That is logic, and it's logic that doesn't favor Anderson, as he made it quite clear in his response that TED would only sign off on speeches if they are "framed" properly. That's a statement that should bother you.
it doesn't bother me that TED wouldn't present a talk where the speaker's views on, say, inner city crime, are framed in an incredibly racist way
why is this different?
I personally find the idea that saying "Demand drives the economy not rich people" can be lumped into the same category as racism quite troubling.
That is logic, and it's logic that doesn't favor Anderson, as he made it quite clear in his response that TED would only sign off on speeches if they are "framed" properly. That's a statement that should bother you.
it doesn't bother me that TED wouldn't present a talk where the speaker's views on, say, inner city crime, are framed in an incredibly racist way
why is this different?
I personally find the idea that saying "Demand drives the economy not rich people" can be lumped into the same category as racism quite troubling.
why? the question so far has been 'why won't TED just admit that their presentation criteria are ideologically informed'. my point is of course they are. there are tons of ideological positions they would reject out of hand, like racism or homophobia or theocratic oppression. that is why i have asked a few times for a narrowing of the scope of this conversation.
what are we really asking about? people obviously aren't upset that TED has a worldview (and that it informs their organizational methodology). many instances of TED's worldview (insofar as we can grant it a consciousness) are no-brainers; they are implicit and no one thinks of objecting to them.
so i'm asking, why is this different? "it's not bad like racism or sexism"? is that the serious answer?
....and there are several other statements that people could pick holes in, and that probably accounts for why the talk wasn't higher rated by our audience, even though plenty admired the sentiment, and the vulnerability and courage you showed in making it.
TED and its supporters have ideological biases that influence what ideas that they will present
Obviously they do. TED is a private nonprofit and makes no claim to objectivity.
But that's not the issue. The National Review tried to make it an issue, using a single data point. One data point is not a trend. Does TED have a history of rejecting talks on income inequality?
instead tries to paint Hanauer as a villain who is trying to blackmail TED into letting him use them to promote himself.
Well, everybody uses TED to promote themselves. That's what TED is: "I wrote a book, it's about [subject], let me talk to you about [subject] for 10 minutes." It gets put on YouTube with studio-quality production values and people watch it and it gives the speaker exposure. Nobody gives a shit if Hanauer is promoting himself.
It's this use of deception that, for me, makes his statement further support the arguments put forth by Hanauer.
You didn't actually state anything false in Anderson's response. All you mentioned were some details you feel are relevant. That's nice - is it relevant that Hanauer's PR firm is helping him promote his book? No, not really. Not all omissions are lies of omission. None of the new information you point out in your OP changes the nature of the issue at all.
I tend to avoid things that people tell me to watch because other people don't want me to watch them. Seems too much like reverse psychology.
Was the speech in question particularly brilliant in anyway, or are people just praising it because of the message?
The message. It's not particularly well organized, and like I said in an earlier post anyone who's gone through a decent macroeconomics course should know most of that already. But if you haven't I don't think you're really going to learn much .
Basically, while I agree with his conclusion based on my own research and education, I don't think he did that great a job laying out the evidence to support that conclusion in his speech, and some of his claims definitely go far beyond any evidence he presents.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
....and there are several other statements that people could pick holes in, and that probably accounts for why the talk wasn't higher rated by our audience, even though plenty admired the sentiment, and the vulnerability and courage you showed in making it.
Seems like a pretty big flaw, if true.
Except that in previous emails, the TED leadership appeared to be quite enthusiastic to put up the speech. The argument that it wasn't "up to snuff" seems to have appeared late in the game, when Hanauer's team made it clear that they would be releasing the emails to the press. Plus, there's the fact that Hanauer clearly receives a standing ovation in the video.
Again, Anderson isn't a uninvolved third party - he's at the heart of this controversy. His words should be taken with at least a grain of salt.
That is logic, and it's logic that doesn't favor Anderson, as he made it quite clear in his response that TED would only sign off on speeches if they are "framed" properly. That's a statement that should bother you.
it doesn't bother me that TED wouldn't present a talk where the speaker's views on, say, inner city crime, are framed in an incredibly racist way
why is this different?
I personally find the idea that saying "Demand drives the economy not rich people" can be lumped into the same category as racism quite troubling.
why? the question so far has been 'why won't TED just admit that their presentation criteria are ideologically informed'. my point is of course they are. there are tons of ideological positions they would reject out of hand, like racism or homophobia or theocratic oppression. that is why i have asked a few times for a narrowing of the scope of this conversation.
what are we really asking about? people obviously aren't upset that TED has a worldview (and that it informs their organizational methodology). many instances of TED's worldview (insofar as we can grant it a consciousness) are no-brainers; they are implicit and no one thinks of objecting to them.
so i'm asking, why is this different? "it's not bad like racism or sexism"? is that the serious answer?
Because people feel betrayed.
Think about the Red Cross. Obviously it has a world view. If you graphed its mission statement and actions out on a political orientation chart, it would obviously land somewhere.
But no one feels like they are making a political act by donating to the Red Cross. So long as you accept its mission - helping people in crisis - you don't have to examine what will happen with your donation. You feel that supporting it isn't going to benefit any particular political cause or ideology you do not support.
That's why the Komen revelations hit so hard. People did not spend years donating time and money to Komen for them to turn around and use them to score points in the conservative war on abortion. Finding out that the people who ran Komen were taking sides in a deeply bitter partisan dispute ended up costing the organization its reputation as one whose agenda was stated in its mission statement.
