
Too Hot for TED: Income Inequality - spenrose
http://nationaljournal.com/features/restoration-calls/too-hot-for-ted-income-inequality-20120516
======
webXL
Another rich guy trying to persuade average folk that all our problems would
be solved if people like him were taxed more. Never mind that the Buffet-rule
(minimum 35%) would net $31 Billion over the next 11 years versus $7 Trillion
in estimated deficits.
(<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74232.html>)

 _Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be
enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of
people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of
the median American, but we don't buy hundreds or thousands of times more
stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a
few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, we go out
to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

I can't buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of
unemployed and underemployed Americans can't buy any new clothes or cars or
enjoy any meals out. _

But you can invest... Your money isn't stuffed under your mattress, is it??

 _That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a
great deal for both the middle class and the rich._

Are they really investments or are they just political favors that over-cost
and under-deliver? (See the Department of Education, TARP, Medicare, war,
etc.)

~~~
aeturnum
Though I support the idea that wealthy people should pay high taxes, perhaps
even higher taxes than they do now, I think it's also worth noting that the US
already gets 70% of all its taxes from the top 10%[1].

As long as we're keeping capitalism, I don't buy the argument that simply
being rich is wrong. I'm also fairly skeptical of set limits on income, as
setting those limits is very hard. What goes into it? How much money per year
is the limit of a "Just" income? I don't think those questions have a
definitive answer.

I think repealing the bush tax cuts is a good idea. I think we should keep the
estate tax. I think the "buffet rule" isn't bad, but it's no solution. I just
wonder when people will say it's enough. Rich people pay less tax today than
they did a decade ago - but they're making massively more money as well. If we
add all those taxes, and there's still a massive income imbalance, what then?

I think it's in everyone's interest to live in an equal society, for reasons
that I don't want to get into right here. However, I'm dubious that can be
achieved through targeting one social class or another. It seems like the
American right is targeting the poor, while the left is targeting the wealthy.
Everyone feels like a victim and just wants to keep what they have now. What a
crappy situation.

Edit: I missed some words.

[1] <http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table6>

~~~
timwiseman
Well said. To go a bit further, limits on income are likely to encourage
people not to try truly hard or truly risky ventures. Paul Graham addresses
this at <http://paulgraham.com/gap.html>

~~~
davekinkead
Yeah, because high tax rates always discourage entrepreneurship </sarcasm>

Norway - with one of the highest tax rates & comprehensive welfare states on
the planet - has higher rates of entrepreneurship than the USA does.
[http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/20/norway-
entr...](http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/01/20/norway-
entrepreneurial-paradise/)

If you look at international entrepreneur rates, its pretty clear that there
is no relationship between income tax rates and start-up activity (that's not
to say that specific tax policies don't make a difference).
[http://www.internationalentrepreneurship.com/total-
entrepren...](http://www.internationalentrepreneurship.com/total-
entrepreneurial-activity/)

For every argument about high tax discouraging risky ventures, there is a
counter-argument that high safety nets reduce the risk of start ups.

~~~
reinhardt
Speaking of Norway, a recent TC article paints a different picture:
[http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/23/is-norway-leaving-its-
tech-...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/23/is-norway-leaving-its-tech-
startups-out-in-the-cold/)

------
muhfuhkuh
So, when does one prove causation? Because by any economic metric, the times
when we've been fiscally strong is when the top marginal tax rate was higher
than 36% currently. When they lowered it in 2001 from 40% _while going to war_
, it created net zero jobs during the entirety of the Bush administration (and
starting leaking jobs en masse during the crisis in 2008).

One could argue that Reagan's administration saw some powerful growth, adding
15 million net jobs; but, again, he maintained a >50% top marginal tax rate
average through his tenure.

The Clinton administration growth rate was even more powerful (arguably) than
Reagan's, seeing 23 million net jobs during his tenure, and that was when top
marginal rates were nearly 40%.

An outlier, and a very powerful one, is when we saw the largest uplift from
post-war growth phase to absolute juggernaut boomtime, was during the 50s,
when top marginal tax rates were 90%. Somehow, I doubt we'll ever go back to
that time (both in growth and taxation), but we can see that the times of
growth was when top marginal tax rates were over 40%. Dip below, no room to
grow.

