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

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.

100 Comments on "The dirty secret of capitalism — and a new way forward | Nick Hanauer"


  1. Let's all win the lottery say and see how much the money's worth. What he doesn't say like politicians, is the bulk of the people have to be kept poor so they work for low pay and keep inflation low.

    Reply

  2. The primary function(work) of humans, should be to take care of life.

    The animals do it, as do all other forms of organized intelligence.

    We, on the other hand, have been poor stewards of Earth, and we can do better.
    I would call this Bioitarianism, like Humanitarianism, but increased in scope.
    Our governments and systems should begin with biology.

    Reply

  3. A return to the age of nobility is such a bad idea that even someone who should be blinded by attribution bias is able to see the fault in its logic. Bravo Nick Hanauer.

    Reply

  4. Except that there IS an equilibrium. Perhaps not as dramatic as what the so called "neoliberals" (a title he is clearly dragging through the mud) would have you believe. But money doesn't come from nowhere. Obviously.

    Reply

  5. I would invite any of the true-believer pro-neoliberal capitalism types to cite a single society in all of human history where unchecked income inequality led to broad freedom and prosperity, and had a positive, long-term outcome.

    Reply

  6. This man has greatly challenged my views and I think I might be in agreement — sharing with all my neoliberal friends.

    Reply

  7. There is no need of me to have any monetary means and I currently have an ebt card in my wallet.

    Reply

  8. The wealth in circulation is not a fixed pie. His assertion that one persons gain is another’s loss is just wrong if it were not then we would still live in caves. Market exchanges make both better off less they would not participate. In the same vein. The speaker misunderstands the concept of self interest and how it leads to the greatest good for all. His choice to use his money to push his thinking is an example of him exercising self interest. If he had no interest in doing it he wouldn’t be doing it. He derives utility from doing what he does. People will not co operate if there is no benefit to values they hold dear and allow them to afford to live. Ie B.Gates and W.Buffet philanthropic activities can be categorised as them acting in self interest. They derive utility from their actions else they would not do it. If they hated doing it they wouldn’t do it. If by doing that they could not afford to live they would also not do it. The Japanese are the gold standard of team work and co operation. It’s in their culture it’s evident in the businesses. Still capitalist still based on self interest. The neo liberal, pro capitalist assertions are based on the conceptualisation of self interest as the individual exercising choices based on indulging his or her own priorities. Decentralised decision making, freedom of speech, democracy and beliefe in markets all follow from this beliefe in the need to promote as rights the freedom for people to operate in self interest and for the individual to determine what that might be.Logically the opposite is collectivism/socialism/communism where the individuals’ activities are dictated to him or her by priorities as defined by someone else. It’s someone else’s idea of his or her own interests and that of the greater good to all. This leads to big government and centralisation of control a disdain for markets and tendency toward dictatorship. If the individual being free to define and peruse their own interest is selfishness then the opposite of that can be called jealousy. Societies based on the freedom of self interest tend to be wealthy and democratic. Those based on jealousy oppressive and impoverished. Any one interested in the concept of self interest might like to learn about Objectivism by Ayn Rand and followers. It doesn’t lend itself to sound bite quotations but is powerful and enlightening if you take the time and effort to understand it..

    Reply

  9. except that whereas in the past the little folk (I'm one of the 99% myself) were needed to man armies and work in factories, in the near future that will not be the case. I can imagine the earth's population being about 2,000 billionaires who use AI and robots to get what they need while they jet around enjoying the views. At the moment we cling onto the idea of our 'manpower' but we might not even be useful to 'Them' as customers, soon.

    Reply

  10. Implement a Value Added Tax. Pay your damn taxes and stop funneling it through Ireland. It’s a starting place.

    Reply

  11. it´s simple: if stupid rich people don´t divide the cake fairly, the poor will divide their TRHOATS – very fairly !

