完整版： http://lihlii.blogspot.nl/2012/12/nick-hanauer.html
lihlii @lihlii 2012-11-28 08:01:05 UTC
http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/gap/2012/05/nick-hanauer-on-job-creation-and-inequality.html 关于企业资本创造工作职位的迷思
lihlii @lihlii 2012-11-28 08:03:28 UTC@lihlii 所谓资本家创造就业机会的极端右派说辞，和当初马克思主义说工人创造商品的剩余价值的劳动价值论的极端左派说辞一样，都是违背经济学原理的扯淡。真正的商 品价值和工作职位的创造来源是市场。只有市场交易的完成和繁荣，才是工作职位和商品价值实现的根本。 lihlii @lihlii 2012-11-28 08:14:10 UTC
TED Talk 甚至取消了 Nick Hanauer 关于给富人减税不能增加工作职位的演说录像的发布，可见资本家对舆论的钳制有多严重。 lihlii @lihlii 2012-11-28 08:15:40 UTC
@lihlii 更重要的是，主张给富人加税的巴菲特，驳斥给富人减税增加工作职位的 Nick Hanauer 本人都是富人，资本家。他们的言论说服力更强，因为他们不是屁股决定脑袋，不是为自己的利益说话，相反是损害自己利益而说真话。 lihlii @lihlii 2012-11-28 09:15:31 UTC
@lihlii http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/19/the-ignorance-of-nick-hanauers-ted-speech/ 看 Forbes 上的作者是如何狡辩的，这种狡辩技巧我简直太熟悉了。;) 下载：
http://www.wuala.com/renyun.net/People/N/Nick%20Hanauer/ 合集：
Nick Hanauer -Do Rich People Create Jobs.emulecollection 内容：
Nick Hanauer.480p.webm
Nick Hanauer.720p.webm
Nick Hanauer.en.ass
Nick Hanauer.en.srt
Nick Hanauer.zh.ass
Nick Hanauer.zh.srt
Why is the Nick Hanauer talk not posted _ A conversation on TED_com.maff
ed2k://|file|Nick%20Hanauer.720p.webm|35535409|A6D41FF19EBB1E0D3BB07691BFA1011F|h=B5UIRR5E4E6BNFQNMKCRPQR4YXBUH54O|/
ed2k://|file|Nick%20Hanauer.480p.webm|16756904|B08B566D0B8A73AD952EC8702351E21A|h=CQCFEDILYZTHGEXTKC6NCHRNZY6XRTWD|/
ed2k://|file|Nick%20Hanauer.en.srt|8445|CBF1BFF55371C74D8C8F4EAE220E299B|h=VVA5YEJKB47VY7PXKQQ4JLXT7TW3AU2K|/
ed2k://|file|Nick%20Hanauer.en.ass|10499|400A286B11C9E1A282C73F29518B39FE|h=4GK5UEF4GIG5NBJHNDSYRLYEXZOURURX|/
ed2k://|file|Nick%20Hanauer.zh.ass|10214|7A29D22079443A14DE239EAC81AA8D6C|h=OQEUAY4DHIBOLVJNVZZXPHRFYZFTHUAU|/
ed2k://|file|Nick%20Hanauer.zh.srt|6689|D58B5C3FED7B03A780F0814138C5D5FD|h=QRDF3ON77TNQIWFEJKK5PTXE7CVAVWQZ|/
ed2k://|file|Why%20is%20the%20Nick%20Hanauer%20talk%20not%20posted%20%20_%20A%20conversation%20on%20TED_com.maff|282343|9F4CB85C865F1D27D80726677A52AE6E|h=OZTEQ5KCKUCHEF2JFPWEEYRPT5HTLRVA|/
Banned TED Talk
TheYoungTurksTheYoungTurks·13,343 videos
Top Comments
MichaelWithstand MichaelWithstand 4 months ago Hanauer was banned because he spoke what is true. Such is the ways of this world.·58
Helder de Brito Cabeçadas Dias Helder de Brito Cabeçadas Dias 3 months ago I have found 2 videos on the referred TED Talk coincidentally uploaded on the same day! watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI watch?v=L7SKsxj2hAo Are you at TYT just lazy or plain incompetents!? At least you could add a link to the TED Talk in your video description! All Comments (1,022) TheAlphaPyro TheAlphaPyro 11 hours ago ted has had billy graham and richard dawkins as speakers. You aren’t going to get ideas more polarizing and charged than those. TED’s excuse that it would be too politically charged was lame. The purpose of the talks is to share ideas.
·
Tillie Pearson Tillie Pearson 1 day ago
I thought that if there was anything that would deliver the truth, it would be TED. Apparently not.
·
moeskido moeskido 6 days ago TED doesn’t want to lose all those high-priced event ticket sales. So much of “ideas worth spreading.”
·
EvolvingTruthSeeker EvolvingTruthSeeker 1 week ago Sarah Silvermans talk at TED was also banned .