IMHO (with evidence), of course.

~~~
georgieporgie
I've heard a number of people (Grover Norquist included) make the claim that
although the top marginal tax rates were higher, there were a far greater
number of tax exemptions available. I have no idea how true this is, and I'm
not aware of anyone who's studied the actual income, wealth, and taxes of
America's rich over the decades.

~~~
aliston
In addition, the point at which the top tax rate kicks in has varied quite a
bit throughout the 1900's. For instance, in the 1950's, when we had a top
marginal tax rates over 90%, the top bracket also kicked in at 400k, which
would be nearly 4 million in todays dollars. That's why merely looking at the
top marginal rate is kind of misleading.

[http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-
individual-1.ht...](http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-
individual-1.html)

~~~
sukuriant
90% of the top bracket..? That seems like honest robbery to me, like saying
"I'm sorry. You're not allowed to make a lot of money. The government needs
this money."

~~~
bsphil
Only if you think people paid all of it without writing anything off.

~~~
sukuriant
Why should it be possible to write it all off? These systems seem to be
completely in disagreement with each other? Why not keep it less than 50%,
just make it harder to write things off O.o

~~~
redthrowaway
Because, in liberal (small-l, read: the West) democracies, the notion that
taxation policy should be used to encourage productive behaviours and
discourage unproductive ones is deeply-enshrined. Thus do we give tax breaks
to people who start companies, create jobs, or invest in same, and further
penalize with a luxury tax those who just go and buy a big fuck-off yacht. We
give tax breaks to local farmers, but tax cigarettes and booze.

If we had the kind of tax structure you propose, we'd equally reward those who
invest their money in growing companies, and those who blow it on hookers and
blow. Some libertarians would claim this as a just tax system, and that the
free market would determine how and where people invest, but this is not an
idea that has much purchase among economists, social scientists, or the
political elite.

------
vannevar
While I wholeheartedly agree with the reasoning presented in the talk, I can
see why TED chose not to distribute it. It presents a pretty conventional
argument for progressive taxation, without bringing any new facts or insight
to the table. Historically, there is no evidence of a significant correlation
between top tax rates and economic growth. Whether you believe taxes help or
hurt the economy is strictly a matter of faith---conservatives hold one
opinion unsupported by the facts, liberals another. Unfortunately this talk
doesn't shed any additional light on the matter.

~~~
dalai
Perhaps it is not a very new or well supported argument, but this is not why
TED chose not to show it. The TED curator basically admits that he doesn't
agree with the idea and that he also finds it too partisan to distribute. I
would be worried if it is really being cut because the curator doesn't agree
with it. Now as to whether it is partisan or not, this is not the first TED
talk that has that "issue", there are TED talks about creationism, atheism,
global warming, contraception, etc.

~~~
roel_v
Eh, no. He _agrees_ with the idea, and exactly _because_ it's too partisan,
doesn't want to distribute it. As he should.

------
mtjl79
I'm sorry but, higher taxes aren't going to solve anything. At the end of the
day, our spending will just not stop. We are just adding fuel to the fire.

We need to:

• Invest in the future: We need to invent, produce, and export new renewable
energy sources. We need to invest in robotic manufacturing because cheap
people labor is not sustainable in any country - robotic is where it will go.

• We need to heavily tax imports like many other countries in the world do.
And have American made things become competitive - we have sold our souls to
Asia.

• Drastically cut bullshit spending. There are billions spent every year
on...bullshit.

• Invest further in Entrepreneurship, and start bringing smart people from
other countries here.

Those are big 4.

The big problem is our countries expenses vs. income is too high. At the end
of the day, a country is a business. And right now, we are a company that is
not running well. We need to clean out the board of directors (Congress) and
start fresh.

~~~
akeefer
Wait a minute: you say that our expenses versus income is too high, but then
also say that higher taxes won't solve anything? Unless you're arguing that
higher taxes won't increase government income (which is a totally specious
argument that people make all the time, but which isn't backed up in the least
by any actual historical analyses), then higher taxes absolutely could solve
the deficit problem. Federal tax revenues as a share of overall GDP are
historically low right now, and merely letting the Bush tax cuts expire for
good would solve almost all of the "deficit crisis." For example see
[http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-
ta...](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-the-
root-of-our-fiscal-problem/) or [http://baselinescenario.com/2011/10/03/how-
big-is-the-long-t...](http://baselinescenario.com/2011/10/03/how-big-is-the-
long-term-debt-problem/)

So I guess it depends on what problem you want to solve, but if you're worried
about the federal deficit, then higher taxes (even in the form of just
eliminating the bush tax cuts) will absolutely help to solve that problem.

