The dirty secret of capitalism — and a new way forward | Nick Hanauer

I am a capitalist, and after a 30-year career in capitalism spanning three dozen companies, generating tens of billions
of dollars in market value, I’m not just in the top one percent,
I’m in the top .01 percent of all earners. Today, I have come
to share the secrets of our success, because rich capitalists like me
have never been richer. So the question is, how do we do it? How do we manage to grab an ever-increasing share
of the economic pie every year? Is it that rich people are smarter
than we were 30 years ago? Is it that we’re working harder
than we once did? Are we taller, better looking? Sadly, no. It all comes down to just one thing: economics. Because, here’s the dirty secret. There was a time
in which the economics profession worked in the public interest, but in the neoliberal era, today, they work only for big corporations and billionaires, and that is creating
a little bit of a problem. We could choose to enact economic policies that raise taxes on the rich, regulate powerful corporations
or raise wages for workers. We have done it before. But neoliberal economists would warn that all of these policies
would be a terrible mistake, because raising taxes
always kills economic growth, and any form of government regulation is inefficient, and raising wages always kills jobs. Well, as a consequence of that thinking, over the last 30 years, in the USA alone, the top one percent has grown
21 trillion dollars richer while the bottom 50 percent
have grown 900 billion dollars poorer, a pattern of widening inequality
that has largely repeated itself across the world. And yet, as middle class families
struggle to get by on wages that have not budged
in about 40 years, neoliberal economists continue to warn
that the only reasonable response to the painful dislocations
of austerity and globalization is even more austerity and globalization. So, what is a society to do? Well, it’s super clear to me
what we need to do. We need a new economics. So, economics has been described
as the dismal science, and for good reason,
because as much as it is taught today, it isn’t a science at all, in spite of all
of the dazzling mathematics. In fact, a growing number
of academics and practitioners have concluded that neoliberal
economic theory is dangerously wrong and that today’s growing crises
of rising inequality and growing political instability are the direct result
of decades of bad economic theory. What we now know is that the economics
that made me so rich isn’t just wrong, it’s backwards, because it turns out it isn’t capital
that creates economic growth, it’s people; and it isn’t self-interest
that promotes the public good, it’s reciprocity; and it isn’t competition
that produces our prosperity, it’s cooperation. What we can now see is that an economics
that is neither just nor inclusive can never sustain the high levels
of social cooperation necessary to enable
a modern society to thrive. So where did we go wrong? Well, it turns out
that it’s become painfully obvious that the fundamental assumptions
that undergird neoliberal economic theory are just objectively false, and so today first I want to take you
through some of those mistaken assumptions and then after describe where the science
suggests prosperity actually comes from. So, neoliberal economic
assumption number one is that the market is
an efficient equilibrium system, which basically means that if one thing
in the economy, like wages, goes up, another thing in the economy,
like jobs, must go down. So for example, in Seattle, where I live, when in 2014 we passed
our nation’s first 15 dollar minimum wage, the neoliberals freaked out
over their precious equilibrium. “If you raise the price
of labor,” they warned, “businesses will purchase less of it. Thousands of low-wage workers
will lose their jobs. The restaurants will close.” Except … they didn’t. The unemployment rate fell dramatically. The restaurant business in Seattle boomed. Why? Because there is no equilibrium. Because raising wages
doesn’t kill jobs, it creates them; because, for instance, when restaurant owners are suddenly
required to pay restaurant workers enough so that now even they
can afford to eat in restaurants, it doesn’t shrink the restaurant business, it grows it, obviously. (Applause) Thank you. The second assumption is that the price of something
is always equal to its value, which basically means
that if you earn 50,000 dollars a year and I earn 50 million dollars a year, that’s because I produce
a thousand times as much value as you. Now, it will not surprise you to learn that this is a very comforting assumption if you’re a CEO paying yourself
50 million dollars a year but paying your workers poverty wages. But please, take it from somebody
who has run dozens of businesses: this is nonsense. People are not paid what they are worth. They are paid what they have
the power to negotiate, and wages’ falling share of GDP is not because workers
have become less productive but because employers
have become more powerful. And — (Applause) And by pretending that the giant imbalance
in power between capital and labor doesn’t exist, neoliberal economic theory
became essentially a protection racket for the rich. The third assumption,
and by far the most pernicious, is a behavioral model that describes human beings
as something called “homo economicus,” which basically means
that we are all perfectly selfish, perfectly rational
and relentlessly self-maximizing. But just ask yourselves, is it plausible that every single time
for your entire life, when you did something
nice for somebody else, all you were doing
was maximizing your own utility? Is it plausible that when a soldier jumps
on a grenade to defend fellow soldiers, they’re just promoting
their narrow self-interest? If you think that’s nuts, contrary to any reasonable
moral intuition, that’s because it is and, according to the latest science, not true. But it is this behavioral model which is at the cold, cruel heart
of neoliberal economics, and it is as morally corrosive as it is scientifically wrong because, if we accept at face value that humans are fundamentally selfish, and then we look around the world at all of the unambiguous