·
ScribbleMeSour ScribbleMeSour 1 week ago They banned him because they try to be inclusive of all ideas. When you say a wealthy most likely democrat man gave a speech on wealth inequality, he most likely approached this problem from liberal standpoint. The simple fact is by only looking at this problem though the platform of a single political party and not through many different and varied ideas is grounds for removal and disregard. These talks are more to unite the ideas of all and not advertise a certain ideology.
·
Schnake0bitten Schnake0bitten 1 week ago Lets include as many ideas as we can by banning this idea? · in reply to ScribbleMeSour(Show the comment)
ScribbleMeSour ScribbleMeSour 1 week ago Yes because his ideas were exclusive. Just like the system of law there needs to be rules to protect others opinions and ideas. When you start excluding other ideas by only looking at a problem through one scope you essentially trampling on and furthered discussion on the topic.
· in reply to Schnake0bitten(Show the comment)
Schnake0bitten Schnake0bitten 1 week ago I don’t understand how his speech stops other from talking about their own ideas, no matter how ‘exclusive’ his ideas are. What I mean is, why can there not be two exclusive ideas?
· in reply to ScribbleMeSour(Show the comment)
ScribbleMeSour ScribbleMeSour 6 days ago If you have to exclusive ideas fighting against each other who cannot by their own definition include the ideas of other then the opportunity for collaboration is gone.
· in reply to Schnake0bitten(Show the comment)
Kalilden Kalilden 1 week ago I’m sure you might be a lovely, intelligent person, but this comment makes me wonder how you can walk upright with all that stupid weighing your head down. All perspectives are exclusive. Even the espousal of total inclusion is an exclusive idea because it EXCLUDES EXCLUSION. Any time you adopt any point of view as correct, you label conflicting ideas as incorrect. · in reply to ScribbleMeSour(Show the comment)
ScribbleMeSour ScribbleMeSour 6 days ago Yes i agree that inclusion it ‘technically’ exclusion, but standing up on a stage and damning the actions of groups in individuals whether they be conservative or liberal is a bit beyond what should be accepted. No where can a discussion go involving politics. It is the reasons that cause the problem for that need to be addressed.
· in reply to Kalilden(Show the comment)
Kalilden Kalilden 5 days ago If the actions of a group of individuals is criminally deceptive, then they can be damned on whatever stage the one who damns sees fit. There is no reason not to accept a statement if it can be backed by facts. Like I said, this isn’t an issue of political standpoint. It’s an issue of an idea being pushed by a group of individuals that has historically proven to be objectively untrue, and an oversimplified and inaccurate claiming of credit that can be shown through simple logic to be wrong.
· in reply to ScribbleMeSour(Show the comment)
ScribbleMeSour ScribbleMeSour 1 day ago But really this is only you and your point of view on the matter. I respect it but I do not agree at all with it.
· in reply to Kalilden(Show the comment)
Kalilden Kalilden 11 hours ago And apparently the TED runners disagree as well. Congrats, you support repressing ideas.
· in reply to ScribbleMeSour(Show the comment)
ScribbleMeSour ScribbleMeSour 10 hours ago No I support an adequate forum to express ideas. He can go somewhere else to defame people.
· in reply to Kalilden(Show the comment)
Kalilden Kalilden 10 hours ago Defaming would be me getting on a TED talk stage, showing our argument, and saying “how can this fuckwit not see the issues with his argument?” Hanauer demonstrated a stark historical contradiction to claims which conservatives are on record as saying. In other words, he is dealing in facts, not opinions; the truth doesn’t lean Left or Right. And the forum is adequate because this isn’t some personal squabble; it’s an important aspect of economic policy, which affects all of us. · in reply to ScribbleMeSour(Show the comment)
Kalilden Kalilden 10 hours ago It’s true that some people may take the criticisms he presents as defamation, but frankly the message is true, thoughtfully laid-out, and important, which are kind of the criterion for TED talks.
· in reply to ScribbleMeSour(Show the comment)
Kalilden Kalilden 10 hours ago …Listen, I shouldn’t have called you a fuckwit. At least not yet. I’m just cranky because I haven’t eaten yet, my bad.
· in reply to ScribbleMeSour(Show the comment)
ScribbleMeSour ScribbleMeSour 6 hours ago I appreciate your apology, someone who could debate an issue quite eloquently surprised me with such a word. But anyway, regardless of if his words had any truth, the way he went about trying put forth his message was wrong. In stead of listing the misgivings of people who did not have foresight for such misgivings he should have listed practical ways in which to solve the problem. I am well aware of the turmoil that plagues the world. One really needs to just focus on fixing the problem though.
· in reply to Kalilden(Show the comment)
Kalilden Kalilden 6 hours ago In order to implement a solution, one must first identify the problem. Not everyone is aware of these turmoils, and many of those who ARE aware don’t know the nature or extent of the root causes, of which corporate greed is indisputably one. The line that captains of industry and CEOs are “Job Creators” and should thus be specially rewarded is a documented lie that helps facilitate that greed’s manifestation, which needs to be exposed on whatever stage is available.