TED's followed the same model. It's built the reputation as a promoter of cutting-edge ideas that are discussed in an apolitical fashion. Obviously there's a worldview behind it. There's a type of talk that TED loves. But the audience does not expect TED to be pushing any agenda other than its surface one. If there is a partisan, political mission that makes certain ideas off-limits even if supported by the data - i.e. don't you dare tax the fucking rich - that flies in the face of the identity TED has tried to cultivate.
Which is why this issue is being talked about in places like the New Yorker and the Atlantic Monthly. There's genuine shock at the idea that TED might be just another organization with a covert political agenda. If, as you suggest, this was such an unsurprising idea, you have to wonder why so many people are surprised.
....and there are several other statements that people could pick holes in, and that probably accounts for why the talk wasn't higher rated by our audience, even though plenty admired the sentiment, and the vulnerability and courage you showed in making it.
Seems like a pretty big flaw, if true.
Except that in previous emails, the TED leadership appeared to be quite enthusiastic to put up the speech. The argument that it wasn't "up to snuff" seems to have appeared late in the game, when Hanauer's team made it clear that they would be releasing the emails to the press. Plus, there's the fact that Hanauer clearly receives a standing ovation in the video.
Again, Anderson isn't a uninvolved third party - he's at the heart of this controversy. His words should be taken with at least a grain of salt.
Well, let's verify. Is the speech up to snuff?
Because the only news stories I see is about TED's reaction to the speech, nothing about the speech itself. And tells me that nothing in the speech itself warrants much attention.
....and there are several other statements that people could pick holes in, and that probably accounts for why the talk wasn't higher rated by our audience, even though plenty admired the sentiment, and the vulnerability and courage you showed in making it.
Seems like a pretty big flaw, if true.
Except that in previous emails, the TED leadership appeared to be quite enthusiastic to put up the speech. The argument that it wasn't "up to snuff" seems to have appeared late in the game, when Hanauer's team made it clear that they would be releasing the emails to the press. Plus, there's the fact that Hanauer clearly receives a standing ovation in the video.
Again, Anderson isn't a uninvolved third party - he's at the heart of this controversy. His words should be taken with at least a grain of salt.
Well, let's verify. Is the speech up to snuff?
Because the only news stories I see is about TED's reaction to the speech, nothing about the speech itself. And tells me that nothing in the speech itself warrants much attention.
The story really doesn't have anything to do with the speech anymore. Just as the Komen story wasn't about abortion, so much as it was about the way the organization claimed to about one thing and turned out to be about another. It could have been caught donating to any number of causes not related to the mission - from Palestinian rights to the NRA.
The reason that this has blown up has nothing to do with income inequality, other than that that was the trigger issue. It's a question of whether TED has a deeper agenda than its mission. And anyone saying "Of course it does" needs to explain why so many in the media and TED's audience were unaware of this.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
....and there are several other statements that people could pick holes in, and that probably accounts for why the talk wasn't higher rated by our audience, even though plenty admired the sentiment, and the vulnerability and courage you showed in making it.
Seems like a pretty big flaw, if true.
Except that in previous emails, the TED leadership appeared to be quite enthusiastic to put up the speech. The argument that it wasn't "up to snuff" seems to have appeared late in the game, when Hanauer's team made it clear that they would be releasing the emails to the press. Plus, there's the fact that Hanauer clearly receives a standing ovation in the video.
Again, Anderson isn't a uninvolved third party - he's at the heart of this controversy. His words should be taken with at least a grain of salt.
Well, let's verify. Is the speech up to snuff?
Because the only news stories I see is about TED's reaction to the speech, nothing about the speech itself. And tells me that nothing in the speech itself warrants much attention.
The story really doesn't have anything to do with the speech anymore. Just as the Komen story wasn't about abortion, so much as it was about the way the organization claimed to about one thing and turned out to be about another. It could have been caught donating to any number of causes not related to the mission - from Palestinian rights to the NRA.
The reason that this has blown up has nothing to do with income inequality, other than that that was the trigger issue. It's a question of whether TED has a deeper agenda than its mission. And anyone saying "Of course it does" needs to explain why so many in the media and TED's audience were unaware of this.
That's a simple explanation: people didn't want to know. The same reason people trust Google or Apple etc.
....and there are several other statements that people could pick holes in, and that probably accounts for why the talk wasn't higher rated by our audience, even though plenty admired the sentiment, and the vulnerability and courage you showed in making it.
Seems like a pretty big flaw, if true.
Except that in previous emails, the TED leadership appeared to be quite enthusiastic to put up the speech. The argument that it wasn't "up to snuff" seems to have appeared late in the game, when Hanauer's team made it clear that they would be releasing the emails to the press. Plus, there's the fact that Hanauer clearly receives a standing ovation in the video.
Again, Anderson isn't a uninvolved third party - he's at the heart of this controversy. His words should be taken with at least a grain of salt.
Well, let's verify. Is the speech up to snuff?
Because the only news stories I see is about TED's reaction to the speech, nothing about the speech itself. And tells me that nothing in the speech itself warrants much attention.
The story really doesn't have anything to do with the speech anymore. Just as the Komen story wasn't about abortion, so much as it was about the way the organization claimed to about one thing and turned out to be about another. It could have been caught donating to any number of causes not related to the mission - from Palestinian rights to the NRA.
The reason that this has blown up has nothing to do with income inequality, other than that that was the trigger issue. It's a question of whether TED has a deeper agenda than its mission. And anyone saying "Of course it does" needs to explain why so many in the media and TED's audience were unaware of this.
I know exactly why - because most people don't realise that everyone has an ideology, everyone has an agenda. Most people think only other bad people have ideologies.
The reason that this has blown up has nothing to do with income inequality, other than that that was the trigger issue. It's a question of whether TED has a deeper agenda than its mission. And anyone saying "Of course it does" needs to explain why so many in the media and TED's audience were unaware of this.