    Reply

  12. Market demand = need/desire + income. If you lack discretionary income, your needs do not translate into demand.

    Reply

  13. For anyone who wants to learn about Neoliberalism, here's a great video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOuzABjrAo4

    Reply

  14. What a stack of nonsense. 15$ minimal wage… forgoten about polish imigrants? Working for 10$… this guy is some kind of comunist. He shows the real problem and finds fake solution to it. Look at Venezuela and my country, Poland. Please, spend this 10 minutes and check. All NEW ECONOMICS is always socialism. We need less taxes and less goverment control and most of all you Americans should get rid of the FED and deregulate banking system. Befor 1890s you had 30000 banks… now you have how many? Actually you have just few a fistfull of them that counts. Its federal goverment and bankers lobby created enslavement

    Reply

  15. He lost my attention when he started in on how an arbitrary $15 minimum wage was good for the Seattle economy. Business ARE closing and low end workers ARE getting their hours and benefits cut. I think it was of tremendous use to try that experiment because if it had worked, it would would have completely upended serious economic thought- but someone who is espousing a disconnect between availability of labor, the cost of labor, and the value of labor is not someone I have time for.

    Reply

  16. Look at Nick tearing down a strawman! In Fredrich Hayek's Nobel Prize speech titled "The Pretence of Knowledge", he warns of treating economic science like physical science. Yet, here he is suggesting there is scientific evidence towards his supposed better unnamed new economic solution.

    Reply

  17. The way he acts like America has had a free market in the past 150 years 🤣. We aren't dominated by government or capitalists, but rather cronies, the corrupt marriage of regulatory bodies and corporations. Large corporations could not sustain themselves without subsidies and bailouts, courtesy of taxpayers. Let's actually try free market where small business has a chance.

    Reply

  18. We’re talking about using government rules to enforce corporate morality. Our history shows that kind of enforcement leads to central planning and failed economies. We need to be pushing religion (in whatever flavor anyone chooses). Religion or “spirituality” has historically been the teacher of morality and common interest. Greed and division has grown as we have enforced secularism. Get people back into places teaching love and compassion for fellow human beings, and we will self-regulate without the need for central planners.

    Reply

  19. Competition DOES create the best outcome.

    Cooperation is the context in which constructive competition can occur. For example, if you're participating in a sporting event, everyone is cooperating. Every participant is agreeing to a set of rules, a definition of winning, teams, conduct, etc. Withing that context, competition brings out the highest effort of the participants. The problem arises when one group pays off the game's officials to change the cooperation in their favor. The only system we have in place to keep that in check is a large educated population, observing the game and holding ultimate power over the game.

    Reply

  20. What an ignoramus. Even the neo-Keynesians admit that expanded government spending suppresses wages. So commie mental disorder… virtue signaling idiot advocates more socialism. This is how egomaniacal narcissist destroy society.

    Reply

  21. I misread this as cannibalism, there's definitely some similarities but I still don't know what humans taste like.

    Reply

  22. Great talk Nick, the future economic order is not dependant on failed economic theories at extremes, socialism or capitalism and neoliberal economics. A new economic system must be worked out, considering the true dynamics of human nature in order for humanity to prosper.

    Reply

  23. we've had 40 million illegal pollute us. THAT is why wages have not risen. They;'re too many scabs willing to work for $8 an hours

    Reply

  24. This guy is so philosophically unsophisticated. Economics is based on production and trade. Those are the fundamentals. Everything else relies on this basic principles. Raising wages for restaurant workers forces the employer to either concede and lose the business or play at an even smaller profit (restaurants make a tiny profit). Or they are forced to find a solution that is cheaper than one of the workers but helps accomplish at minimum the same work. Raising minimum wages makes artificial intelligence more and more the best option – killing lower jobs in the process. Workers are expensive. Good employers try to keep the good ones by giving them more benefits and better pay. Here a restaurant owner can't do that because he is already strangled by the higher minimum that has been raised. If people get payed just to spend it again in another place, does not make the economy grow. Spending has nothing to do with growth. Investments, innovation and raising standards of value is what grows an economy. That is why economics is not a zero sum game.

    Also regarding selfishness and the soldier jumping on a grenade – the reason he does that is because of selfish motives. He values his comrades highly enough to sacrifice his own life. Helping a granny pass the intersection is selfish if done rationally because one puts that granny crossing safely at a higher value that 2 minutes of their time and energy. Selfishness properly understood does not conflict with personality traits like kindness and benevolence. Giving to charity is selfish. It's trading one value for a higher value. That's trade. That's at the heart of economics.