· in reply to ScribbleMeSour(Show the comment)
Kalilden Kali
lden 1 week ago Further, the only way the talk was from a ‘liberal standpoint’ was that it tore down a factual inaccuracy that is and has been promoted by prominent conservative Republicans. This isn’t an issue of a party line; have you actually watched the talk? You can now. The historical facts he presents are pretty damning of the “coddle Job Creators” ideal. So yes. Your comments make no goddamn sense.
· in reply to ScribbleMeSour(Show the comment)
ScribbleMeSour ScribbleMeSour 6 days ago What I base my assertion of this entire problem is on the report of these web journalists. They presented said facts and then I responded to how I felt about it from a non-bias perspective. The fact is the TED conference and others like it such as RSA are meant to bring people together with reasonings that are based on MATH, SCIENCE, LANGUAGE, things that are finite to solve a problem. I feel as if though when you bring politics into somewhere it doesn’t belong then there’s a major problem.
· in reply to ScribbleMeSour(Show the comment)
Monochromicornicopia Monochromicornicopia 1 month ago This is an old episode of TYT. Why is this just now news?
·
k3nny111 k3nny111 1 month ago By now everybody knows that trickle-down doesn’t work. Even most republicans, they just don’t give a shit.
·
kakashi76767 kakashi76767 1 month ago Watch the TED talks by Willkinson.
·
saltypork101 saltypork101 1 month ago It’s on youtube, and TED let him talk LIVE! They just don’t want the guy’s stuff on their website! That’s their choice, and it’s OK! Stop going mental!
·
kakashi76767 kakashi76767 1 month ago OK crazy occasional CAPS LOCK guy!
· in reply to saltypork101(Show the comment)
saltypork101 saltypork101 1 month ago One word. For emphasis.
· in reply to kakashi76767(Show the comment)
kakashi76767 kakashi76767 1 month ago You typed the words “live” and “ok” in caps, captain! That’s TWO words! You really went mental!
· in reply to saltypork101(Show the comment)
saltypork101 saltypork101 1 month ago That’s how OK is supposed to look… Sorry for the confusion…
· in reply to kakashi76767(Show the comment)
kakashi76767 kakashi76767 1 month ago I forgive you.
· in reply to saltypork101(Show the comment)
David Curiel David Curiel 1 month ago We need to have intelligent people speaking out. TED should understand this.
·
medhue medhue 1 month ago You gotta love how Cenk put 1 graph up and somehow this 1 factor tells it all. People have to be morons to think Cenk is not full of crap. I’m not pro corp, but you can’t honestly say that 1 things cause the problem. How many new law were created, and who benefits from all those laws. Taxing a corp more, only means the customers will pay more, the corp will still make similar profits, they just pass the tax onto the consumer.
·
PaulIvanish PaulIvanish 1 month ago So TED finally got it out of the dark room: they’re in favor of keeping it real and true and progressive, just not so real that they might get in trouble. Yeah… great way to be objective.
·
Jayremy89 Jayremy89 2 months ago I used to really love TedTalks with much of the older content, then I started to find their content degrading over time to some menial, non-informative, lacking in boldness, random and lacking of importance or truth behind it.
·
Letatax Letatax 2 months ago Or maybe they banned it because otherwise no one would be discussing this revolutionary video. Maybe we should give this large group of highly educated people the benefit of the doubt.
·
BlueBleedStl BlueBleedStl 3 months ago Banned how? I just watched it on TED TV. and YAK TV. I seem to be missing something here.
·
gohoggyourself gohoggyourself 2 months ago The news story is from may, it could have been reinstated.
· in reply to BlueBleedStl(Show the comment)
Radnally Radnally 3 months ago Banned? I found it all over
·
AFSRodrigues AFSRodrigues 3 months ago Yes, but is uploaded without the permission of TED Talks. It should appear on their site and official youtube channel.
· in reply to Radnally(Show the comment)
Helder de Brito Cabeçadas Dias Helder de Brito Cabeçadas Dias 3 months ago I have found 2 videos on the referred TED Talk coincidentally uploaded on the same day! watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI watch?v=L7SKsxj2hAo Are you at TYT just lazy or plain incompetents!? At least you could add a link to the TED Talk in your video description!
·2
Emost514 Emost514 3 months ago here the link for the banned Ted talk: upworthy.com/breaking-you-know-that-ted-talk-you-werent-supposed-to-see-here-it-is-2?g=2&c=bl1
·
John Wilson John Wilson 4 months ago I watched Nick’s TED talk on youtube. PoliticalYAK has it posted on his sight as do other youtubers.
·
4017bb This has been flagged as spam show 4017bb 4 months ago
secretendeavor1 secretendeavor1 4 months ago The loss of jobs over the last 30-something years was not the result of tax cuts, welfare spending or other errant congressional policy…it was and IS the integration of over 2 BILLION newly employable workers in emerging economies. Only shrew protectionist policies cold have hoped to slow the inevitable. By the way, U.S. and European protectionist policies in the first half of the 20th century exacerbated the lead up to WWI and WWII. Remember that.