First off, ideological biases aren't the same as a deeper agenda.
Second, the question "does TED have ideological biases?" is not the same as "does TED have, specifically, an ideological bias against better income equality?"
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
....and there are several other statements that people could pick holes in, and that probably accounts for why the talk wasn't higher rated by our audience, even though plenty admired the sentiment, and the vulnerability and courage you showed in making it.
Seems like a pretty big flaw, if true.
Except that in previous emails, the TED leadership appeared to be quite enthusiastic to put up the speech. The argument that it wasn't "up to snuff" seems to have appeared late in the game, when Hanauer's team made it clear that they would be releasing the emails to the press. Plus, there's the fact that Hanauer clearly receives a standing ovation in the video.
Again, Anderson isn't a uninvolved third party - he's at the heart of this controversy. His words should be taken with at least a grain of salt.
Well, let's verify. Is the speech up to snuff?
Because the only news stories I see is about TED's reaction to the speech, nothing about the speech itself. And tells me that nothing in the speech itself warrants much attention.
The story really doesn't have anything to do with the speech anymore. Just as the Komen story wasn't about abortion, so much as it was about the way the organization claimed to about one thing and turned out to be about another. It could have been caught donating to any number of causes not related to the mission - from Palestinian rights to the NRA.
The reason that this has blown up has nothing to do with income inequality, other than that that was the trigger issue. It's a question of whether TED has a deeper agenda than its mission. And anyone saying "Of course it does" needs to explain why so many in the media and TED's audience were unaware of this.
So TED might have a hidden agenda because they didn't like a speech, but the content of the speech doesn't matter?
Really, the only ideology I've actually seen so far is "don't post crappy speeches." TED's complaints don't seem much different from a (liberal) college professor asking the student to rephrase his statements to academic standards.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The reason that this has blown up has nothing to do with income inequality, other than that that was the trigger issue. It's a question of whether TED has a deeper agenda than its mission. And anyone saying "Of course it does" needs to explain why so many in the media and TED's audience were unaware of this.
First off, ideological biases aren't the same as a deeper agenda.
Second, the question "does TED have ideological biases?" is not the same as "does TED have, specifically, an ideological bias against better income equality?"
Here's the thing though, it seems like one guy might not like talking about income equality and he has a position of authority. This is no nefarious or scary or a hidden agenda. It's just life. It sucks, but it's not really a massive conspiracy.
TED doesn't have a bias against raising the issue of income inequality. They have a bias against discussing it in such a way that actually attributes blame and offers a remedy.
TED and its supporters have ideological biases that influence what ideas that they will present
Obviously they do. TED is a private nonprofit and makes no claim to objectivity.
But that's not the issue. The National Review tried to make it an issue, using a single data point. One data point is not a trend. Does TED have a history of rejecting talks on income inequality?
instead tries to paint Hanauer as a villain who is trying to blackmail TED into letting him use them to promote himself.
Well, everybody uses TED to promote themselves. That's what TED is: "I wrote a book, it's about [subject], let me talk to you about [subject] for 10 minutes." It gets put on YouTube with studio-quality production values and people watch it and it gives the speaker exposure. Nobody gives a shit if Hanauer is promoting himself.
It's this use of deception that, for me, makes his statement further support the arguments put forth by Hanauer.
You didn't actually state anything false in Anderson's response. All you mentioned were some details you feel are relevant. That's nice - is it relevant that Hanauer's PR firm is helping him promote his book? No, not really. Not all omissions are lies of omission. None of the new information you point out in your OP changes the nature of the issue at all.
Simply put, this whole fiasco is about a simple topic - what do the people who run TED believe, and does it impact their editorial decisions?
This fiasco doesn't tell us jack shit about that because, once again, a single data point is not a trend.
Again, Hanauer's speech wasn't troublesome because it talked about income inequality. It was troublesome because he went after the top .1%. He went out and challenged the idea that what the economy needs are brilliant entrepreneurs. That's what the Silicon Valley technolibertarian mindset finds anathema.
And yes, TED does make claims to some degree of objectivity, as I pointed out earlier. They claim to be looking for the best ideas, regardless of source.
The point of the line about Hanauer's PR firm was that Anderson was trying to insinuate that he had hired the PR firm to promote the speech itself. Pointing out that he had just cowrote a book on the topic would blunt that argument. So in this case it is a lie of omission, because the goal is to make you think differently than you would if you had all the information.
And while it doesn't indicate a trend by itself, this event shows that such a trend could exist. As I've said, the point of this is that the question of exactly which biases TED holds has been raised, and Anderson's choice to try to attack and smear Hanauer instead of addressing the issue makes it more important.
Here's the thing though, it seems like one guy might not like talking about income equality and he has a position of authority.
TED has had talks on income inequality, on technological inequality, on the glass ceilings keeping people in poverty, not to mention several (if not dozens) of talks on technological innovations specifically aimed at helping people in poverty. That's not the track record of a curator who doesn't like talking about income inequality.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Here's the thing though, it seems like one guy might not like talking about income equality and he has a position of authority.
TED has had talks on income inequality, on technological inequality, on the glass ceilings keeping people in poverty, not to mention several (if not dozens) of talks on technological innovations specifically aimed at helping people in poverty. That's not the track record of a curator who doesn't like talking about income inequality.
Which, to me, makes the whole thing even more confusing as to why it's supposed to be so "troubling"
The reason that this has blown up has nothing to do with income inequality, other than that that was the trigger issue. It's a question of whether TED has a deeper agenda than its mission. And anyone saying "Of course it does" needs to explain why so many in the media and TED's audience were unaware of this.
First off, ideological biases aren't the same as a deeper agenda.