prosperity in it, then it follows logically, then it must be true by definition, that billions of individual
acts of selfishness magically transubstantiate
into prosperity and the common good. If we humans are merely
selfish maximizers, then selfishness
is the cause of our prosperity. Under this economic logic, greed is good, widening inequality is efficient, and the only purpose of the corporation can be to enrich shareholders, because to do otherwise
would be to slow economic growth and harm the economy overall. And it is this gospel of selfishness which forms the ideological cornerstone
of neoliberal economics, a way of thinking
which has produced economic policies which have enabled me and my rich buddies
in the top one percent to grab virtually all of the benefits
of growth over the last 40 years. But, if instead we accept the latest empirical research, real science, which correctly
describes human beings as highly cooperative, reciprocal and intuitively moral creatures, then it follows logically that it must be cooperation and not selfishness that is the cause of our prosperity, and it isn’t our self-interest but rather our inherent reciprocity that is humanity’s economic superpower. So at the heart of this new economics is a story about ourselves that grants us
permission to be our best selves, and, unlike the old economics, this is a story that is virtuous and also has the virtue of being true. Now, I want to emphasize
that this new economics is not something I have personally
imagined or invented. Its theories and models
are being developed and refined in universities around the world building on some of the best
new research in economics, complexity theory, evolutionary theory, psychology, anthropology
and other disciplines. And although this new economics
does not yet have its own textbook or even a commonly agreed upon name, in broad strokes its explanation of where prosperity
comes from goes something like this. So, market capitalism
is an evolutionary system in which prosperity emerges through a positive feedback loop between increasing amounts of innovation
and increasing amounts of consumer demand. Innovation is the process
by which we solve human problems, consumer demand is the mechanism
through which the market selects for useful innovations, and as we solve more problems,
we become more prosperous. But as we become more prosperous, our problems and solutions become more complex, and this increasing technical complexity requires ever higher levels
of social and economic cooperation in order to produce
the more highly specialized products that define a modern economy. Now, the old economics
is correct, of course, that competition plays a crucial role
in how markets work, but what it fails to see is that it is largely a competition
between highly cooperative groups — competition between firms,
competition between networks of firms, competition between nations — and anyone who has ever run
a successful business knows that building a cooperative team
by including the talents of everyone is almost always a better strategy
than just a bunch of selfish jerks. So how do we leave neoliberalism behind and build a more sustainable,
more prosperous and more equitable society? The new economics suggests
just five rules of thumb. First is that successful economies
are not jungles, they’re gardens, which is to say that markets, like gardens, must be tended, that the market is the greatest
social technology ever invented for solving human problems, but unconstrained by social norms
or democratic regulation, markets inevitably create
more problems than they solve. Climate change, the great financial crisis of 2008 are two easy examples. The second rule is that inclusion creates economic growth. So the neoliberal idea that inclusion is this fancy luxury to be afforded if and when we have growth
is both wrong and backwards. The economy is people. Including more people in more ways is what causes economic growth
in market economies. The third principle is the purpose of the corporation
is not merely to enrich shareholders. The greatest grift
in contemporary economic life is the neoliberal idea that
the only purpose of the corporation and the only responsibility of executives is to enrich themselves and shareholders. The new economics must and can insist that the purpose of the corporation is to improve the welfare
of all stakeholders: customers, workers, community and shareholders alike. Rule four: greed is not good. Being rapacious
doesn’t make you a capitalist, it makes you a sociopath. (Laughter) (Applause) And in an economy as dependent
upon cooperation at scale as ours, sociopathy is as bad for business
as it is for society. And fifth and finally, unlike the laws of physics, the laws of economics are a choice. Now, neoliberal economic theory has sold itself to you
as unchangeable natural law, when in fact it’s social norms
and constructed narratives based on pseudoscience. If we truly want a more equitable, more prosperous
and more sustainable economy, if we want high-functioning democracies and civil society, we must have a new economics. And here’s the good news: if we want a new economics, all we have to do is choose to have it. Thank you. (Applause) Moderator: So Nick,
I’m sure you get this question a lot. If you’re so unhappy
with the economic system, why not just give all your money away
and join the 99 percent? Nick Hanauer: Yeah, no, yes, right. You get that a lot. You get that a lot. “If you care so much about taxes,
why don’t you pay more, and if you care so much about wages,
why don’t you pay more?” And I could do that. The problem is, it doesn’t make that much difference, and I have discovered a strategy that works literally
a hundred thousand times better — Moderator: OK. NH: which is to use my money
to build narratives and to pass laws that will require
all the other rich people to pay taxes and pay their workers better. (Applause) And so, for example, the 15-dollar minimum wage
that we cooked up has now affected 30 million workers. So that works better. Moderator: That’s great. If you change your mind,
we’ll find some takers for you. NH: OK. Thank you.
Moderator: Thank you very much.

