Wealth Creators.

[elmarko]

Venture Capitalist Nick Hanauer gives a talk on wealth creators & the erosion of the middle class in modern western democracies.

I have to concur that the term "wealth creator" is banded around by certain people of a certain political persuasion with a loaded intent - it's highly dishonest to take credit for demand & the spending choices of the population (which in turn drive demand/wealth creation).

Why (within our current political make-up) do we lack any politicians who seem interests in bolstering the spending power of the middle/working classes?.

Do you think any party has the interests of the wider population at heart?,

Will we ever make any reasonable social progress living within a corporatist plutocracy?.

Immigration seems to be pushed as a core issue, but the straining of the middle/working classes has much greater consequences for the standing of living for the population of the UK - it's almost as if it's used a political tool to distract the public while the ruling class steal all the money.

As history can easily teach us, in times of austerity the foreign man is blamed for the failings of the population.

We talk about needing economic growth, but how can this be possible with a population living through the longest known phase of wage repression?.

 

[ntg]

Because political parties have a short timeframe of interest,that is until the next election. Given that the last year of a party's rule is spent on electioneering, and the first year in power in getting to grips with stuff, that leaves about 2 good years to initiate, consult and implement policies.

The time horizon for the benefit delivery _must_ be within their currency as a leading party as they cannot afford (politically) their opposition taking credit for things they did.

Therefore, the short-termism nature of politics deny citizens of the most effective and robust policies. Especially considering that the opposition has every incentive to lambast any and all government policies, whether they personally agree with them or not - there will always be someone who loses out of a policy and the opposition can always pander to them or spin something the way they want it.

That's it in a nutshell, and all that drives politicians to look for self-interest only and how they can get reelected, not the 'good of the people'.

 

[Ahleckz]

Governments role shouldn't be to bolster the spending power of anyone. They are there to provide services, legislate and represent the country within today's globalist World. Perhaps when people stop expecting government to sort of all our social ills, then people will prosper more.

 

[estebanrey]

I fully agree, a great presentation. Demand creates jobs not CEOs and as he said it's in a business' interest to keep staff overheads down by as much as possible.

When a robot can replace a human, business will be quick to fire the employee and replace them with tech so when these billionaire business men describe themselves as 'job creators' it is disingenuous. They will only hire more people if the net result is an overall gain for themselves, they don't do it out of the kindness of their hearts.

 

[elmarko]

Governments role shouldn't be to bolster the spending power of anyone. They are there to provide services, legislate and represent the country within today's globalist World. Perhaps when people stop expecting government to sort of all our social ills, then people will prosper more.

But it's pretty clear that unrestricted capitalism leads to price-fixing & cartels - the "free market" is as much of a myth as big-foot & the Loch-ness monster.

Government is required to curtail the excesses of greed (which left unchecked) will cause the entire system to collapse.

The purpose of government is also to ensure that cyclic consumption can continue.

 

[Ahleckz]

But it's pretty clear that unrestricted capitalism leads to price-fixing & cartels - the "free market" is as much of a myth as big-foot & the Loch-ness monster.

Government is required to curtail the excesses of greed (which left unchecked) will cause the entire system to collapse.

The purpose of government is also to ensure that cyclic consumption can continue.

I'm not advocating deregulation, I'm all for certain regulatory bodies with effective punishments existing. This doesn't have to be a government agency. I approve of the way the FSA operates, sure it has links to the government but it is fairly independent. I hugely disagree of all these ridiculous, mudslinging, parliamentary select committees. Leave investigation to professional, regulatory bodies.

Why should government be required to curtail the excesses of greed? And why is an excess of greed a bad thing?

Cyclic consumption will forever continue, government doesn't need to give it a helping hand.

 

[RomanNose]

I really don't like the way TED is going, it's supposed to be unbiased but it's forgotten that.

 

[Ahleckz]

I really don't like the way TED is going, it's supposed to be unbiased but it's forgotten that.

I'm sure there's probably a counterargument to that on there somewhere, or at least something that deals with the 'other side'. Just because they host a video with an agenda doesn't mean they are subscribing to it or advocating it.

Have you ever watched a unbiased discussion? They are terribly boring.

 

[RomanNose]

I'm sure there's probably a counterargument to that on there somewhere, or at least something that deals with the 'other side'. Just because they host a video with an agenda doesn't mean they are subscribing to it or advocating it.

Have you ever watched a unbiased discussion? They are terribly boring.

It's become left wing over the last few years, I can't recall seeing any right wing videos at all.

 

[realBabelfish]

thought you had been banned elmarko1234? glad to see thats not the case.

one of the few posters i enjoy reading

 

[Ahleckz]

To be honest, I've only started using it over the last 6 months or so and I tend to avoid the political stuff. I guess we'll never know, but there may just be a trouble in finding certain sides to discuss certain things on TED.