Second, the question "does TED have ideological biases?" is not the same as "does TED have, specifically, an ideological bias against better income equality?"
Here's the thing though, it seems like one guy might not like talking about income equality and he has a position of authority. This is no nefarious or scary or a hidden agenda. It's just life. It sucks, but it's not really a massive conspiracy.
Again, the problem is not "speeches that address income inequality", the problem is "speeches that actually dare to confront the societal elite".
And it's worth asking if that position is one that people want in an organization they support.
Here's the thing though, it seems like one guy might not like talking about income equality and he has a position of authority.
TED has had talks on income inequality, on technological inequality, on the glass ceilings keeping people in poverty, not to mention several (if not dozens) of talks on technological innovations specifically aimed at helping people in poverty. That's not the track record of a curator who doesn't like talking about income inequality.
Which, to me, makes the whole thing even more confusing as to why it's supposed to be so "troubling"
As I've said, the point of this is that the question of exactly which biases TED holds has been raised, and Anderson's choice to try to attack and smear Hanauer instead of addressing the issue makes it more important.
Really? You see Anderson's blog post as an "attack" and a 'smear?" It's almost like you're reading a completely different set of words, dead-set on coming to the conclusion you want to come to.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The reason that this has blown up has nothing to do with income inequality, other than that that was the trigger issue. It's a question of whether TED has a deeper agenda than its mission. And anyone saying "Of course it does" needs to explain why so many in the media and TED's audience were unaware of this.
First off, ideological biases aren't the same as a deeper agenda.
Second, the question "does TED have ideological biases?" is not the same as "does TED have, specifically, an ideological bias against better income equality?"
Here's the thing though, it seems like one guy might not like talking about income equality and he has a position of authority. This is no nefarious or scary or a hidden agenda. It's just life. It sucks, but it's not really a massive conspiracy.
Again, the problem is not "speeches that address income inequality", the problem is "speeches that actually dare to confront the societal elite".
And it's worth asking if that position is one that people want in an organization they support.
If that is indeed a position the organization holds, the simple solution (no matter how hard it may indeed be) is to stop supporting them, just like with Komen. It sucks, but that's the beauty of the Free Market (tm).
Here's the thing though, it seems like one guy might not like talking about income equality and he has a position of authority.
TED has had talks on income inequality, on technological inequality, on the glass ceilings keeping people in poverty, not to mention several (if not dozens) of talks on technological innovations specifically aimed at helping people in poverty. That's not the track record of a curator who doesn't like talking about income inequality.
One more time.
The problem with Hanauer's speech is not that he addressed income inequality.
The problem is that he went to the top .1% and basically said "You are not John Galt, you are not special snowflakes, what you are is lucky, and I know this because I'm one of you. And your assertions that you are special snowflakes is killing our society because it's the middle class, not the lucky few at the top, that fuels it."
That's what Anderson had a problem with, and if you read the May 7th email, that fact is pretty clear.
The reason that this has blown up has nothing to do with income inequality, other than that that was the trigger issue. It's a question of whether TED has a deeper agenda than its mission. And anyone saying "Of course it does" needs to explain why so many in the media and TED's audience were unaware of this.
First off, ideological biases aren't the same as a deeper agenda.
Second, the question "does TED have ideological biases?" is not the same as "does TED have, specifically, an ideological bias against better income equality?"
Here's the thing though, it seems like one guy might not like talking about income equality and he has a position of authority. This is no nefarious or scary or a hidden agenda. It's just life. It sucks, but it's not really a massive conspiracy.
Again, the problem is not "speeches that address income inequality", the problem is "speeches that actually dare to confront the societal elite".
And it's worth asking if that position is one that people want in an organization they support.
If that is indeed a position the organization holds, the simple solution (no matter how hard it may indeed be) is to stop supporting them, just like with Komen. It sucks, but that's the beauty of the Free Market (tm).
Or trying to force the organization to reform. Which, again, is the whole point of all this. A lot of us don't want to see TED go away, just to move away from the technolibertarian stance.
The problem is that he went to the top .1% and basically said "You are not John Galt, you are not special snowflakes, what you are is lucky, and I know this because I'm one of you. And your assertions that you are special snowflakes is killing our society because it's the middle class, not the lucky few at the top, that fuels it."
That's what Anderson had a problem with, and if you read the May 7th email, that fact is pretty clear.
What is "pretty clear" to me is that Anderson had a problem with how extreme and unilateral Hanauer's statements were.
To put it in forum terms, Hanauer was basically pulling a Thanatos: "the rich don't drive demand, the rich don't create jobs." Anderson responded, "Well, sometimes they do both."
In strictly factual terms, Anderson was right, and Hanauer was wrong.
It happens to be that right now, in our country and time, we have a toxic myth that overstates how much the rich drive demand and create jobs. But that doesn't justify upholding an opposite myth.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The reason that this has blown up has nothing to do with income inequality, other than that that was the trigger issue. It's a question of whether TED has a deeper agenda than its mission. And anyone saying "Of course it does" needs to explain why so many in the media and TED's audience were unaware of this.
First off, ideological biases aren't the same as a deeper agenda.
Second, the question "does TED have ideological biases?" is not the same as "does TED have, specifically, an ideological bias against better income equality?"
Here's the thing though, it seems like one guy might not like talking about income equality and he has a position of authority. This is no nefarious or scary or a hidden agenda. It's just life. It sucks, but it's not really a massive conspiracy.
Again, the problem is not "speeches that address income inequality", the problem is "speeches that actually dare to confront the societal elite".
And it's worth asking if that position is one that people want in an organization they support.