Maurice Vega

100 Responses

  1. We the Chilean have live under neocons control for over 30 years and we had enough !!
    Oct 18. 2018 the battle off Santiago has ignited a revolution against neocons and new world order..

  2. Oppression is the wage, and the cause of all famines throughout history. If we suddenly had equal wealth today, there would still be some crime for 5 to 10 generations (but less) because this oppression warps people’s minds, which many can’t overcome, but at least then the poorest could seek psychiatric help because they could “afford to.” Debt is slavery and illegal, and most people can’t handle money simply because they can’t do math, and many reasons, but I’m sure there’d be lots less crime if we suddenly had equal wealth and pure freedom. Then we could rescue millions of human trafficking victims out of slavery, but they might never get over the traumas they’ve been through. With equal wealth millions of people could then rescue millions of starving cats and dogs which they can’t do if they’re so POOR they can’t buy pet food, take the animals to vets and buy medicine for the animals, because millions of Americans can’t afford food and medicine and shelter and clothes for their own kids. Lack of money makes some/many parents despise their own kids. And Veterinarians can’t afford to do anything for animals if they have to pay for it! Capitalists cannot see that they’d SELL more stuff if people weren’t poor! They’re just so ignorant.

  3. "Unlike the laws of physics, the laws of economics are a choice"

    It's along way from the pitchforks are coming and while I miss the fear, this ones easier for the super ego challenged to understand.

  4. The question in the end and its answer are very important. The way I understand this is that the guy alone, being a billionaire, is able to use his money to change laws that will improve the life of others. The reason he won't distribute his money is that it would be diluted in the population and that this population is divided and have difficulty to come together to fund such a social change by itself­. This highlight something else, that the system is built in a way that money controls the direction in which laws are applied, and that it requires money that the people who lose the most in this game cannot afford.
    The rules that the system is built on, sometimes even in relation to our own cognitive systems and its vulnerabilities, working against us, have to change as well otherwise it will be an ever ending cycle in which the laws revert back to give the control to the highest earners every time an attempt is made to change them just to reduce wealth inequality.