·
joe blow joe bl
ow 4 months ago The jobs were created… Just not in America lol. -.- It’s a joke folks… clam down.
·
doyle2001 doyle2001 4 months ago I have lost all faith in TED.
·
anonymoose711 anonymoose711 4 months ago “Some of the country’s best-known multinational corporations closely guard a number they don’t want anyone to know: the breakdown between their jobs here and abroad.So secretive are these companies that they hand the figure over to government statisticians on the condition that officials will release only an aggregate number. The latest data show that multinationals cut 2.9 million jobs in the United States and added 2.4 million overseas between 2000 and 2009.”
·
anonymoose711 anonymoose711 4 months ago source – google: ‘ Corporations pushing for job-creation tax breaks shield U.S.-vs.-abroad hiring data washington post ‘
· in reply to anonymoose711(Show the comment)
Roberto Aramburu Roberto Aramburu 4 months ago i thought ted “ideas worth spreading” was controversial, i guess you can be controversial as long as it helps the big fishes…
·
iamjswann iamjswann 4 months ago What Nick Hanauer fails to tell you in this TED talk is that he, himself, is directly responsible for creating over 51,000 jobs because of his investment in Amazon.com, and indirectly likely responsible for over 100,000 more jobs created because of Amazon.com. We should be thanking people like Nick for the risk he took with his money that created all of these jobs, not villainizing them for it.
·
hksin11186 hksin11186 3 months ago Did you even attempt to find and watch his talk? It’s posted in plenty of other places.
· in reply to iamjswann(Show the comment)
AFSRodrigues AFSRodrigues 3 months ago What he says is that the jobs are also created because there’s demand for the product or service they’re providing, so you can say that consumers also have a part in creating jobs. So, should we give tax cuts to the consumers too? Or instead, should we stop giving tax cuts to rich people? We’re not telling them that is wrong that they’re rich. We’re asking them to pay their share, just like everybody else.
· in reply to iamjswann(Show the comment)
Relativisticism Relativisticism 4 months ago Translation: Your speech was too accurate and truthful so we will not support it being viewed by any additional people to educate them on what is really happening.
·2
DarkprinX2500 This has been flagged as spam show DarkprinX2500 4 months ago
DarkprinX2500 Comment removed Author withheld
·
MichaelWithstand MichaelWithstand 4 months ago Hanauer was banned because he spoke what is true. Such is the ways of this world.
·58
Agoateeman Agoateeman 4 months ago Agreed. not to mention that the wealthy in the country control more and more of it and are often able to get their way through their increased power. not so for the average guy.
· in reply to MichaelWithstand(Show the comment)
MichaelWithstand MichaelWithstand 4 months ago I’m not against wealthy people. I’m against too much greed that would sacrifice men. The PILLAR of democracy and civilization is the MIDDLE CLASS. Without a strong middle class you can’t have a healthy democracy or even a healthy nation, economically and politically. Today is no longer about hardwork and determination, too much now depends on what kind of privilege you’re born into. DO NOT squeeze the middle class. Certainly the ones needing protection are the middle class not the very wealthy.
· in reply to Agoateeman(Show the comment)
nobodyisachosenone nobodyisachosenone 1 month ago damnn right you are, hooah!
· in reply to MichaelWithstand(Show the comment)
MichaelWithstand MichaelWithstand 1 month ago What is happening is that US political system has been captured by the 1 percenter. The population has been duped into believing what is best for the top 1 percenter is good for the rest of the society which is often NOT the case. Atm they are trying shamelessly to put one of them the one percenter as a presidential candidate and trying again to deceive the rest into believing what is good for the top 1 percenter is good for the whole society. Mr Hanauer spoke true & spoke well. Dangerous truth.
· in reply to nobodyisachosenone(Show the comment)
MichaelWithstand MichaelWithstand 1 month ago There’s nothing wrong with being very rich but being very rich at the expense of the rest of the society now that’s wrong. The surest way to empower yourself is by empowering the people around you. Likewise the surest way to be wealthy is by making other people wealthy too. Greed may motivate people and that’s good but too much greed INCAPACITATES and RUIN other people and that’s bad for the society and nation.
· in reply to nobodyisachosenone(Show the comment)
DollaramaShopper DollaramaShopper 4 months ago Correlation does not equal causation, but that is irrelevant. It is irrelevant whether or not his talk was biased or untrue. If TED posted Rich Warren’s content-less babbles then the speaker’s statements do not need to be completely valid and objective.
·
AMRosa10 AMRosa10 4 months ago It is funny because many TED talks have talked about the abject poverty and wealth disparity in Third world nations, but heaven for bid we should talk about it here. It is like all of the charitable events to feed the starving in the third world, but suggest feeding Americans, having government funded jobs programs, or having social protections and “OH NO! They are lazy, good for nothing welfare cheats!” The thinking in the US is warped.