~~~
dgreensp
The point is, if the government manages its money poorly, it should make
better decisions rather than taking on more money.

If I tell you, "Fred is always running out of money; in fact, he's deep in
credit card debt," your immediate response is not going to be "He should get a
raise so he can pay off that debt" or "Here, give this money to Fred."

~~~
anthonyb
Perhaps Fred _is_ underpaid and needs a raise?

I'm not sure where you're going with that analogy. It all depends on whether
Fred's spending his money wisely or not.

------
lancewiggs
It's a good argument, but expressed using political code words (job creators
has been co-opted) and without numbers to back it up.

I feel he blew his chance to get the message out. I also feel that most TED
watchers already know this argument.

------
brudgers
Niall Ferguson talking about how the wealth disparity of the "West" relative
to the rest of the world is justified with his typical economic moralism.

[http://www.ted.com/talks/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of...](http://www.ted.com/talks/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_prosperity.html)

Wonderfully, it is part of the "Rethinking Poverty" Theme:

<http://www.ted.com/themes/rethinking_poverty.html>

~~~
nooneelse
It seems to me that many of Ferguson's heavy-lifting
abstractions/generalizations go just as under-quantified and un-backed-up as
Hanauer's. And several times, when Ferguson does show numbers, the "why did he
pare down the dataset?" or choose that particular measure questions go
unremarked. For instance, he mentions the difference between land-ownership in
North and South America, but leaves out the wealthy European countries which
were explicitly part of his explanandum.

------
freshhawk
So if either political party chooses to start throwing bullshit back and forth
on some ideological hot button issue then TED decides that this subject is now
off limits?

Don't we want the people at TED to be able to share good arguments concerning
precisely the things that are most important and most misunderstood (which hot
button political issues are, since people now choose an opinion based on
tribalism rather than reason)

So that reasoning is bullshit. I don't want democrats or republicans choosing
which topics are now off limits for debate because they are now _political_.
For fucks sake, political topics are the ones that need debate. What else does
"political topic" mean other than "this is important to our society and there
is disagreement".

So TED talks are "Riveting talks by remarkable people on subjects that have
not been deemed off limits by one of the two big political parties in the US".

Nevermind the fact that this clearly has nothing to do with political
controversy as described, everyone knows there are talks about evolution,
climate change and cosmology. The only difference is that there are likely
people _at_ TED who might disagree with this one.

------
petercooper
_There’s one idea, though, that TED’s organizers recently decided was too
controversial to spread: the notion that widening income inequality is a bad
thing for America, and that as a result, the rich should pay more in taxes._

I'd suggest it's not too controversial but too pedestrian. Or maybe I'm seeing
this through European eyes; ideologically, this topic/argument is mainstream
here, even if politicians fail to do much about it.

~~~
freshhawk
I think you are seeing this through European eyes. This is the kind of thing
that gets you yelled at, threatened and told you're the "kind of [people]
ruining america" if you talk about it in the US.

It's not controversial among people who are educated in the subject, but among
the general amerian public it's incredibly controversial.

~~~
toyg
The problem is that the feedback loop between US and Europe ends up being very
unbalanced: American thinkers are hugely influential in Europe, but European
ones get disqualified in the US almost by default because they're
"socialists". This is a problem for us Europeans as much as for you.

~~~
freshhawk
They aren't disqualified by any thinkers you would want to listen to, but yes,
in general they are.

Americans, in broadly general terms, aren't interested in non-American things.
Or intellectual anything. So yeah, combine those two together and you get the
worst of those two general trends.

------
gadders
Inequality is a stupid measure. What matters is absolute poverty. If I have a
comfortable standard of living, what do I care if Bill Gates has a million
times more money than me?