  5. My god, this guy is suprisingly stupid coming to economics, or maybe is it he's just a pure hypocrite.
    Simple fact, unlike how the hypocrite failed to name one. If paying people more can suprisingly boost your business because then people would buy your product, go ahead, why isn't any of his companies paying 20$, 100$ an hour? If that idiotic logic keeps up, he can just pay people so much that his business will grow with it.
    People who bought this apparently are very bad at math.
    If something happens to be true but doesn't follow any sort of logic, it's called accidental, kids.

  6. This guy is a moron. He said that competing firms don't compete because people have a tendency to cooperate. Riiiiigght… who remembers when McDonald's and BK collaborated to make the Big Whopper… oh wait.
    He also thinks that the market created the housing crisis of 2008. Completely false. It was the government forcing banks to give mortgages to people who obviously could not pay them back. The market would have done things differently if humans didn't intervene. Also, this tard leaves out the fact that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than ANY other economic system. Sure, it's evil. Sure.

  7. I feel like everything he said feel apart right at the end.."all we have to do is choose to have it" Is it really that easy chief? 🤦🏾‍♂️ Also what did he mean by building narratives when asked by the lady?

  8. MAGAS are so stupid they support no one? Why because even genuine rich ppl with common sense agree the rich are greedy and selfish

  9. How about a system like Libertarian Socialism, except it's only something close to it in that it doesn't ban private property (private property in the sense of property being used by employers to employ people into wage labor) but discourages its use? The property norm for firms we would aim for being worker ownership and control of businesses (or multi stakeholder cooperatives) and the political system being kind of democracy in which the people are truly represented so we can actually deal with climate change, and do new things like reduce working hours as we develop the technology to do that (we actually are already able to do that substantially, but capitalism is holding us back).

    WE would change the system, from the bottom-up, by collaborating with each other, using principles from the economic theory of Mutualism, or using or combining any other bottom up approach like Commons-based Peer-Production.

  10. Sorry, you are n't going to get it with capitalism.
    Because it has one goal.
    Whatever you propose will get in the way of that, and thus will overcome.

    You need to democratise the enterprise.


  12. I’m afraid Nick has found that his financial success no longer does it for him, and he’s now after power. Instead of trying to force change on others, why doesn’t he show how his new ways work better? I’m not familiar with him, so I don’t know if he added much value to make his money, or did it some other way, but I suspect the former (because the other ways don’t generally scale well in countries with decent laws). If he knows how to add so much value, why not share his knowledge with the poor rather than use his money to push others around?

  13. We JUST have to choose. Well I choose the first step: NO BILLIONAIRES allowed = introduce a maximum wage = 500000 $/year. Easy.
    2nd step = NO CORPORATIONS = keep it human! 3rd step = DON'T lend money that you DON'T possess = change the money-system!

  14. It’s been proven over and over. The idea that selfishness means taking care of yourself actually also means taking care of others as a by-product. To take care of yourself, you must seek the goods and services you need and desire. Those who provide these things, in their selfishness get your money for providing these things you need and want so that you can provide your goods and services in exchange for money that you again give to others in exchange for what you need. Time is money, therefore it makes more sense to pay more for better devices and goods in order to maximize the time you need to provide your best goods and services. This drives growth and improvement through competition which is properly rewarded by getting more money which buys you better quality of services thus the ability to produce better quality of goods and services, and allows you the ability to hire help to increase the efficiency and quality of both for your customers. Anything short of this is an intentional design to destroy a strong nation by hitting below the belts of compassionate people who are all too willing to question themselves in their strong areas and falsely feel noble and moral for letting strangers dictate their integrity. What should scare most of them, but doesn’t seem to, is they don’t notice the power of suggestion being played upon their lack of faith in themselves. If they did, they would spot a sociopath just about as quickly as the sociopaths (the charismatic ones that no one dares dislike) spot you.

  15. First, it isn't true the market is an efficient equilibrium system. Our astronomically complex modern economy is anything but an equilibrium!

    Second false assumption is, that price always equals value!

    Third, humans are not rational, utility – maximalizing machines who look out for our own interests for others.