·
Cem Kaan KÖSALI Cem Kaan KÖSALI 4 months ago ted ‘de seyretmek zorunda değiliz. facebook’da seyredebiliriz.
·
zoebiflap zoebiflap 4 months ago Ia Cthulhu. Ph’nglui Mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn.
· in reply to Cem Kaan KÖSALI(Show the comment)
dontmiss dontmiss 4 months ago who owns TED?
·
Steve Craig Steve Craig 4 months ago I tend to agree with quite a bit of what you say, but graphs like the one that show up at 4:05 really hurt you. You actually have a graph with 9.3 well above 22.4. Please don’t commit stupid mistakes like that anymore. ·
CardPlay3r CardPlay3r 4 months ago you’re misreading the graph, just follow the colors
· in reply to Steve Craig(Show the comment)
robwilson43 robwilson43 4 months ago This is why spending on education is so important. It appears that you have never seen a chart with dual axes.
· in reply to Steve Craig(Show the comment)
Steve Craig Steve Craig 4 months ago Actually I mis-read the graph, somehow thinking both were effective tax rates, despite the fact that it is clearly labelled as effective tax for highest income & unemployment. I had the notion of % of wealth owned by the richest X% & the poorest Y% on the brain. Guess I made the stupid mistake.
· in reply to robwilson43(Show the comment)
robwilson43 robwilson43 4 months ago You’re a good man my friend. Most people on here don’t like to admit mistakes. Happy 4th!
· in reply to Steve Craig(Show the comment)
justgivemethetruth justgivemethetruth 5 months ago Those tax cuts did not create jobs, they created a very small elite class of people with the entitlement to royalty, to keep their place, their jobs, their bonuses, their raises now matter what they do and the right to keep everyone else down by impoverising the public space – in fact their goal is to rid the world or anything public. This is an abomination under any form of post-enlightenment western thinking and it only works because of the Mafia gangland elite group that it creates.
·45
TheNonAntiAnarchist TheNonAntiAnarchist 1 week ago I have to lol at the idea that tax cuts are the main force keeping elites in the positions they hold.
· in reply to justgivemethetruth(Show the comment)
justgivemethetruth justgivemethetruth 1 week ago That you think your emotional reaction to this or any issue means anything says you do not have a real or factual argument to an idea that scares you. LOL all your want, who cares?Before Reagan the US was fiscally responsible, then Republicans decided for some reason to drive the economy off the cliff, but those with lots of money are in a substantially different place than the average American. Tax cuts have not created jobs and have hobbled the government from being able to do its job.
· in reply to TheNonAntiAnarchist(Show the comment)
TheNonAntiAnarchist TheNonAntiAnarchist 1 week ago Your first sentence is an assumption. Your second sentence is clearly partisan, and I have no care for partisan politics, or politics of any kind really. I could give a fuck what sociopath did the spending. Now, as a matter of fact, you’re wrong in your second claim, as gov’t spending has continually risen since at least 1913.
· in reply to justgivemethetruth(Show the comment)
TheNonAntiAnarchist TheNonAntiAnarchist 1 week ago And lastly, you can’t prove tax cuts didn’t create jobs because you have no parallel universe in which you could observe the same chain of events absent the tax cuts. There are billions of variables that determine job growth, and yet you ignore that you can’t control for them. And trust me, the gov’t is by no means short of revenue. For you to imply otherwise would be ridiculous. Just look at gov’t revenues over time.
· in reply to justgivemethetruth(Show the comment)
justgivemethetruth justgivemethetruth 1 week ago Yes I can prove that tax cuts did not lead to jobs, because the tax cuts for the last twelve years have just put money in the hands of the very wealthy who invest it offshore. Jobs are not being created here. There are not “billions” of variables that determine job growth, there several “first-order” things to look at, but you have no idea what that means no doubt. Anyway you are about as non-serious as they come so this is a waste of time.
· in reply to TheNonAntiAnarchist(Show the comment)
justgivemethetruth justgivemethetruth 5 months ago Does this woman have enough makeup on?
·
justgivemethetruth justgivemethetruth 5 months ago when facts and truth becomes political you know there is something really wrong.
·
mikerodeman This has been flagged as spam show mikerodeman 5 months ago
mikerodeman Comment removed Author withheld
·
mikerodeman Comment removed Author withheld
·
Seka Menacerecords Seka Menacerecords 5 months ago Who cares what it costs to attend a TED conference? They are freely available to the public the world across, myself included. Go to their channel, all free. I do agree TED should have shown this video, they’ve shown other ‘controversial’ talks, so why not this?
·
HeliosMachina HeliosMachina 4 months ago you can actually watch the talk here /watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI
· in reply to Seka Menacerecords(Show the comment)
mattyelle1 mattyelle1 5 months ago TYT is crap!!!
·
BeBoBli BeBoBli 5 months ago Cenk. Correlation != Causation Just saying, not arguing for or against.
