So obvious it will never stop shocking me that anyone doesn't just understand this from birth.
1) The rich and powerful still need a limited amount of consent from the masses to do what they want
2) They attack the problem at every level, with dishonest science, saturating discourse with (untrue) messages that benefit them, obfuscation, whatever they can...using a vigorous, experienced, motivated, and well-funded PR machine
3) Any message delived from an authoritarian voice carries a little weight, even when the authority is completely suspect and has been discredited
4) People are morons
(My favorite part of the entire equation is that people who believe the rich are people who fear the government, as if the government somehow has the power to do something in spite of the fact that they have failed to do anything for decades)
also, I believe that capitalism is still the most efficient economic system as long as there are reasonable checks and neither the business side nor the government side accumulates too much power
Meant to say "in a world of giant multinationals..."
"Why are we doing it then?"
"WE" aren't doing it. Those who are paid for by the wealthy are doing it under the guise of "being responsible" which impresses those who vote for the corrupt lawmakers the rich employ.
Those who benefit from the system increasing their wealth/power keep skewing the system to give them more wealth/power. The only question is do they do it because they think the system can afford to give them more at the expense of the majority, or do they honestly think the majority deserves less because of some failing that the majority has? They could also just be completely amoral evil fucks like the Koch brothers (who make billions from formaldehyde and use a fraction of said billions to keep formaldehyde out of the EPA's control even though it's a known carcinogen), which is what my cynical side often wants to say.
Investments are no longer the same as creating jobs. Wall Street is mostly a giant video poker machine, where fortunes are created out of accounting shenanigans instead of what a lot of people (idiots) think it is. It used to be you invested in a company that made shit and did shit that was in some way productive, and they had to hire people to do said shit. Now it's all investment banking which really often doesn't even benefit the investor, unless they're mega-rich to begin with.
I'm almost thinking there's going to be some kind of break between whatever is exchanged for goods and services and what we call "money" just because those who have shitloads of it are divorcing it from being a measure of value based on labor.
I saw a Venn diagram posted somewhere on the sort of people who attend TED talks, according to the person who drew it up there is an overlap between "Can afford 7500 to attend TED talks" and "Thinks Malcolm Gladwell is a genius".
I really want to see that and I can't find it, but I did find this:
so it wasn't a completely wasted 45 seconds.
That forbes one takes on a whole different meaning if you have a different opinion of the cultural significance of Oprah than the author does, of course.
TED apparently lifted the ban due to thousands of cries of hypocrisy from their fans, so it is on their site now.
My wife wants me to start listening to TED talks. The problem is that many of them seem to be edging into "self-affirmational bullshit" territory. It seems like any time something gets popular enough to break through into my wife's radar, it's not going to exactly be 100% legit.
If it breaks through into my mother-in-law's area of interest, then it's 100% fraud. Did I mention her current favorite person is Doctor Oz? If he's given a TED talk, it likely generated a singularity of nonsense from which not even light can escape.
like anything popular, there were once gems and turds, now there are still gems, but there are a lot more turds
|Mike Jordan |
Maybe all of the talks are as vague as this one, but I can see this being 'banned' not because of the controversial subject matter, but because there seems to be minimal sourcing.
At it's most convincing, all he is doing is showing a correlation between tax rates and unemployment rates.
I agree with what he is saying, but I feel like it wouldn't be very difficult for a layman to create a more solid presentation given a reasonable amount of time.
While a lot of this stuff might be common sense, keeping the conversation at that level is hugely responsible for most of the problems we create for ourselves in the US.
I can't think of many TED talks that spend a lot of time spewing citations. They are meant to be little globules of ideas that inspire you to seek out more ideas. It's worked on me pretty well so far.
Also, no amount of well-cited evidence is able to fracture the resolve of partisan hacks, nor does it enlighten the willfully ignorant.
WHOA, don't even joke about enlightening us.
Thank you. Now if you'll excuse me, Iron Man 3 is out.
Yeah, TED talks are basically Jack Handey for the people who made their fortunes in the dot-com bubble.
well, I sure as hell will never pay that much to go to one
the visual medium is not an efficient transmitter of a great deal of information
perhaps you could read his book
This seemed especially thin and poorly argued though. I've never seen one as content-free as this.
from my zeitgeist bookmarks:
| Register or login To Post a Comment|