If that is indeed a position the organization holds, the simple solution (no matter how hard it may indeed be) is to stop supporting them, just like with Komen. It sucks, but that's the beauty of the Free Market (tm).
Or trying to force the organization to reform. Which, again, is the whole point of all this. A lot of us don't want to see TED go away, just to move away from the technolibertarian stance.
Well, unless you're somehow in a position of control over TED your solution to do that would be to stop supporting them, or start up a complaint campaign perhaps. I'm not sure which would be more effective (though I'd lean toward both: ending support while being vocal about why).
But this also seems to be a single data point that is getting a bit overblown.
Anderson is allowed to hold an opinion and use that opinion to make decisions about his company.
We all enjoy the right to free speech, we do not enjoy the right to free publicity or a platform.
And consumers have a right to stop supporting companies and organizations which begin going against their beliefs and values. But I also think it's a bit early to start saying that TED Talks is a techno-libertarian cabal.
The problem is that he went to the top .1% and basically said "You are not John Galt, you are not special snowflakes, what you are is lucky, and I know this because I'm one of you. And your assertions that you are special snowflakes is killing our society because it's the middle class, not the lucky few at the top, that fuels it."
That's what Anderson had a problem with, and if you read the May 7th email, that fact is pretty clear.
What is "pretty clear" to me is that Anderson had a problem with how extreme and unilateral Hanauer's statements were.
To put it in forum terms, Hanauer was basically pulling a Thanatos: "the rich don't drive demand, the rich don't create jobs." Anderson responded, "Well, sometimes they do both."
In strictly factual terms, Anderson was right, and Hanauer was wrong.
It happens to be that right now, in our country and time, we have a toxic myth that overstates how much the rich drive demand and create jobs. But that doesn't justify upholding an opposite myth.
You do realize you are arguing in defense of trickle down economics, right?
Anderson isn't right. The wealthy don't drive demand at all, because there's not enough of them to do so. Both of Anderson's examples are demonstrations of where individuals identified latent demand that was then successfully tapped, not where the wealthy pushed demand.
I think technolibertarian is inaccurate. TED is more totebagger. Culturally liberal, certainly concerned about all liberal issues, but unwilling to do much about them via the government or (heaven forbid) unions. Like my avatar.
"Liberal ends through conservative means" and all that nonsense.
My reading of the TED response was that while they agreed with Hanauer's point, they found his speech poorly articulated - something I agree with.
As a point by point breakdown:
- Sweeping generalizations: "This is an article of faith by Republicans and is seldom challenged by Democrats". Cite evidence please.
- Comparison to Earth-centric models of the Universe. Bad on two levels: first, Earth-centric models can still be used to predict movement of celestial bodies, they're just far more complicated than Sun-centric models (EDIT: in the same way we generally consider the Earth sitting still while we drive/fly around, despite the fact that from the Sun's perspective it's revolving at a reasonable rate - it's a relative perspective, and it'd be incredibly annoying to try and get your speedo to take the Earth's rotation into account while driving down the highway). Second, again, he fails to cite evidence as to why these two are equivalent - he just states that they are.
- He states that businesses that have no demand will ultimately fail (true!), but then says this proves Rich People don't create jobs. It doesn't prove that, there are plenty of models where both supply (from Rich People) and demand (from consumers) are necessary. He needs to show that removal of "Rich People" from the model causes no impact for it to prove his point.
- "Squirrels taking credit for evolution"? Hyperbolic analogy - there is a direct relationship between employer and employee (even if the employer got the money to pay the employee from a consumer), there is no similar relationship between squirrels and evolution.
- Employers make new hires as a last resort (true!). But even if it is done only out of necessity, it does not make it disingenuous to state that hiring took place.
- (Paraphrase) "Since we have lowered taxes on the rich, we should now be swimming in jobs". Error of affirming the consequent - as an analogy: if we removed food from Pandas the population would die out. Therefore if we give Pandas lots of food, we should now be swimming in Pandas. This is false, as we have unfortunately found out.
- "If middle class income had kept pace with the economy since 1970 it would be nearly $92k instead of $50k". There's an obvious corollary, that the increased income across millions of consumers would have also driven prices up - there's no guarantee that the US middle class would be any better off in terms of purchasing power.
- Every time he verbally cites statistics, he overshoots what is represented on his slides.
- "It's a small jump from 'job creator' to 'the creator' ". Wut? This is a serious argument? Is he seriously saying that anyone who refers to themselves as any form of "creator" is trying to say they're God?
- "Taxing the rich will cause the middle class to thrive". No causal link demonstrated. It may be true, but he has cited no evidence to that effect.
Look, I agree with his underlying point that we can quite safely tax the rich more. But his argument is on the level of a 14-yr old school presentation, and nowhere near approaches the clarity of some of the other presentations about inequality that TED has uploaded.
Bottom line - it's a bad speech which takes direct swipes at political groups. It's goosery that relies on a friendly audience rather than evidence, and Anderson called him on it.
Having watched the speech, Hanauer's point was that the rich don't drive the economy. He didn't say they don't contribute to demand he even point out that someone like himself does buy things, but he doesn't buy enough to come anywhere close to the demand created by the middle class buying goods and services.
I'll see how this plays out but I'm a little concerned that we're seeing the flawed version of political correctness. As in we can't do this discussion because someone will be offended (the irony is that the right has no qualms with shaming others). To quote the slime ball that won the GOP primary in South Carolina this year, "Sometimes the truth is negative." Anderson might not have liked that Hanauer called the GOP out on how their economic view is flawed and that he went after that view, but doesn't mean Hanauer was being partisan.
Anderson isn't right. The wealthy don't drive demand at all, because there's not enough of them to do so.
Sometimes, once in a while, somebody comes up with an invention, markets that invention, and then only after the invention is released do people see it and go, "Hey, I really want that."