·
justgivemethetruth This has been flagged as spam show justgivemethetruth 5 months ago
mantonio121773 mantonio121773 5 months ago Excellent work folks – please keep it up
·
themarcusismael13 themarcusismael13 5 months ago amen
· in reply to atosafi1(Show the comment)
ierhnth ierhnth 5 months ago ◆◇◆ 生活が苦しい方、訳がありお金に困っている方など…見て頂ければ幸いです。今現在、私には「１００，０００
０００円」以上の資産が御座いま す。ですが私は癌で余命宣告を受けております。子供や親族も一切おりません…この「１００，０００，０００円」を受け取りたいという方がいま したら、出来る限りお早めにご連絡を頂きたいと思います。大金が不安な方は少額でも構いません。youtubeですとルール違反となり連絡が 途絶えてしまうので、こちらのブログサイトよりご連絡下さい。制限などありませんのでスムーズにお話しが進められると思います→ httｐ://785.jp /
·
semperveritatem semperveritatem 5 months ago That makes quite a bit of sense.
· in reply to atosafi1(Show the comment)
semperveritatem semperveritatem 5 months ago Correlation doesn’t equal causation. And that chart is manipulated to look more severe. Maybe Hanauer’s message is true, but that slide means very little.
·
XplicitGlam XplicitGlam 5 months ago So what are we gonna do about this? ~eats a cheeto~
·
DexterHaven49 DexterHaven49 5 months ago Nick is dishonest and muddle-headed.
·
Moose Head Moose Head 5 months ago Nick is a bubonic ape.
·
garretth48 garretth48 5 months ago To go from the Ted talk to the planned parenthood thing was a textbook liberal non sequitur segue. TED probably made a conscious decision not to be seen as going off the deep end. I listened to the clip that was available on youtube; long on redistribution, short on economic fundamentals.
·
dan69052 dan69052 5 months ago If this guy wrote a book, would TED burn it.
·
rossdaboss06 rossdaboss06 5 months ago It wasn’t that his talk was political, it was that it was logically bankrupt…his claim was that consumers are the job creators, because without consumers to buy products then businesses would not be able to service them and thus consumers drive the economy. What he failed to recognize is, where exactly do consumers get their money from? They must be productive enough to obtain money to buy products/services, and they must either create their own jobs or get their jobs from an evil capitalist..
·
Dragonsnack73 Dragonsnack73 5 months ago in playlist Politics Well, what money will “job creators” make when there is no jobs=consumers to buy their products or services. The trickle down economy is just as logically bankrupt, isn’t it? To my (naive) understanding it seems that you need both, because neither side can live without the other. Check out the Wikipedia or NYT articles on “Kurzarbeit” for an example how you can “create consumption” even during economic downturns: people don’t lose their jobs, they only lose 10% for their income (temporarily).
· in reply to rossdaboss06(Show the comment)
rossdaboss06 rossdaboss06 5 months ago Producers will sell their product to other producers, who have accumulated wealth from their own production- you don’t need to tax the production of a producer in order to give his wealth to a consumer, for that consumer to buy the producers production- is that a serious question? Read “How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes” by Peter Schiff to wash that Keynesian propaganda out of your head.
· in reply to Dragonsnack73(Show the comment)
Dragonsnack73 Dragonsnack73 5 months ago As i said, “naive understanding”. Yes, it was a serious question 😉 I see your point, i guess it’s a question of what you value more, job security (= steady income = steady consumption = steady profit) or profit. Kinda a risk vs. reward scenario? Anyway, don’t want to waste your time! You have a nice day 🙂 · in reply to rossdaboss06(Show the comment)
rossdaboss06 rossdaboss06 5 months ago All I’m saying is that economic growth is derived from people actually producing value- it has absolutely nothing to do with taxing people in order for the tax receivers to consume the products of the producers, that’s a complete economic fallacy that is dangerous propaganda to spread · in reply to Dragonsnack73(Show the comment)
drcphd drcphd 5 months ago Of course the talk was removed. TED is for people who actually think before they talk.
·
bigglyguy bigglyguy 5 months ago “It’s obviously the republican’s fault” WTF? Wake up; BOTH mainstream parties are effectively identical, regardless of rhetoric. Stop embarrassing us…
·2
drche420 drche420 5 months ago Hey TED, why don’t you let the public decide whether his speech is “too controversial”? Because, even if it is, so what? Bad things happen. Shouldn’t everyone be aware of it?
·
kaysandesses kaysandesses 5 months ago Here’s what Chris Anderson the de facto head of TED said the Haneuer: “Your argument comes down firmly on the side of one party. “ Well WTF Chris. You had no problem posting Richard Dawkins speech, who incidentally, is the most well-recognized defender of the Theory of Evolution and an ardent atheist. Since when is evolution and atheism popular ideas among Republicans?
· in reply to drche420(Show the comment)
drche420 drche420 5 months ago You’re obviously prejudiced against Dawkins and you’ve demonstrated your ignorance of evolution all in one sentence. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and a professor. His job for decades was teach people about the fact of evolution. The Theory of Evolution is irrelevant. How evolution occurred (the theory) explains the fact of change over time (evolution). I’m merely attempting to correct you for your own sake in the future.