 

[estebanrey]

Cyclic consumption will forever continue, government doesn't need to give it a helping hand.

Not if 99% of the population are skint because all the money is with the other 1%. As he said in the presentation, a rich man who earns 1000 times the average citizen won't buy 1000 times more stuff. He won't buy 1000 times more pairs of trousers or 1000 times more cars to maintain the cyclic consumption.

 

[UK-AL05]

It's become left wing over the last few years, I can't recall seeing any right wing videos at all.

If your after some right wing economics, there lots of stuff about adam smith.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_prosperity.html


If your after "herrpp derppp" job creators rhetoric, gays are bad, or cut immigration, you won't find anything like that on TED because it doesn't have any basis to it....


In fact TED IS right wing in many ways, in that a lot of audience are basically libertarian globalists because they come from silicon valley - Think Ayn Rand style.

Not that advocating that style thinking, but a lot of silicon valley entrepreneurs were influenced by it.

 

[Ahleckz]

Yes, but that wouldn't ever happen. There will always be a sizeable population with money to spend. There is no point talking about impossible hypothetical situations.

I've known plenty of rich people who buy loads of stuff, and rich people who buy nothing.
I've known plenty of poor people who buy loads of stuff, and poor people who buy nothing.

 

[scorza]

If your after some right wing economics, there lots of stuff about adam smith.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_prosperity.html


If your after "herrpp derppp" job creators rhetoric, you won't find anything like that on TED because it doesn't have any basis to it....


In fact TED IS right wing in many ways, in that a lot of audience comes from are basically libertarian globalists.

Adam Smith would be considered left wing by many posters on this forum, he advocated for example tax as a means of redistributing wealth.

 

[estebanrey]

Yes, but that wouldn't ever happen.

It's happening right now. Just look how much poorer the average Joe has become over the last 10 years versus the increase in wealth at the top.

That gap is getting bigger everyday.

I've known plenty of rich people who buy loads of stuff, and rich people who buy nothing.
I've known plenty of poor people who buy loads of stuff, and poor people who buy nothing.

How can poor people buy 'loads of stuff'? That doesn't make sense unless you are advocating irresponsible credit and loans which didn't tend to pan out in the last 20 years when we did that.

 

[UK-AL05]

Adam Smith would be considered left wing by many posters on this forum, he advocated for example tax as a means of redistributing wealth.

Yes, but he also formalised/advocated a lot of the ideas used in right wing politics like free trade, free markets, consumer society, property rights whilst also mocking the rich...


You have realise he was living in the age of Mercantilism to understand how he could do both at the same time...

 

[Ahleckz]

It's happening right now. Just look how much poorer the average Joe has become over the last 10 years versus the increase in wealth at the top.

That gap is getting bigger everyday.



How can poor people buy 'loads of stuff'? That doesn't make sense unless you are advocating irresponsible credit and loans which didn't tend to pan out in the last 20 years when we did that.

Yes, the gap has grown I'm not denying that. However, we're not going to ever get to a point where 99% can't afford to buy stuff. And, if that does somehow happen then there'll be a market reset. It isn't the governments role to somehow ensure economic equality. Communism is bad, y0.

Yes, irresponsible credit (which isn't the banks fault, but those who applied for it - hell, ta bank just gave me quite a large credit limit on a credit card that I don't necessarily need. However, I'm not going to go and spend it all and blame them for it. It was my decision to apply for it, and my decision if and when I spend the money and how I repay it) is one way. However, other people just have different priorities on how to spend their money.

My point is that you can't tar everyone with the same brush like the guy in the video has.

 

[ntg]

It's happening right now. Just look how much poorer the average Joe has become over the last 10 years versus the increase in wealth at the top.

People have not become any poorer during the last 10 years, 20 years or 30 years.

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#Wage_inequality

under the race and gender section,

and also here: http://acivilamericandebate.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/the-30-year-growth-of-income-inequality/

look for Figure 1.

That gap is getting bigger everyday.

That is largely correct.

How can poor people buy 'loads of stuff'? That doesn't make sense unless you are advocating irresponsible credit and loans which didn't tend to pan out in the last 20 years when we did that.

Through credit, as you rightly guessed. no one is advocating it but it's a fact. A lot of people were extended, and took it, too much credit. At the first downturn they went under water and they will stay there for a long time. You can't blame one side for this as everyone is responsible.

However, credit is not a bad thing necessarily, it can be very useful if used properly and wisely.

 

[elmarko]

It's become left wing over the last few years, I can't recall seeing any right wing videos at all.

I wouldn't argue it's left or right wing.

His argument wasn't based around "wanting social equality", but more a recognition of the reality that having an impoverished consumer base is bad for any business.

thought you had been banned elmarko1234? glad to see thats not the case.

one of the few posters i enjoy reading

Thanks!, was just a 3 day one .