    Lastly: why is that a problem that 1% have 90% of the money (the exact numbers don't matter)? Why? Equality in and of itself is not good or bad. It's neutral. It's a relational concept. And people who make more money don't necessarily work harder or create more value. But they are necessarily resulting in more value being generated (they are a bigger cog in the machine). So when a CEO pays themselves millions of dollars it's because they are valuing themselves as much. If their assessment is wrong, depending on the severity, it would result in a net loss in the long term. Reality doesn't care. You will suffer a loss in some form for making a bad decision.

    Economics is based on production and trade. That doesn't change. And this guy is fundamentally wrong with his "new economics".

    Reply

  25. the more competitions there is for jobs, the lower the wage that the employer has to pay. YOU assume the we can just keep on printing money and nobody will figure out that their pay is worth less with each passing year. We've averaged 5% inflation per year. since 1973. so, if you're not CLEARING 100% more every 15 years, you are losing money

    Reply

  26. I never understood why economists want to increases wages instead of lowering costs. The US government had an estimated cost and burden of $1.9 trillion dollars from unnecessary regulations. Instead of having to raise the minimum wage from rising costs due in part from previous minimum wage increases and other regulations, why don’t they just lower the cost of living by reducing taxes and regulations? This would be cheaper and more efficient than having another layer of bureaucracy. Government would have less power thus there would be less incentive for businesses to lobby.

    Reply

  27. your commie bs has been tried all over the world and it's failed miserably, notably in African, Cuba, the Soviet Union and china.

    Reply

  28. know what happens when you tax the rich too much? they dont employ anyone. They stop running bizes or creating them. they have neough money that they can live off of it. They dont need any income. They can leave the country and just let you perish in and of your own void. That's what they did during the great depression. and that's why the GD lasted so long. govt had to start a major war to fix all of their restrictions on industry

    Reply

  29. we need to cut our military by 90% The N guard and the Nuke missile subs are plenty enogh to defend the US. we need to stop all foriegn aid and all interference in all countries. /we need to default on our deb to any country that we've saved, protected and paid their US does for for the past century (which is every country in the world) We need to get rid of all illegals, stop all welfare, legalize all dope for adults, get rid of the income tax, the Fed Reserve and go back on the gold standard. Having saved that 5 trillion $ a year, we can use that money to rebuild our infrastructure. Teach our kids MUCH better, and pay 50k a year to 100 million people. who currently make 20k a year or less (often much less)

    Reply

  30. 50 k a year is not middle class, 200k a year is middle classe (for a family of 4, this is) 50 k a year, if you have a wife and 2 kids, is POVERTY,

    Reply

  31. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer not because of an evil capitalist economic system, but as a result of the "Matthew Effect of accumulated advantage" – a principle discovered and described in 1968 by a sociologist, Robert K. Merton. However, it was already taught to his followers 2000 years ago by Jesus Christ.
    "For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away."

    — Matthew 25:29, RSV.

    Reply

  32. Wrong!
    The Rich have gotten Richer AND so have the Poor.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/10/04/not-only-are-the-rich-getting-richer-so-are-the-poor/#75a8237a77d3

    Reply

  33. This man is actually an idiot he made many false narratives by highlighting occurences he likes and conveniently ignoring the predominant times when these occurences do not work. He is only virtue signalling. This is a psudeo intellectual trying to win the acceptance of those envious who loves to rationalise their failure by scapegoating the successful.

    Reply

  34. The new economics we need is to prevent the equator from invading the northern hemisphere and taking over government and turning the rich white Christian industrialized world into a Third World banana republic shantytown. We've already lost the Congress. And white northern Christian people are being decimated by 10% every generation, while the equatorial's breed whildly, doubleing every generation.
    The brown people are 20 times more likely to kill white people than the reverse.

    Reply

  35. The simple truth is that this TED speaker does not seem to have a firm grasp of economics, hence his straw men.

    Reply

  36. Hey Mr., that might all be a revelation to you, but to us little people who don't worship money, we've known all that a long time ago! And have you done something to atone for your past errors? Or are you still getting that $50M salary and pointing the finger?

    Reply

  37. I lean right and am a capitalist. It bothers me that there is an ugliness in the disparity between the super wealthy and those in real need. But I didn't find anything really tangible to his ideas … how to implement/employ a new economy. Sounded a lot like university professor theory … not meaning to be harsh there.

    Reply

  38. Who are these "neo liberals" that are against the 15 minimum wage? This is all leftist BS. Wages are determined by supply and demand for the most part. There should be no minimum wage, period.