That's what Anderson's talking about. He's talking about iPhones, not yachts.
Both of Anderson's examples are demonstrations of where individuals identified latent demand that was then successfully tapped, not where the wealthy pushed demand.
Latent demand is, by definition, demand that doesn't exist until the supply of a product increases.
It is not (how you are apparently misusing the term as) invisible demand, lurking under the surface of a market, just waiting for the right moment to bubble up.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
My reading of the TED response was that while they agreed with Hanauer's point, they found his speech poorly articulated - something I agree with.
As a point by point breakdown:
- Sweeping generalizations: "This is an article of faith by Republicans and is seldom challenged by Democrats". Cite evidence please.
Really? You want a citation for that, of all things? In an academic paper, let alone a five minute speech, that would fall under common knowledge.
Yes, if he wants to make sweeping assertions, he needs to cite. Drop a quote from a GOP conference or whatever, but the golden rule of ANY argument is IF YOU MAKE A POINT YOU BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE.
Edit: ESPECIALLY if you are calling it an "article of faith".
My reading of the TED response was that while they agreed with Hanauer's point, they found his speech poorly articulated - something I agree with.
As a point by point breakdown:
- Sweeping generalizations: "This is an article of faith by Republicans and is seldom challenged by Democrats". Cite evidence please.
Really? You want a citation for that, of all things? In an academic paper, let alone a five minute speech, that would fall under common knowledge.
Yes, if he wants to make sweeping assertions, he needs to cite. Drop a quote from a GOP conference or whatever, but the golden rule of ANY argument is IF YOU MAKE A POINT YOU BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE.
This is a road to making really belabored, shitty speeches.
My reading of the TED response was that while they agreed with Hanauer's point, they found his speech poorly articulated - something I agree with.
As a point by point breakdown:
- Sweeping generalizations: "This is an article of faith by Republicans and is seldom challenged by Democrats". Cite evidence please.
Really? You want a citation for that, of all things? In an academic paper, let alone a five minute speech, that would fall under common knowledge.
Yes, if he wants to make sweeping assertions, he needs to cite. Drop a quote from a GOP conference or whatever, but the golden rule of ANY argument is IF YOU MAKE A POINT YOU BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE.
This is a road to making really belabored, shitty speeches.
Funny, it seems that almost every other TED speech does it.
My reading of the TED response was that while they agreed with Hanauer's point, they found his speech poorly articulated - something I agree with.
As a point by point breakdown:
- Sweeping generalizations: "This is an article of faith by Republicans and is seldom challenged by Democrats". Cite evidence please.
Really? You want a citation for that, of all things? In an academic paper, let alone a five minute speech, that would fall under common knowledge.
Yes, if he wants to make sweeping assertions, he needs to cite. Drop a quote from a GOP conference or whatever, but the golden rule of ANY argument is IF YOU MAKE A POINT YOU BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE.
This is a road to making really belabored, shitty speeches.
Funny, it seems that almost every other TED speech does it.
TED explicitly supports technology and entrepreneurship. It's in their mission statement.
Entrepreneurship =/= libertarianism.
If your argument is "TED is biased in favor of technological, entrepreneurial solutions to social problems" I'd nod and go, "Okay. Yeah. So what?"
If your argument is "TED is biased in favor of technological, entrepreneurial solutions to social problems and they are libertarian," I'd wonder what definition of libertarian you're using. When I see 'libertarian' in an American political context, I think of fundamental ideas like: taxation is morally wrong, economic regulations are fundamentally wrong, individual rights trump collective well-being, the government's only valid role is the protection of individual rights, the state is never allowed to initiate the use of force, etc.
Going from "TED rejected a poorly-argued talk calling for a higher capital gains tax rate" to "TED is technolibertarian" is just a teensy weensy little jump to conclusions.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
My reading of the TED response was that while they agreed with Hanauer's point, they found his speech poorly articulated - something I agree with.
As a point by point breakdown:
- Sweeping generalizations: "This is an article of faith by Republicans and is seldom challenged by Democrats". Cite evidence please.
Really? You want a citation for that, of all things? In an academic paper, let alone a five minute speech, that would fall under common knowledge.
Yes, if he wants to make sweeping assertions, he needs to cite. Drop a quote from a GOP conference or whatever, but the golden rule of ANY argument is IF YOU MAKE A POINT YOU BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE.
This is a road to making really belabored, shitty speeches.
Funny, it seems that almost every other TED speech does it.
CITE PLEASE.
Alright, just for you, I will counter myself to cite that overreaching evidence is not a unique phenomenon at TED :
It should be noted that in both of these articles, not backing up the points with evidence is seen as both rare and un-TED. This, however, is not direct proof that almost every other speech does it.
It is also nothing to do with Hanauer's speech which does not back up its points with evidence, as I demonstrated earlier.
Edit: May I also introduce you to a show which has an entire section on how a lot of "common knowledge" is wrong: www.qi.com
Posts
It's in the OP, see for yourself.
The problem I have is Anderson's response. It's absolutely slimy and deceptive, and yet people are just buying it at face value.
I personally find the idea that saying "Demand drives the economy not rich people" can be lumped into the same category as racism quite troubling.
why? the question so far has been 'why won't TED just admit that their presentation criteria are ideologically informed'. my point is of course they are. there are tons of ideological positions they would reject out of hand, like racism or homophobia or theocratic oppression. that is why i have asked a few times for a narrowing of the scope of this conversation.
what are we really asking about? people obviously aren't upset that TED has a worldview (and that it informs their organizational methodology). many instances of TED's worldview (insofar as we can grant it a consciousness) are no-brainers; they are implicit and no one thinks of objecting to them.
so i'm asking, why is this different? "it's not bad like racism or sexism"? is that the serious answer?