· in reply to kaysandesses(Show the comment)
kaysandesses kaysandesses 5 months ago You apparently misread my post. 😉 Chris is the boss of TED.
· in reply to drche420(Show the comment)
drche420 drche420 5 months ago Just pointing out that Richard isn’t defending the theory of evolution so much as evolution itself. The how is not as important as the what.
· in reply to kaysandesses(Show the comment)
kaysandesses kaysandesses 5 months ago I agree with what you’re saying but you completely missed the meaning in my post. Here it is stated differently: TED thought Hanaeur’s address was too politically unilateral, but he had no qualms with disseminating Dawkin’s address which is every bit as unilateral as Hanaeur’s, both being biased toward the political left. That leads me to believe that Anderson’s personal disagreement with Hanaeur’s message was the real motive for not releasing the video.
· in reply to drche420(Show the comment)
drche420 drche420 5 months ago I didn’t miss your meaning so much as I ignored what I agreed with and only mentioned what I disagree with.
· in reply to kaysandesses(Show the comment)
kaysandesses This has been flagged as spam show kaysandesses 5 months ago
Seán O’Nilbud Seán O’Nilbud 5 months ago There is no opposing viewpoint to evolution, there’s just ignorance.
· in reply to kaysandesses(Show the comment)
kaysandesses kaysandesses 5 months ago Well stated.
· in reply to Seán O’Nilbud(Show the comment)
Steven Bee Steven Bee 5 months ago Contraception is a controversial issue? Holy fuck America, you’re fucked up…
·
AntitheistPOV AntitheistPOV 5 months ago Potato.
· in reply to onemindtrip(Show the comment)
AntitheistPOV AntitheistPOV 5 months ago His number was accurate enough for an off the top of his head reference. Making a semantic point about infants and people past menopause taking contraception just makes you sound silly.
· in reply to onemindtrip(Show the comment)
jlopez9090 jlopez9090 5 months ago WOW. One of TYT’s worst stories! Hanauer’s talk was sub par for Ted standards and provided very little evidence. It was unnecessarily political and had no solutions. Watch it, the speech was flat. Ted only release 1 video a day and there were better talks that deserved to go 1st. Ted has previously released a Talk by Richard Wilkinson about the perils of income inequality. It was a good speech and had MANY facts and was not needlessly political. Hanauer then made a PR attack against TED. smh
·
AntitheistPOV AntitheistPOV 5 months ago Actually, no, it’s not. Source – U.S. Bureau of the Census • Virtually all women (more than 99%) aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.[2]
· in reply to onemindtrip(Show the comment)
AntitheistPOV AntitheistPOV 5 months ago Which statistics are you claiming were “made up”?
· in reply to onemindtrip(Show the comment)
BMcbugger BMcbugger 6 months ago Wow. This was one of the most incompetent “news” videos I’ve ever seen. Made up statistics. Left slanted speculation. Left slanted speculation. Left slanted speculation. TYT – No integrity. Not news.
·
alsander124 alsander124 5 months ago im not sure about the made up the statistics. but the fact that them being left slanted is bad? i dont see the problem.at least they are the right bias
· in reply to BMcbugger(Show the comment)
Lone77Wolf Lone77Wolf 5 months ago hmm and whats your view of fox?
· in reply to BMcbugger(Show the comment)
AntitheistPOV AntitheistPOV 5 months ago After Google-ing, Hanauer’s numbers seem accurate. Unemployment increased from 1995 to 2009 while taxes for the wealthy decreased during the same period. The reason Republicans gave for decreasing taxes for the wealthy was job creation. Concluding, based on these numbers, that decreasing taxes for the wealthy does not necessarily create jobs seems reasonable to me. Would you care to demonstrate that anything you just said is true or provide any evidence whatsoever for the claims you just made?
· in reply to BMcbugger(Show the comment)
BMcbugger BMcbugger 5 months ago Yeah. Good job vetting the information. Ever heard of cherry-picking? Right off the top of my head, what is it about 2009 that’s different from other years… Oh yeah. That’s right. 2009 is when standard unemployment numbers peaked after the crash of 2008. But wait, is there more? Oh yeah, another thing I can just think of off the top of my head – taxes didn’t decrease from 1995 – 2009. “Huh? Really?” No. “Well then, what happened?”. First off, in 1993 Clinton increased taxes.
· in reply to AntitheistPOV(Show the comment)
BMcbugger BMcbugger 5 months ago Most of those increases remained in place until 1997. Conditions for the economy were ideal in the early ’90s following the fall of “the wall”. Growth continued despite the increase in taxes, but it was slow. After the ’97 tax cuts though, the economy boomed, producing the “surplus” of the late ’90s. However, even the ’97 tax cuts didn’t cut taxes all the way around. Constantly since the end of George H.W. Bush there have been numerous fees and “hidden taxes” inserted into the economy.