  16. Nick, let us examine some historical facts. After Germany was divided into two following the Second World War, East Germans displayed a high degree of "cooperation." But this wasn't because of a change in human nature. It was because people who lived there were forced to use their social network for basic survival. A simple drain clogged up would turn into a matter of calling in favors. The solution was not a simple matter like calling for a plumber. Inhabitants of the East had to know someone who knew someone who could help — there was little money, few accessible equipment and tools, and no available spare parts. In West Germany, on the other hand, people were reported not to be so “cooperative,” so to speak. True enough, because they could simply hire some (unknown and self-interested, perhaps moody) plumber, who would impersonally fix the problem. Guess which Germany had a higher standard of living?

    My question to you: how much you value voluntary action?

    Nick, why not engage all your money and join the 99 percent? If you care so much about taxes, why dont you pay more voluntarily? If you care so much about wages, why dont you pay more?

    You could be a role model, such as Henry Ford, who shocked the business world by paying higher (doubled) wages for his employees even (or especially) in times of crisis.

    Nick, dont build narratives on how to pass laws that will require all the other rich people to pay taxes and to pay their works better – for example, the minimum wage.
    Become active yourself and voluntarily help us bringing Solar Schools, smart farming and electricity to Africa and, let's build the worlds first decentralised nano energy grid with scalable solar containers to empower Africa, bringing young girls into schools as otherwise, 300million of those six to 16 girls and young women will never see a School!

    As Frédéric Bastiat noted: “it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly conceive fraternity legally enforced, without liberty being legally destroyed, and justice legally trampled under foot.”

  17. What a total fraud. No mention of the inherently fraudulent monetary system imposed upon us in 1913 with the creation of the funny money "federal reserve system "….eh??? So…am I left to assume that he thinks it's ok to print "it" out of "thin air" ….and then LOAN it into circulation as an instrument of DEBT ….including the charging of "interest" on a piece of paper that has
    NO inherent value and is INCAPABLE of transferring real title to property. Total fraud ….people. If he wanted real change he would inform his audience of the actual truth. He would advocate that we do our own research and examine some of the many truthfull dissertations that are out there. Such as: "America, freedom to fascism"….and: "All wars are bankers wars". and: "Billions for the bankers, debts for the people". …and: "Daly v. First National Bank of Montgomery" Beware of false prophets. The only truth detectors out there are the ones in our hearts.

  18. Good job making your strawman of current economic theory. I'm sure it is well received by those who already view capitalism as evil.

  19. I have little time for communism, regardless of the quality of the serving plate. If the economy is a garden, not a jungle, who is the gardner? Elitist prig. I think we all know. All to be learned from this is that at some level of wealth, you can afford to start thinking like Mao, Kim, Lenin and Castro. We give them all the power and they'll "take care of us"…resist their lust for power (all that remains to an aging billionaire), and they'll also "take care of us", just in the other sense. Just like Mao. Most of what he points out as obvious truths are already built-in assumptions of the free market. The rest are just pompous bloviating. Wanna' be happy Mr. Billionaire? Find purpose in your grandchildren, not in empire building and elitist, globalist engineering with the lives of people who don't know or care what you think.

  20. A convincing opinion piece railing against Neo-Liberal economics which rewards large corporations and billionaires, and keeps the rest of us under the yoke. All good until the end when Hanauer says, “if we want a new economics all we have to do is to choose to have it.” Does anyone believe the corporations and billionaires will simply say “oh yeah, let's change the system” in these times when even our governments are their servants?!

  21. Humans are fundamentally wired to survive, not to be selfish bastards. On the other hand we are not just plain cooperative altruistics. We are constantly balancing the two. Bravo for the new views. But the idea of taxing more ie forcing people to handover their labor to the gov't 'mafia' isn't going to be a change for the good. That's what is going on now. We need a truly new economics policy.

  22. #yang2020 A value added tax on luxury items, and tech revenue would target the wealthy, then funnel it into the hands of the people, giving them a chance to do more with their time, creating more small businesses, and supporting more small businesses. A trickle-up economy. Youtube Andrew Yang, and vote for him in your local primaries next year.