~~~
jules
You'd think, but as it turns out, inequality has strong negative effects to
the point that even the rich in an inequal country do worse than the more poor
in a more equal country.

TED talk about it: <http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html>

~~~
meej
I haven't seen either talk, but I am really curious now about why TED would
post Wilkinson's talk but not Hanauer's, if they both address the subject
income inequality.

~~~
jules
From reading the transcript of Hanauer's, Wilkinson's talk is just way better.
He has A LOT of actual data, in fact the whole talk is data, data, data, on
obesity, happiness, violence & homocide, lifespan, infant mortality, trust,
teenage pregnancy, addiction, child wellbeing, mental illness, highschool
dropout, social mobility; all on a country level and on a US state level. He
also shows that inequality is the problem and that GNP per capita hardly
matters ... while Hanauer's talk is 99% rhetoric. Even though the message is
roughly the same, Wilkinson's talk definitely is a lot more objective rather
than subjective political assertions, so it's a lot harder to argue that he's
simply pushing a political agenda.

------
JackFr
It reads like an "Reader's respond" column on the op-ed page in a local
newspaper. The guy makes utterly standard and conventional arguments and then
rests on an appeal to his authority as an whiz-bang investor.

Hardly too hot for TED, more likely to set people to snoozing.

------
tommorris
TED: Ideas worth spreading, so long as they don't challenge the power of the
1%.

~~~
smsm42
The idea of "tax the rich" is hardly needs or worth spreading - you can't open
a newspaper or turn on the TV without seeing another extremely well paid TV
pundit preaching it to you. It's not new, not original, not revealing and not
illuminating. It's something you can read in any speech of any left-wing
politician. I'm glad TED refuses to become a platform for election-campaign
speeches and resists hijacking its platform for opportunist political purposes
- be it left wing or right wing or any other wing politics. There are more
appropriate forums for that.

~~~
tommorris
So all the libertarian sea-steading, private space missions and transhumanist
Singularity madness isn't politics but just neutral science, right?

~~~
smsm42
I have very little idea what you are talking about, because your apparent
attempt of being sarcastic makes it your point a bit unclear, especially when
you at the same time try to put words in my mouth and assign to me points that
I never made. But if you're talking about Transhumanism described here:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism> then indeed I can see very
little connection to current politics - I don't know any prominent
Transhumanist politician and any currently debated law that had any
Transhumanist intentions or ideas behind it. If you know any, please feel free
to point them out, it would be very interesting to consider.

------
jakubmal
I can't believe my eyes actually. As I was opening this comments page, I
thought that majority will represent vastly different opinion here. But since
that's not the case, I decided to speak up.

Nick Hanauer cannot be more wrong. Taxing rich people means punishing someone
for his success. There is no argument that could justify such Robin Hood's
behaviour. In fact that's what was (or is) happening in the communism. So
regression at it's finest. I think that someone hasn't had his history
homework done. The things is that the root of the problem is somewhere else.
If you think about evolution for a second. Weaker species are removed,
stronger survive. It leads to creating better and better species. On the other
hand, if we helped weaker species to survive as well, then not only this
natural filter is effectively stopped, but also ironically, the situation is
even worse for the stronger ones. That would inevitably make the whole
ecosystem poor.

To wrap it up, if God (or some other kind of Force) decided to help poor
species, we, humans, would never exist. Why don't you just support the idea,
that put you into existence?

~~~
ChrisLTD
It's not about punishing success, it's about realizing that the market is not
perfect at distributing wealth, and that wealth is not created in a vacuum.

To the first point, are bankers, the founders of instagram, athletes, and
movie stars really contributing so much to the world that they are worth
hundreds of doctors, or thousands of teachers?

