola, Delta, GE, IBM, Intel, Johnson&Johnson, Kauffman Foundation, Levis, Pioneer, Rolex, Santander, Shell, Stellcase, J. and J. Knight, Tiffany, Walmart, (Red), Adobe, Akamai, Aljazeera Network, Allianz, AOL, ARUP, Audi, Baille Gifford, bing, Cengage, Cisco, Coffee Common, Datatran Media, T Dewar’s, Direct Brands Inc, Dow, Genantech, GM, 10,000 women, Goldstar, Google, Grameen America, GREY, Gucci, Hyundai, Ideo, Jawbone, Jack Spade, Liberty Mutual, Loncoln, LObard Odier, Lynda.com, Microsoft, Newegg.com, OVI Nokia, Pfizer, Qatar Museums Authority, Benault Nissan, Siemens, Sony, Syfy, Target, Toyota, University of British Columbia, Walt Disney, Wipro, Women at NBCU, Workspring.
Hat tip: 99% Miles.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Is it me or does there seem to be a bit cut out in the middle, right after he first equates “Job Creator” with “Creator”.
Huh, now that you mention it …
I’m pretty sure that I’ve seen TED talks that were more tendentious than that. Was it “partisan” because he said “Republican”?
The look on ‘The Donald’ was priceless.
I don’t think anyone at TED really cares whether you see this video or not.
This is what Chris had to say for himself:
https://tedchris.posterous.com/131417405
Cameronmcmillan, for the record I already provided that link in the OP
I’m just sad that it was necessary someone had to say this. I’m even sadder that such a sensible idea is seen as controversial.
I thought the talk was a bit fluffy at first; bringing up geocentrism was unnecessary hyperbole. Once he got into the facts, however, I started paying attention. I do wish the graphs had been up long enough to digest them.
It’s kinda sad that there’s this winner takes all thing. I was interested here to see how many other talk events there are http://speak-for-yourself.com/2012/04/30/talkfest-frenzy-goes-back-to-the-future/
Wi would be good if they got a share of the publicity so we could avoid the censoship
timberwoof #8
Unnecessary hyperbole?
As to hyperbole, let’s guess which I’m talking about when I say:
1. Demonstrably, manifestly false.
2. Suffering not just a lack of evidence, but from being at odds with evidence and reality.
3. Can only possibly be held or purported as true as a result of misinformed ignorance, willful ignorance (faith-based ideology), or deceit.
Am I talking about the belief that an unregulated, or lightly regulated, low-tax on the wealthy, free market system is the best model for a society, or that the sun revolves around the earth?
The metaphor is not hyperbole. It is comparing like to like.
Further, it makes a fine point to explain that this wealthy “job creator” propaganda is propping up a belief as absurd as geocentrism – and to use it as an example of how a large group of people can believe something even though it is demonstrably untrue.
This is partisan. He starts with talking about how Republicans take this as an article of faith. This is nothing new, this is nothing special. His talk is nothing special and is not worthy of being a TED talk anymore than “How to multiply polynomials” should be a TED talk. Just because the masses don’t have any idea that this stuff is taught, with WAY better arguments and evidence, in virtually every economics course does not make it stunning and new.
You should seriously be ashamed of trying to smear TED about who is funding them because they didn’t think a blatantly partisan talk about inequality using weak arguments. Good news though, because Mr Man here hired a PR firm to make this some giant TED conspiracy we will now have a fantastic backlash from supply siders about how this is all liberal propaganda.
Smear TED, make easy to dismiss arguments for otherwise sound economic arguments, and get a bunch of liberal media outlets and bloggers to make monumentally stupid statements…I wonder who Nick Hanauer is working for. 😛
Smear Ted? How have I done that?
“Chris Anderson was abysmally wrong to call this partisan. Who’s funding Ted anyway?”
The guy opens with a gross misrepresentation of supply side economics and then asserts Republicans take this on faith. This wildly incorrect partisan bullshit. Even Chris stated he agrees (as I do) that supply side economics is trash, but that this guy was making weak and partisan arguments (he was).
Calling into question TEDs funding because they didn’t give a guy a platform to push a gross misrepresentation of economics with a bunch of partisan nonsense laced in is smearing them. Did you read Chris’s full response? https://tedchris.posterous.com/131417405
A quick parallel on how this is partisan nonsense.
Democrats want every woman to have an abortion and Republicans don’t challenge them on this! (False and inflammatory representation of the position)
vs
Democrats want every woman to have a choice. (Better representation of position, still false claim about support)
vs
Pro-choice individuals want every woman to have a choice. (Oh look, a non partisan statement of fact)
?If taxes on the riches go up, job creation will go down. This idea is an article of faith by Republicans and is seldom challenged by Democrats. (False and inflammatory representation of the position)
vs
Republicans believe that economic incentives should be given to suppliers to encourage production of goods and this will lead to economic growth. (Better representation of position, still false claim about support)
vs
Supply side economic proponents believe that economic incentives should be given to suppliers to encourage production of goods and this will lead to economic growth. (Oh look, a non-partisan statement of fact)
I agree that this talk is obviously partisan. But only because he takes on an idea promoted entirely by and to the benefit of one party.
TED is about ideas worth spreading. And this talk is about combating an idea that is widespread and doing real damage. This is a great talk, and something that needed saying 15 years ago.
But…but…but…but RETHUGLI-FEE-FEES!
POOW WIDDLE FEE FEES!
Sean, I provided links to both opposing arguments, and a complete and unedited list of sponsored. People can make their own minds up. I think there is an appearance of favoritism towards one percenters, I’m not sure if that is intentional or not.
Someone posted this WP article on Anderson’s blog.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html
So worth the read.
I have to disagree with the partisan issue being a problem at all. It is fair to point out that one side is worse than the other on the point of his talk.
There has to be a good middle ground between characterizing a group, and pointing out that a group has a larger proportion of people who make certain economic assumptions. Like it or not his man thesis has a partisan component. To pretend otherwise is the same as trying to pretend that science education problems are not related to issues within Christianity. I’m hearing lots of excuses here…
“…main thesis…”
sigh…
TED is about “ideas worth spreading.”
” Let’s try to make things better by not allowing people to advance ideas that are demonstrably harmful. ”
If that message doesn’t belong on TED, then what does?
Well, it has to be moderated by the need to pretend that arsonists aren’t any better or worse than firefighters, so to speak.
He makes several good points in this video. One other important element to understand about the effects of tax rates specifically on the rich is that only profits, not expenses, are subject to income tax. What are some of the elements in expenses? Wages and equipment. Thus, high taxes affecting businesses directly encourages them to spend more on their employees and goods/services elsewhere in the economy in order to avoid having to pay the highest tax rates.
The equation for the poor is almost exactly inverted. Since the poor are inclined to spend all of their money pretty much all of the time, they need no special incentive. High tax rates on the poor are actually punitive and contribute very little. Likewise, cutting services to the poor may restrict their opportunities to grow and develop into the higher economic classes, which has impacts on the country’s future.
One last issue is that of tax evasion. Any country needs to be relatively good at tracking income and determining if particular people are effectively cheating the tax system. With bad precedents and bad cultural programming you may end up with a society full of tax dodgers. Two aspects that help avoid this are (1) a simple and easily understood tax code with relatively few exemptions and loopholes, and (2) high government competence with clear leadership and shared priorities. Easier said than done, of course.