Seems like a pretty big flaw, if true.
Obviously they do. TED is a private nonprofit and makes no claim to objectivity.
But that's not the issue. The National Review tried to make it an issue, using a single data point. One data point is not a trend. Does TED have a history of rejecting talks on income inequality?
Well, everybody uses TED to promote themselves. That's what TED is: "I wrote a book, it's about [subject], let me talk to you about [subject] for 10 minutes." It gets put on YouTube with studio-quality production values and people watch it and it gives the speaker exposure. Nobody gives a shit if Hanauer is promoting himself.
You didn't actually state anything false in Anderson's response. All you mentioned were some details you feel are relevant. That's nice - is it relevant that Hanauer's PR firm is helping him promote his book? No, not really. Not all omissions are lies of omission. None of the new information you point out in your OP changes the nature of the issue at all.
This fiasco doesn't tell us jack shit about that because, once again, a single data point is not a trend.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The message. It's not particularly well organized, and like I said in an earlier post anyone who's gone through a decent macroeconomics course should know most of that already. But if you haven't I don't think you're really going to learn much .
Basically, while I agree with his conclusion based on my own research and education, I don't think he did that great a job laying out the evidence to support that conclusion in his speech, and some of his claims definitely go far beyond any evidence he presents.
Except that in previous emails, the TED leadership appeared to be quite enthusiastic to put up the speech. The argument that it wasn't "up to snuff" seems to have appeared late in the game, when Hanauer's team made it clear that they would be releasing the emails to the press. Plus, there's the fact that Hanauer clearly receives a standing ovation in the video.
Again, Anderson isn't a uninvolved third party - he's at the heart of this controversy. His words should be taken with at least a grain of salt.
Because people feel betrayed.
Think about the Red Cross. Obviously it has a world view. If you graphed its mission statement and actions out on a political orientation chart, it would obviously land somewhere.
But no one feels like they are making a political act by donating to the Red Cross. So long as you accept its mission - helping people in crisis - you don't have to examine what will happen with your donation. You feel that supporting it isn't going to benefit any particular political cause or ideology you do not support.
That's why the Komen revelations hit so hard. People did not spend years donating time and money to Komen for them to turn around and use them to score points in the conservative war on abortion. Finding out that the people who ran Komen were taking sides in a deeply bitter partisan dispute ended up costing the organization its reputation as one whose agenda was stated in its mission statement.
TED's followed the same model. It's built the reputation as a promoter of cutting-edge ideas that are discussed in an apolitical fashion. Obviously there's a worldview behind it. There's a type of talk that TED loves. But the audience does not expect TED to be pushing any agenda other than its surface one. If there is a partisan, political mission that makes certain ideas off-limits even if supported by the data - i.e. don't you dare tax the fucking rich - that flies in the face of the identity TED has tried to cultivate.
Which is why this issue is being talked about in places like the New Yorker and the Atlantic Monthly. There's genuine shock at the idea that TED might be just another organization with a covert political agenda. If, as you suggest, this was such an unsurprising idea, you have to wonder why so many people are surprised.
Well, let's verify. Is the speech up to snuff?
Because the only news stories I see is about TED's reaction to the speech, nothing about the speech itself. And tells me that nothing in the speech itself warrants much attention.
The story really doesn't have anything to do with the speech anymore. Just as the Komen story wasn't about abortion, so much as it was about the way the organization claimed to about one thing and turned out to be about another. It could have been caught donating to any number of causes not related to the mission - from Palestinian rights to the NRA.
The reason that this has blown up has nothing to do with income inequality, other than that that was the trigger issue. It's a question of whether TED has a deeper agenda than its mission. And anyone saying "Of course it does" needs to explain why so many in the media and TED's audience were unaware of this.
That's a simple explanation: people didn't want to know. The same reason people trust Google or Apple etc.
I know exactly why - because most people don't realise that everyone has an ideology, everyone has an agenda. Most people think only other bad people have ideologies.
That's why this thread exists, for example.
First off, ideological biases aren't the same as a deeper agenda.
Second, the question "does TED have ideological biases?" is not the same as "does TED have, specifically, an ideological bias against better income equality?"
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So TED might have a hidden agenda because they didn't like a speech, but the content of the speech doesn't matter?
Really, the only ideology I've actually seen so far is "don't post crappy speeches." TED's complaints don't seem much different from a (liberal) college professor asking the student to rephrase his statements to academic standards.
Here's the thing though, it seems like one guy might not like talking about income equality and he has a position of authority. This is no nefarious or scary or a hidden agenda. It's just life. It sucks, but it's not really a massive conspiracy.
Again, Hanauer's speech wasn't troublesome because it talked about income inequality. It was troublesome because he went after the top .1%. He went out and challenged the idea that what the economy needs are brilliant entrepreneurs. That's what the Silicon Valley technolibertarian mindset finds anathema.
And yes, TED does make claims to some degree of objectivity, as I pointed out earlier. They claim to be looking for the best ideas, regardless of source.
The point of the line about Hanauer's PR firm was that Anderson was trying to insinuate that he had hired the PR firm to promote the speech itself. Pointing out that he had just cowrote a book on the topic would blunt that argument. So in this case it is a lie of omission, because the goal is to make you think differently than you would if you had all the information.
And while it doesn't indicate a trend by itself, this event shows that such a trend could exist. As I've said, the point of this is that the question of exactly which biases TED holds has been raised, and Anderson's choice to try to attack and smear Hanauer instead of addressing the issue makes it more important.