To the second, would you be successful if it weren't for those doctors,
teachers, garbage men, police officers, mail carriers, etc.?

~~~
webXL
Mail carriers? garbage men?? I actually do think my success has little to do
with them.

People are paid what the market says they are worth, at least in the private
sector. There's only one LeBron James and only one Bill Gates. They may stand
on the shoulders of giants, but they each provide more value than what it
costs us collectively to have them entertain us and create software. That's
called consumer surplus. Mass markets produce mass income disparity- the few
winners get the fat end of the distribution curve- but we would be far worse
off with out that consumer surplus they provide.

------
cullen
The case for a progressive tax scheme is that it, may reduce one incentive for
the most financially successful monkeys to plunder the less financially
successful monkeys, including those monkeys who may be just as smart; but,
maybe got started later.

To those of you who are pretending that you've done it all on your own without
nobody's help and get your hands off of mine it's all mine mine mine! You're
deluding yourself.

I can understand why TED don't want to touch his talk. It would be interesting
to note how consistent TED are in this respect.

------
msabalau
What is odd to me is the parocial yardstick that the TED curator is reportedly
using to judge what's controversial. "We already have Melinda Gates on
contraception"

With whom other than the socially conservative wing of the US Republican party
is birth control "controversial"? A few thousand people in Vatican City, some
other religious leaders of their ilk, and a scattering of anti-colonialist
thinkers.

I would have thought TED would have taken a more cosmopolitan view of what
counts as controversy.

------
JackDanger
His point is 100% right, but his argument is inappropriate for wide
distribution. He's not sharing the results of a scientific study, he's not
sharing a personal growthful experience, he's stating his perspective and
inviting others to agree with him.

It's persuasive but that's because I already agree with him. I'd like to see
it backed with real data so it could be persuasive to all. Then it would be
more of an "idea worth spreading" rather than "a really good idea".

------
saraid216
He would have done so much better to shop his Gardens of Democracy book
around. That at least presents some new ideas that aren't talked about enough.
Like vannevar, I fully agree with Nick but the talk is completely pointless.

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Gardens-Democracy-Citizenship-
Gove...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Gardens-Democracy-Citizenship-
Government/dp/1570618232)

------
rdl
I don't have a big problem with income inequality, compared to wealth
inequality (averaged over a long time). Consumption taxes and "death tax" (or
at least a strong social convention toward donating assets in excess of a
certain level, rather than heirs inheriting them) would go a long way. Income
inequality is largely due to differences in economic contribution, and
encouraging people at the far right of the power curve to do more (and be more
numerous) produces positive externalities.

The main quick fixes to the tax code which I'd like to see are immediately
taxing carry as income, getting rid of deductions for employer health
insurance and mortgage interest, and a national sales tax or VAT (ie
consumption tax), ideally highly progressive or exempting the first 50k/yr or
something. Then, look at lowering income tax rates to something like 25% flat
and setting lt capital gains and dividends at slightly less (20%) or the same
as income but indexed for inflation. Get rid of the AMT, and maybe lower
corporate rates to try to get firms to repatriate more and avoid abusive tax
structuring like the double Irish sandwich and such.

A more transparent tax code, even if revenue neutral, would boost economic
activity. A more transparent tax code, taxing things with negative
externalities and not discouraging positive externalities, raising more income
while cutting expenditures greatly, would be even better.

Not that there is much chance of any of this happening.

------
andr3w321
Here's the text and slides to the talk. I'm sure the video will come out
eventually.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/101628527>

I think it's pretty ridiculous TED would not post this video. They really
shouldn't be censoring things like this unless someone is just completely
making things up in their talk in which case they did a poor job of picking
their speaker.

------
mikecane
Post the damn talk and let people make up their own minds. This is a PR
disaster.

------
gte910h
Why is this on Hacker news?

~~~
spenrose
Because I submitted it and it got some upvotes. I submit a fair number of hey-
pay-attention-to-the-political-economy-of-our-wealth links, and this is the
first (?) that's gotten traction. It may be the last, and if so that's fine.

Why did I submit it? My tremendous admiration for and personal gratitude to pg
and the HN community is tempered by a sense that the community, composed as it
is of human beings, tends to think that it deserves the good things that
happen to its members. In the case of the extraordinary wealth, the good
things that happen effect what we might call the political economy of ideas in
the community. I thought this incident might cause a few HNers to think about
that: not Hanauer's ideas, but how deals are actually closed in the proverbial
marketplace of ideas in which we are all participating.

------
mikecane
Discussions like this sometimes stagger me personally. Did Dickens write for
nothing? Does everyone really wish to be Scrooge or Bounderby? Did Jack London
write The People of the Abyss and waste his time? How many times must we
relive that age before the lessons we learned from it at that time are
permanent and inarguable?

~~~
crusso
Why would you think that fictional stories that would be anecdotal if real
should inform anyone of anything?

Real economic issues require solid statistical analysis based upon proven
economic models. Anything less is just a projection of emotional bias that
means little to society and would never solve anything.

~~~
mikecane
OMG. Have you also algorithmically quantified love too? And tell me what a
"proven economic model" is. One where the rich have to hire working class cops
in their off-hours -- depriving said cops' families of their presence -- so
they can feel safe in common spaces? One in which private security and private
prisons are the fastest growing employers? I've got news for you, pal, and you
can shove this up your algorithms: People are not machines and, as messy as
you might find this fact to be, have _emotional_ components. Someone in the
lower rungs of society might not be able to explain with a PowerPoint
presentation the _precise_ manner in which he or she is being screwed, but
_emotionally_ they can _show_ you.

~~~
crusso
> OMG.

I'll leave that there to speak for itself.

> Have you also algorithmically quantified love too?

I can certainly see where an emotional person who doesn't know much about
economics would try to turn this into an emotional issue. It's not. It's an
economic issue. The whole reason why we step from one financial mess to the
next is that we don't make political decisions based upon economic forces such
as supply & demand. Political decisions are typically made to benefit the
power of politicians. They do so by making emotional arguments to people who
don't really understand much about economics but who know how to pull a voting
lever. Congratulations, that means you.

> People are not machines and, as messy as you might find this fact to be,
> have emotional components.

And this has precisely what to do with the economic health of the country?

~~~
mikecane
> OMG.

> I'll leave that there to speak for itself.

It was a trap.

------
johndbritton
Is it possible that by not publishing the talk they'll draw more attention to
it? He should re-record and publish the talk on his own and use the "Streisand
Effect" in his favor.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect>

~~~
nooneelse
He should also use that re-record as a chance to put in more data to support
his point.

And flesh out his thinking. For instance, that bit about:

> "If the typical American family still got today the same share of income
> they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding
> $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case?"

I would love to see some stabs (pessimistic, median, and optimistic) at
following out the economic effects of that question. What is a reasonable
ratio of the $13k which would be put toward more spending, and how would that
effect the demand seen by businesses, and thus the number of jobs supported?

~~~
mchusma
I would also say any attempt to discuss causation would be great. It's very
light on that, and doesn't address any of the huge macro issues to contend
with.

------
confluence
Relevant answer I found on Quora: [http://www.quora.com/Who-creates-wealth-
Entrepreneurs-invest...](http://www.quora.com/Who-creates-wealth-
Entrepreneurs-investors-workers-or-all-three/answers/933836)

The world is more complex than a lot of the arguments that people have on this
issue.

One side appears quite facile and naive in their hero worship of
entrepreneurs/investors at seeing/creating the future (when the chances are
they merely bump into it along with many others).

These are almost universally young people who are nurtured/protected by their
families/society or already successful people who think they are the sole
cause of their success (it's usually a combination of internal AND external
factors).

The other side is too oppressive and cynical, stating that entrepreneurs don't
create jobs, but extract wealth. These are usually unprotected people, the
poor, and the unsuccessful who just don't understand why they are trodden upon
and treated like vermin to be ignored.

The world isn't black or white. It looks like it is extraordinary complex with
many shades of gray.

Hence the best way to look at this issue is thus: If you were the down trodden
upon, the poor, the unlucky, the unhealthy - How would you like the tax system
to treat you?

Would you like them to say:

No, your situation is ALL your fault - the rich matter, we shouldn't tax them
and let them create jobs for little all you.

OR

Yes, the rich are extraordinarily lucky to have what they have, and it would
be best to share that around.

Because as you all know: You had a 50% chance of being born in the rest of the
world, in the darkest poverty, where nothing you did, said, or who you are
meant anything because of your situation.

Born in America: Billionaire.

Born in Afghanistan: Your dead.

What you can achieve has doesn't correlate strongly with what actually happens
to you - you are made by your situation.