  23. So…Catholic Distributism. The Left are hundreds of years behind the Church. Listen to the popes on economics, please. You'll love it.

  24. The only thing he said that made any sense was that people aren't compensated based on the level of value they bring but rather their negotiation power.

  25. Mother Teresa was righteous. Advocating for making others live his idea of a virtuous lifestyle at the point of a gun is not. His answer to the staged question he was trying to preempt was telling. He hasn’t chosen to live this philosophy he wants to impose on others. He just likes the idea of it.

  26. Also, MORALS are what is needed not more laws. Look at Rockefeller!! This man was ruthless in business, but it was to supply affordable gas to the whole nation. Mr. Hanauer he did not use his money to influence laws, but gave 1/2 of it away to the nation!! Interestingly, Rockefeller was a Christian as well. I like how when asked why don't you give your wealth away or pay YOUR workers better, you chose to use it to make OTHERS do it.

  27. @16:00 the video answers it all … he "could do that, the problem is …" means he speaks a good line BUT will not do as he says.

  28. Isn’t an economic system based on cooperation and equality basically socialism? Like I’m not trying to say that it’s bad, cuz I’m all for it. I’m just saying that you can just say that socialism is actually a good idea

  29. Simple common sense, but while sociopaths are allowed to be in control the entire planet will suffer and die.

  30. Cool. Now I can make 250k a year sweeping floors! Neato!

    Thanks, NeoMarxians. I sleep better now knowing you finally tweaked out all the bugs in prior Marxian mysticism that murdered millions in the name of a better world.

    This time you'll get it right, since it's backed this time with math.

    Which of course is what we were told decades ago.

    Still…so good to hear…

  31. Buying in to Darwin's theory of Evolution has produced the modern problems of Capitalism. Neo-liberal economics is based on evolutionary theory – survival of the fittest. They ignore history however. Evolutionary theory leads to revolution It's been so long since there's been a serious economic revolution in the world, this unavoidable outcome has been forgotten. The rich still say "let them eat cake."

  32. I love your message and you should be running for president! Hurry up and find one of those states that allow late entrance.

  33. Hilarious. He claims in the first minute that being Tall, Good Looking, Smarter, Working Harder, has nothing to do with how they have become wealthy. What's interesting to me on that is, every CEO or top boss guy I've met have all been very tall, good looking (the kind of look that people tend to respect, the typical masculine or 'smart leader' features), at least a slightly above average IQ, and workaholics. He makes great points but I don't think he's being very honest in the beginning. I don't see very many short, weak and ugly looking, dumb, lazy rich guys in charge of big businesses out there.

  34. So, you just have to pay your workers more and include all the worthless boobs in society and your company will flourish. Yep. That'll work!

  35. Nature builds from the bottom up… Farmers know the power of their farm is in the soil… Feed the bacteria and everything above it flourishes as the energy flushes upwards..

  36. Everyone should read "Sand Talk; how indigenous thinking can save the world". Indigenous culture has had systems to control rapacious narcissists for millennia.

  37. Hoarding is a mental illness. So yes, rapacious capitalists who hoard resources and power are mentally ill psychopaths who have been given the steering wheel of our society

  38. I've said this for years. "Economics" is an incredibly blinkered prism through which to view and organise the world. One day our governments' primitive reverence for this autistic discipline will be laughed at. But simple minds fall for simple shell games, and numbers carry mythical weight for those same simple minds. To understand the world, you'd be better off reading Dickens than studying economic theory. Any human with a functioning emotional landscape can better understand the depth of the human experience through the arts than through economics. Which makes me wonder whether our "leaders" are human at all, or just aliens in human suits.

  39. None of this is new. Henry Ford himself once wrote that he must pay his worker a decent wage as his worker is also his customer.