    Reply

  39. Mea Clupa LOL If this guy was serious he would share his prosperity with others rather than complain about the system.

    Reply

  40. Hahahahaa….so says the billion dollar capitalist. I'll take him seriously when he donates $1M to each of a 1,000 people and lives an ascetic life – this was more of a campaign speech.

    Reply

  41. Thinkers give different theories about how capitalism and neoliberalism will end. BUT the problem is, in the fallout, who will have the advantage? The people who have more money! There's no need for the rich to make a move to have a better position. However, I don't see how a currency not supported by gold can hold this? Most of the value is assumed because of trust, prosperity and hegemony caused by military power.

    Reply

  42. He mentions "neo-liberals" numerous times in the first few minutes.. yet it's conservatives who espouse the complete bullsht of trickle-down economics, giving the wealthy tax cut after tax cut – while simultaneously demonizing the poor and doing whatever possible to limit public benefits and social programs for the least fortunate ?

    Reply

  43. If he really believes what he’s preaching why doesn’t he increase the pay of the workers that work for the company at which he is the CEO? He can also give away some of his earnings so that what he takes home is equivalent to the workers that work for his company.

    Reply

  44. First 6 minutes, no. This is a short term benefit, but long term you’re gonna have the people who “were not eating out” are going to start saving money. And in return will slow their economy. So he is right about a short term effect but not long term

    Reply

  45. So let me understand. 150 years ago, 80% of the worlds population was in poverty, 70% in extreme poverty. The natural state for man kind from the beginning. Capitalism comes along, now 9% of the worlds population is in poverty, 7% in extreme poverty.
    To be in the top 1% in the world you need an annual income of $40K.

    And you are telling me the middle class in the US is suffering.

    Do I understand you right?

    Reply

  46. No valid arguments whatsoever, just his opinion, which means nothing since he himself has benefited off of capitalism in major ways. If he really cared about the so called "wage gap" he would give his money to all of those "poor people".

    Reply

  47. This is the key issue of our time. If you think of any field of human endeavour being run on theories that are a couple of centuries old (medicine say) people would be outraged and horrified. Neo-classical economics is nonsense, there is nothing new about it, and I am afraid we are all about to watch history repeat: war, depression, extinction events, etc. I just pray you guys elect Warren into office, and that it's not too late. We once looked to the U.S. for inspiration, now it's hard to look, period.

    Reply

  48. There are so many things wrong with this. But one really obvious one is that no economist would say price equals value.

    Reply

  49. what a hypocrite; he'd be a lot more convincing if the announced at the beginning that he was giving away his entire fortune to the people he exploited to make his half billion dollar fortune.

    Reply

  50. oh my god, 17 minutes of virtue-signaling, zero sum, lying-through-anecdotes, commie drivel and not one mention of how the federal reserve is the actual source of wealth inequality. they just print money and hand it to their banker friends. pretty easy to get rich doing that. Raising taxes is beside the point, minimum wage laws = economics for retards, regulations never work…you need to return the world to an economy built on sound money that actually stores the value of peoples' labor, and doesn't have the value of it stolen through money printing and given to the rich.

    Reply

  51. Fully loaded upscale educated worldly pacifist, getting onto world consumers another emotionalized wordy version of of consumerism.

    Reply

  52. Nick, your greed has blinded you. Such garbage in such a short amount of time. The solution is for you to pay yourself less and to pay your employees more. But… that would cost you money so that solution is unpalatable for you.

    Reply

  53. Capitalism is the greed of earning via mutually beneficial transactions. Other systems seem to be the greed of directly appropriating assets and property without consideration under the veil of greater good. The irony is that only one is pure greed. It seems pretty obvious that we are moving towards socialism, and there is not much anyone can do to stop it. Can't wait for the first round of social corporate voting where people get shocked that employees will vote for bigger paychecks instead of investing in research & development. Greed is not generated by Capitalism – all Capitalism has done is try to harness an inescapable human trait.

    Reply

  54. Publicado justo 1 dia antes del comienzo de la masiva protesta social en Chile. Octubre 2019.
    Curiosa la wea !

    Reply

  55. One of the best speeches… 😅 had to pause & repeat at many points to better understand, absorb, & enjoy the power & beauty of the words.

    May God enable us all to take the next step & actually fix our economies for the betterment of the world.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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