This Venture Capitalists speech TED won't post

G

Geriatrix

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
6,554
Reaction score
3
Location
Right here
http://www.businessinsider.com/this...e-jobs--and-ted-is-refusing-to-post-it-2012-5
As the war over income inequality wages on, super-rich Seattle entrepreneur Nick Hanauer has been raising the hackles of his fellow 1-percenters, espousing the contrarian argument that rich people don't actually create jobs.

The position is controversial — so much so that TED is refusing to post a talk that Hanauer gave on the subject.

National Journal reports today that TED officials decided not to put Hanauer's March 1 speech up online after deeming his remarks "too politically controversial" for the site.

In an email obtained by the National Journal, TED curator Chris Anderson told his colleagues that Hanauer's speech “probably ranks as one of the most politically controversial talks we've ever run, and we need to be really careful when” to post it. He added: “Next week ain't right. Confidentially, we already have Melinda Gates on contraception going out. Sorry for the mixed messages on this.”

TED regularly posts speeches about sensitive political issues, including global warming and contraception, so it's not clear why Hanauer's talk would be singled out for censorship.

We've emailed Hanauer to see what he thinks, but in the meantime, here's an excerpt for you to judge for yourself:

I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is 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 middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.

So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.

Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/this...d-is-refusing-to-post-it-2012-5#ixzz1v7VRSGgk
Click to expand...
 
Seems a bit of a chicken and egg argument to me. Entrpeneurs are the ones creating products and services that consumers want and buy. Consumers do not consider job creation when buying.

The problem with capitalists is that job creation is not a consideration for them either. They're only going to hire people if they need to. The problem is they've gotten increasingly good at making profits while reducing manpower requirements. It's the nature of the beast. The only way to create jobs is to incentivise job creation. It won't happen naturally.
 
Nick333 said:
Seems a bit of a chicken and egg argument to me. Entrpeneurs are the ones creating products and services that consumers want and buy. Consumers do not consider job creation when buying.

The problem with capitalists is that job creation is not a consideration for them either. They're only going to hire people if they need to. The problem is they've gotten increasingly good at making profits while reducing manpower requirements. It's the nature of the beast. The only way to create jobs is to incentivise job creation. It won't happen naturally.
Click to expand...
As far as I understand he's not talking about entrepreneurs. He's talking about super rich people in the top 1%.
Would love to see his presentation though.
 
That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.
Click to expand...

I've often wondered why companies continue to get the benefit of tax breaks when they make people redundant, now I know why. It's a scam.

Also it seems logical that our own harsher labour laws aren't helping, what should have been done was to make it easier for startup small business to get off the ground. That would create jobs naturally, without the need for other inventives, not?
 
Geriatrix said:
As far as I understand he's not talking about entrepreneurs. He's talking about super rich people in the top 1%.
Would love to see his presentation though.
Click to expand...

Ja, I mean super rich entrepreneurs. :p I'm mildly interested. From the excerpt I'm guessing he's ideas are just arbitrarily contrarian. The things people find offensive these days are ridiculous. I mean did he propose death camps for the 1%?
 
I dunno, I think Bill Gates is in "the 1%" and he created a job or 2. Or 92 000. Richard Branson might also have given someone a job here and there but I could be wrong...
 
Actually I can understand his perspective. Dont release the tax burden on the rich so that they can "create jobs" because there is no real incentive for them to do so. Instead, lower the burden on the man in the street so that he is inclined to buy more with the money he has. If the average man is spending more and demand for products is increasing, to manage that demand you would need to employ more people - in this theory. Stimulating spending is always touted as the way to bolster economies.
 
Markd said:
Actually I can understand his perspective. Dont release the tax burden on the rich so that they can "create jobs" because there is no real incentive for them to do so. Instead, lower the burden on the man in the street so that he is inclined to buy more with the money he has. If the average man is spending more and demand for products is increasing, to manage that demand you would need to employ more people - in this theory. Stimulating spending is always touted as the way to bolster economies.
Click to expand...

Ja, it does make sense when you think about it.
 
Nick333 said:
Seems a bit of a chicken and egg argument to me. Entrpeneurs are the ones creating products and services that consumers want and buy. Consumers do not consider job creation when buying.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree its like the chicken and egg story, job creation ultimately starts by someone wanting/needing something (The Consumer), if everyone provided for themselves, then there would be no reason to hire people (The Producer) to produce that thing a person wants/needs.

So no consumers means no producers.
 
In one sense he is mistaken, in that the entrepreneur creates market demand for goods, the production of which necessitates job creation.
 
cerebus said:
In one sense he is mistaken, in that the entrepreneur creates market demand for goods, the production of which necessitates job creation.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with that. I'd like to see what he has to say though....

Its not like these billionaires sit with their money in a vault like scrooge mcduck. Their assets are invested in companies that are going the economy.
 
Nerfherder said:
Yes, I agree with that. I'd like to see what he has to say though....

Its not like these billionaires sit with their money in a vault like scrooge mcduck. Their assets are invested in companies that are going the economy.
Click to expand...

It's actually a fundamental misreading of market economics; one could go back to Adam Smith's invisible hand to see that the market functions not because of the impulses of benevolent job creators but because of a mutual self-interest which drives people to provide better services for others because it benefits themselves. Just because entrepreneurs are intensely selfish individuals who wouldn't altruistically create a single job, doesn't mean that jobs don't get created by their actions - and more importantly that we know of a better mechanism to create jobs than entrepreneurship.
 
I can say with confidence that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is 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 middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me.
Click to expand...

Nick Hanauer interprets the act of job creation in a manner which allows him bolster his position on taxing the rich, or the tax system generally.

The concept of a feedback loop between between consumers and business as an engine of economic growth, is not possible, unless one thing happens, the real disposable income of the consumer must increase.
Unless it does, any 'entrepreneurship' acts to reallocate existing resources, with friction. An example is the gambling business.
It is possible to artificially simulate this by credit, but that always ends in the same manner.

So to dilute the meaning of creating a job in the manner Nick does, jobs are created when disposable income is increased to support the cost of that job. In that sense, the people who create jobs are those who change or invent technologies to lower cost, or access previously unobtainable resources etc etc, your basic inventor / innovator/ engineer type.
 
Libertards to reply that the government can't create jobs in 5, 4, 3, 2...
 
ozoned said:
Unless it does, any 'entrepreneurship' acts to reallocate existing resources, with friction.
Click to expand...
That's basically what they're going for. The laws they back are ones intended to effect this wealth transfer.
 
[video=youtube_share;bBx2Y5HhplI]http://youtu.be/bBx2Y5HhplI[/video]
 
Garson007 said:
Libertards to reply that the government can't create jobs in 5, 4, 3, 2...
Click to expand...

… 1. Governments can't create jobs. They can only take money from the productive job-creating sector of the economy and (mis)allocate it to the job-destroying sector.

You might not like it, but it's the truth.
 
Arthur said:
… 1. Governments can't create jobs. They can only take money from the productive job-creating sector of the economy and (mis)allocate it to the job-destroying sector.

You might not like it, but it's the truth.
Click to expand...
:whistle:

I love how truth is based on unsubstantiated opinion. By spending money you create jobs. How is that so difficult to understand?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X