We float with the times and environment around us - not the other way around.

~~~
nooneelse
Interestingly enough, the framing of the Quora question leaves out "the
buyers" as part of the critical circle for wealth creation. That is the role
that, I thought, Hanauer's talk was pointing out is played by the middle
class. Perhaps the Quora question meant to capture them as "the workers", but
that, according to my interpretation of the talk, mislabels their most
critical role.

------
fiaz
Shame on the news media for not asking meaningful questions to people who make
claims on either side of the US political spectrum. I feel as though a culture
of timidity to ask questions that lead to clarifying answers is turning into a
culture that politicizes the truth.

------
dgreensp
As others have said, there is not a lot of substantiation in the talk to shed
new light on frequently-discussed topics.

It feels intellectually shaky to assert that the economy will go back to
growing, if only the middle class can go back to spending, which we can
achieve by giving more money to the government.

Here's a different and more TED-like viewpoint: Perhaps economic growth
actually requires movers and shakers. The US has had a good share of them.
These people aren't going to be your archetypal rich fat cats, nor your
average Joe living paycheck to paycheck. If they are rewarded with wealth,
that is a good thing. And sure, some of that wealth can go into a pot to use
for the common welfare.

If we want more consumer spending, let's give people better things to spend
money on, things that help them in their own quest of fulfillment and creating
value.

If businesses are reluctant to hire, it's only because they need to make
correspondingly more money to make the hire worthwhile. As we know from start-
up land, many tasks can't be done better by throwing more people at them,
especially creative tasks. We're still trying to solve the problem of how
individuals can cooperate and merge their individual strengths towards big
goals. A full-time human ought to be a very valuable asset to a company,
though, and many companies can be viewed as engines that take human effort and
turn it into value, creating money.

Economic growth is not to be taken for granted. It requires innovation,
optimism, and positive energy that comes from individuals. There are many
things rich and non-rich people can do with their time and money to help,
besides just giving their money to the government. Take something you're good
at and provide a service, or make something and sell it. Lend a cup of sugar
to your neighbor. Earn what you're worth. Invest in good businesses. Pay
someone to do something for you. And on and on.

------
mchusma
Does anyone have global wealth/tax numbers? I'd argue that the US is not a
closed system. So the % the world governments take vs GDP. This might be
helpful to see if what he is suggesting is plausible.

------
horsehead
I hate the term "the 1%" it's just a bunch of malarkey. Whether you got your
money through savvy investing or hard work, it doesn't matter. What you earn,
you should KEEP. I detest handouts, especially when someone tries to give them
to me. Each person should get according to their work (or their ability to
work. The disabled are the only ones remotely eligible for handouts, IMO).

Now I'll just watch as my karma plummets for speaking my mind on something. Oh
well I guess.

Edit: I do think though that TED is wise not to wade into this battle. It _is_
a very politically charged topic, especially right now.

~~~
tommorris
"Savvy investing or hard work"

So, you are up for some kind of strong inheritance tax to ensure that people
have to work hard or invest savvily rather than just inherit money from their
family.

'Cos, you know, inherited money is neither gotten "according to their work" or
"earned", but rather received purely on the basis of random genetics.

~~~
horsehead
So is the fact that you have a home as a child. I don't see that your argument
holds water. The fact that you live where you live is pure genetics as well.
Why don't you ship your money to starving ethiopians?

If you're going to argue that, then you have to be willing to give up what you
have too. If you're going to talk about the 1% in America, you have to talk
about the USA _as_ the 1%, because, let's face it -- if you live in the US,
you've got a hell of a chance of being better off than most of the world.

~~~
elemenohpee
> So is the fact that you have a home as a child.

Now you're getting it. Educational opportunities, nutrition, etc. It is
exactly these institutional inequalities which lead to the un-meritocratic
wealth distributions which are causing such instability.

------
ktizo
Here's the text of the actual speech, linked to from the article.

[http://roundtable.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/the-
inequality...](http://roundtable.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/the-inequality-
speech-that-ted-wont-show-you.php)

To be honest, it seems to be basic common sense, if this is too controversial
for TED then they are seriously losing their way.

As for saying they had Melinda Gates talking about contraception around the
same time and thinking that it was a reasonable excuse for backtracking. Well
to me, that just doesn't even start to make the slightest bit of sense as an
argument.