· in reply to AntitheistPOV(Show the comment)
BMcbugger BMcbugger 5 months ago For instance, there is a transportation tax on fuel. There are taxes for imports and exports. There are multi-layered fees for registering businesses. There are fees to get certified for many industries. There are fees to pay annually, simply to remain in business. There are taxes on certain industrial equipment. There are taxes on the transfer of raw materials to new stages of industrial development. There are taxes on parts/goods to be transported across the U.S.
· in reply to AntitheistPOV(Show the comment)
BMcbugger BMcbugger 5 months ago There are multiple layers upon layers upon layers of taxes and fees and certifications for things like medical care and various regulatory commissions… All constantly being increased every single year. Do you know how often these things get eliminated? Almost never. You get taxed if you die and attempt to leave your wealth to your family. You get taxed if you give a big enough gift. These elements of stripping wealth from private individuals haven’t decreased. They’ve increased.
· in reply to AntitheistPOV(Show the comment)
BMcbugger BMcbugger 5 months ago &n
bsp; Yet, one can look at over 100 years of economic history in the U.S. and see one clear repetitive truth. Every time taxes are significantly decreased, they’re followed by ecnonomic growth. Which DID happen when the Bush tax cuts were put in place. Around 2000 the economy took another dip. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were more a response to that dip as much as they were an adherence to ideological notions of “lower taxes are good for everybody”.
· in reply to AntitheistPOV(Show the comment)
BMcbugger BMcbugger 5 months ago And even though there were definite decreases to taxes, the “tax cuts” weren’t permanent and have to be approved again and again for them to remain in place, otherwise the tax rate reverts to the higher level it was during Clinton’s Administration. Lastly, just use some common sense. Did the total number of private sector jobs increase from 1995 to 2008? Yes. If all the businesses owned by wealthy people disappeared with the wealthy business owners, would jobs disappear with them? Yes.
· in reply to AntitheistPOV(Show the comment)
BMcbugger BMcbugger 5 months ago Has Hanauer ever owned or run a business for a significant amount of time in his life, relying on said business for his sole source of income? No. Are there people in this country who technically earn over $1,000,000 a year because they own a business and the gross income of the business shows up as the sole proprietor’s income that actually take a loss for the year? Yes. Because those people have to pay a whole slew of costs, fees, and taxes before they get their cut.
· in reply to AntitheistPOV(Show the comment)
BMcbugger BMcbugger 5 months ago Now, run along and have fun.
· in reply to AntitheistPOV(Show the comment)
AntitheistPOV AntitheistPOV 5 months ago Taxes for the wealthy did decrease during between 1995-2009 and employment decreased. You can post as many paragraphs as you like, your conclusions are still going to be incorrect when you base them on incorrect premises.
· in reply to BMcbugger(Show the comment)
drche420 drche420 5 months ago So presenting facts is not news?
· in reply to BMcbugger(Show the comment)
FreeSheep FreeSheep 6 months ago CENK YOU GOT IT WRONG! Ted banned the talk because only banned things can spread!
·
skiball100points Comment removed Author withheld
· in reply to Naryan Robinson(Show the comment)
YouHolli YouHolli 6 months ago fun fact: youtubes auto subtitle machine doesn’t recognize the word “youtube”.
·
lilityger19 lilityger19 6 months ago 1:42 – why did that guy sniff that wall?
·21
apocaRUFF apocaRUFF 5 months ago Don’t question a mans attraction to a wall. It’s a can of worms you do not want to open.
· in reply to lilityger19(Show the comment)
ubidubi04 ubidubi04 5 months ago 1:28 – why did he sniff it twice?
· in reply to lilityger19(Show the comment)
Deleuzeshammerflow Deleuzeshammerflow 6 months ago their decision to censor a politically charged speech is too politically charged.
·17
captcrais101 captcrais101 6 months ago trickle down means piss on the middle class and poor.
·
amrules22 amrules22 6 months ago I do generally agree with better income equality and higher taxes on the rich but I think that graph that they highlight is slightly misused and the way they use it is out of context. There are many other factors that affect unemployment and it is a very superficial statement to say that higher taxes leads to less unemployment or vice versa.
·
jjjohn jjjohn 6 months ago i agree with the points nick hanauer brought up in his talk, but his slide at 4:19 in
lihlii.posterous.com 存档 
Trackbacks
[…] 《金融时报》麻省理工学院斯隆管理学院教授 黄亚生: 为什么中国需要左派 http://lihlii.blogspot.com/2012/03/blog-post_8327.html 美国金融危机后反右派资本家的纪录片 资本主义：一个爱情故事 Capitalism A Love Story https://lihliiposterous.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/capitalism-a-love-story/ 影评： 资本主义：一个爱情故事 Capitalism A Love Story https://lihliiposterous.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/capitalism-a-love-story-3390/ 2 https://lihliiposterous.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/capitalism-a-love-story-02/ Nick Hanauer：给富人减税不能增加工作职位 https://lihliiposterous.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/nick-hanauer/ […]