TED has had talks on income inequality, on technological inequality, on the glass ceilings keeping people in poverty, not to mention several (if not dozens) of talks on technological innovations specifically aimed at helping people in poverty. That's not the track record of a curator who doesn't like talking about income inequality.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Which, to me, makes the whole thing even more confusing as to why it's supposed to be so "troubling"
Again, the problem is not "speeches that address income inequality", the problem is "speeches that actually dare to confront the societal elite".
And it's worth asking if that position is one that people want in an organization they support.
Maybe the speech was poorly written?
Yes, this event fails to falsify the null hypothesis {TED has no ideological bias}.
Whee.
Really? You see Anderson's blog post as an "attack" and a 'smear?" It's almost like you're reading a completely different set of words, dead-set on coming to the conclusion you want to come to.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If that is indeed a position the organization holds, the simple solution (no matter how hard it may indeed be) is to stop supporting them, just like with Komen. It sucks, but that's the beauty of the Free Market (tm).
One more time.
The problem with Hanauer's speech is not that he addressed income inequality.
The problem is that he went to the top .1% and basically said "You are not John Galt, you are not special snowflakes, what you are is lucky, and I know this because I'm one of you. And your assertions that you are special snowflakes is killing our society because it's the middle class, not the lucky few at the top, that fuels it."
That's what Anderson had a problem with, and if you read the May 7th email, that fact is pretty clear.
Or trying to force the organization to reform. Which, again, is the whole point of all this. A lot of us don't want to see TED go away, just to move away from the technolibertarian stance.
What is "pretty clear" to me is that Anderson had a problem with how extreme and unilateral Hanauer's statements were.
To put it in forum terms, Hanauer was basically pulling a Thanatos: "the rich don't drive demand, the rich don't create jobs." Anderson responded, "Well, sometimes they do both."
In strictly factual terms, Anderson was right, and Hanauer was wrong.
It happens to be that right now, in our country and time, we have a toxic myth that overstates how much the rich drive demand and create jobs. But that doesn't justify upholding an opposite myth.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well, unless you're somehow in a position of control over TED your solution to do that would be to stop supporting them, or start up a complaint campaign perhaps. I'm not sure which would be more effective (though I'd lean toward both: ending support while being vocal about why).
But this also seems to be a single data point that is getting a bit overblown.
Anderson is allowed to hold an opinion and use that opinion to make decisions about his company.
We all enjoy the right to free speech, we do not enjoy the right to free publicity or a platform.
And consumers have a right to stop supporting companies and organizations which begin going against their beliefs and values. But I also think it's a bit early to start saying that TED Talks is a techno-libertarian cabal.
You do realize you are arguing in defense of trickle down economics, right?
Anderson isn't right. The wealthy don't drive demand at all, because there's not enough of them to do so. Both of Anderson's examples are demonstrations of where individuals identified latent demand that was then successfully tapped, not where the wealthy pushed demand.
"Liberal ends through conservative means" and all that nonsense.
Bottom line - it's a bad speech which takes direct swipes at political groups. It's goosery that relies on a friendly audience rather than evidence, and Anderson called him on it.
I'll see how this plays out but I'm a little concerned that we're seeing the flawed version of political correctness. As in we can't do this discussion because someone will be offended (the irony is that the right has no qualms with shaming others). To quote the slime ball that won the GOP primary in South Carolina this year, "Sometimes the truth is negative." Anderson might not have liked that Hanauer called the GOP out on how their economic view is flawed and that he went after that view, but doesn't mean Hanauer was being partisan.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Really? You want a citation for that, of all things? In an academic paper, let alone a five minute speech, that would fall under common knowledge.
eyeroll.gif
Sometimes, once in a while, somebody comes up with an invention, markets that invention, and then only after the invention is released do people see it and go, "Hey, I really want that."
That's what Anderson's talking about. He's talking about iPhones, not yachts.
Latent demand is, by definition, demand that doesn't exist until the supply of a product increases.
It is not (how you are apparently misusing the term as) invisible demand, lurking under the surface of a market, just waiting for the right moment to bubble up.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes, if he wants to make sweeping assertions, he needs to cite. Drop a quote from a GOP conference or whatever, but the golden rule of ANY argument is IF YOU MAKE A POINT YOU BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE.
Edit: ESPECIALLY if you are calling it an "article of faith".
This is a road to making really belabored, shitty speeches.
Funny, it seems that almost every other TED speech does it.
CITE PLEASE.
Entrepreneurship =/= libertarianism.
If your argument is "TED is biased in favor of technological, entrepreneurial solutions to social problems" I'd nod and go, "Okay. Yeah. So what?"
If your argument is "TED is biased in favor of technological, entrepreneurial solutions to social problems and they are libertarian," I'd wonder what definition of libertarian you're using. When I see 'libertarian' in an American political context, I think of fundamental ideas like: taxation is morally wrong, economic regulations are fundamentally wrong, individual rights trump collective well-being, the government's only valid role is the protection of individual rights, the state is never allowed to initiate the use of force, etc.
Going from "TED rejected a poorly-argued talk calling for a higher capital gains tax rate" to "TED is technolibertarian" is just a teensy weensy little jump to conclusions.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Alright, just for you, I will counter myself to cite that overreaching evidence is not a unique phenomenon at TED :
http://kfolta.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/ted-you-can-do-better.html
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/04/a-ted-talk-to-open-your-eyes-to-open-science/
It should be noted that in both of these articles, not backing up the points with evidence is seen as both rare and un-TED. This, however, is not direct proof that almost every other speech does it.
It is also nothing to do with Hanauer's speech which does not back up its points with evidence, as I demonstrated earlier.
Edit: May I also introduce you to a show which has an entire section on how a lot of "common knowledge" is wrong: www.qi.com