  40. Does it turn out that 1945 was not a real liberation of the world? Since then central bank-capitalism has ruled the world…. EVEN in Russia! And what about peace? Epic fail…

    But this chart does not tell the whole picute. Now people are dieing and suffering from central bank-capitalism-induced poisoning, hunger, economy-derived deprivation in all fields of human needs….

    Think about it. The evil creature is the Fed…- and especially their owners.

  41. Rich assholes coming out of hiding one by one and playing nice guys even weeping. These guys became rich not by hard work. Its a multi pronged strategy. Stealing govt IP, monopoly, lobbying, buying politicians, suppressing wages thro outsourcing and bringing cheap labor. Its socialism for these rich bums and capitalism for poor and middle class…

  42. So why Nike has its trainers made in Vietnam, Adidas Tshirts in Bangladesh, VW car parts in South Africa – cheap labour in the supply chain keeps the cost of the material /down. This why we don’t recycle, it’s cheaper to use virgin materials. It’s cheaper for companies to ship over beer get it canned in China and sent back to Europe.

  43. The insights are not new. They are from Marx:

    "It isn't capital that creates economic growth, it's people"
    "It's isn't self-interest that promotes the public good, it's reciprocity"
    "It isn't competition that promotes prosperity, it's cooperation"

    And they have been empirically verified many decades ago. The problem did not start with neoliberal economic theory. It's liberal economic theory.

    The problem is the market by its virtue. Greed and selfishness is built in and cannot be waved away from markets.

    See Robin Hahnel's Introduction to Political Economy.

    See Michael Albert's new economics

  44. wow, basic traits that evolved over millions of years, like cooperation, turned out to be valuable, who would have thought

  45. The problem is the government wastes tax money and has no responsibility in spending. No one talks about how greedy the government is.

  46. Capitalism has proven to be the best way to raise millions out of total poverty.

    In capitalism you get ahead by serving the needs of others.

  47. People in fast food demanding 15$ an hour are gonna be replaced by queask. How much did the wage increase increase the cost of a meal?

  48. It is crazy how rich this guy got for how stupid he is. First off the Seattle minimum wage hike helping workers is plain wrong. Here is the UW study refuting it.
    The funny story is that Seattle officials read the report and then proceeded to try to hide the results by creating a new group to review the original study to try to change the outcome.
    Also, its funny how he used no data to support his ideas except for one. The one that is proven false.
    I agree the purpose of a corporation is to improve all stakeholders. This isn't a new idea. It is being practiced by many corporations currently.
    Sure greed is not good. But to say we should not aim to make money is to deincentivize new ideas for current problems in the world.
    I don't even know what to say about "laws of economics are a choice." So if the whole world wants economic policy of the ideas communism, does it make it the right thing to do? There is simply black and white when it comes to economic policy. Capitalism builds wealth socialism kills it. There is a gray area that is flexible but the foundation ideas are set in concrete.
    Cooperation isn't a new idea either. Businesses use it to find solutions for problems. They collab to be on the same page as everyone else.
    The more I think about what he is trying to say, the more I think he is encouraging socialism. "We should all aim for equality through cooperation." No, both those things are good for society, but they don't create wealth.
    Thanks for reading my rant.

  49. >>And so, for example, the 15-dollar minimum wage that we cooked up has now affected 30 million workers. So that works better.

    So that no real change takes place and I can remain on top with my rich bud-buddies and rule the economy, just like we did for the past 40 years.

    Yeah, right.
    Despite everything, this is a very progressive thought for such censored and restricted platform as TED, and I'm kinda glad they let him say some truly important things, such as:
    "Now, neoliberal economic theory has sold itself to you as unchangeable natural law, when in fact it's social norms and constructed narratives based on pseudoscience.", which is basically an idea from Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism books, that was released 10 years ago. Now capitals tries to recuperate Fisher's radical ideas by defusing, sterilizing and presented them to us in innocuous manner.

    If TED was a truly free platform for sharing ideas, socialist speakers and New Left ideas would be platformed as well, but it will never happen, since TED serves capital and capital only.

  50. Just throwing up socialist ideology. I bet he will run for office in the future throwing up all this bullshit on people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment