The Great Reset Thread

[Nicodeamus]

I suppose that we are living through odd times or perhaps Davos has done the worst PR in human history,

but what do you all make of "the great reset", recently announced by Davos.

The Great Reset

There is an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. To improve the state of the world, the World Economic Forum is starting The Great Reset initiative.

www.weforum.org

A national Review article suggests that its serious,

The Great Reset: If Only It Were Just a Conspiracy | National Review

The ‘Great Reset’ masterminded by the World Economic Forum is just corporatism by another name.

www.nationalreview.com

Google fact checks tell me that there is no 'conspiracy, but I find that difficult to believe when a German speaking guys announced to the world that he is going to "reset" the world economy.

Let's try and keep this thread, despite the title, not too looney.

 

[Sinbad]

I'm pretty tired, sounds good

 

[Nicodeamus]

I'm pretty tired, sounds good

my dyslexia always shows up after I press the post button! (but yes we all need a rest).

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I suppose that we are living through odd times or perhaps Davos has done the worst PR in human history,

but what do you all make of "the great reset", recently announced by Davos.

The Great Reset

There is an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. To improve the state of the world, the World Economic Forum is starting The Great Reset initiative.

www.weforum.org

A national Review article suggests that its serious,

The Great Reset: If Only It Were Just a Conspiracy | National Review

The ‘Great Reset’ masterminded by the World Economic Forum is just corporatism by another name.

www.nationalreview.com

Google fact checks tell me that there is no 'conspiracy, but I find that difficult to believe when a German speaking guys announced to the world that he is going to "reset" the world economy.

Let's try and keep this thread, despite the title, not to looney.

Reading through the three main components, it's all fairly banal, really. It's the kind of stuff WEF have been advocating since their founding. Sustainable development, international and public-private cooperation, etc.

Now is the time for a 'great reset' of capitalism | World Economic Forum

 

[noxibox]

Hence why I don't get all the paranoia and conspiracy theories around it.

 

[Herr der Verboten]

Done

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Hence why I don't get all the paranoia and conspiracy theories around it.

the road to hell being paved with good intentions?

just look at how global warming climate change has been both blamed for many things as well as used as an excuse for countless political decisions ... multiply that by a big factor and imagine what can be done under the guise of a "great reset" ...

 

[Nicodeamus]

Reading through the three main components, it's all fairly banal, really. It's the kind of stuff WEF have been advocating since their founding. Sustainable development, international and public-private cooperation, etc.

Now is the time for a 'great reset' of capitalism | World Economic Forum

So it's just Davos being Davos. I never really paid much attention to them until now.

I suppose that I am not entirely on board with a club of billionaires telling us what policies we have to pursue in the future (but that is probably how the world works already). Joel Kotkin wrote an interesting piece called 'the end game" on this,

The End Game

With the election of Joe Biden, the environmental movement has now established suzerainty over global economics. Gone not only is the troublesome Donald Trump but also the Canadian skeptic Steven Harp

www.realclearenergy.org

On what they stand for,

• I am all for international co-operation,
• Public-private co-operation also happens in most countries of the world and in SA in particular its most likely a new road to corruption.
• Sustainable development is a bit of an insult to any thinking person, but it has become the new buzzword of large co-operations that all want to get their hands on state subsidies (it's essentially greenwashing your product).

What sounds a bit strange to me about Klaus Schwab in particular is his dedication to stakeholder capitalism as if that is the only thing that the world needs. Milton Friedman already wrote in the 70s that the main purpose of a company is to make money for its shareholders and if you think about it clearly, no company can exist without making money.

The WEF also has a few prophets that tries to predict the future and the one phrase that got a few people (including myself) a bit upset is "you will own nothing, and be happy", now unless that are going to push me into an Aldous Huxley World, I am not sure if I am on board of being a serf with billionaires owning everything.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Hence why I don't get all the paranoia and conspiracy theories around it.

The conspiracies tend to blow everything out of proportion, but I feel that it is a good time now to look deeply at what Davos actually stands for. I am personally a bit skeptical of sustainable development and recycling in particular, it's one of those feel good phrases that breaks down when you put it under scrutiny.

What I don't understand is why do Billionaires go there every year to try and flatter each other? Can't they organize a zoom meeting as I am sure that they have each other's numbers.

Here are a few ideas that won't go down so well,
Digital identifies.

Platform for Good Digital Identity

As more people, devices and associated personal data get online, there is growing focus on an enabling element of the new digital environment – our identities. User-centric digital identities are the base of trusted digital interactions and access to digital services, enabling personalization...

www.weforum.org

Immunity Passports

COVID-19: What are immunity passports and how would they work? | World Economic Forum

Smart Cities

5 ways to speed up the creation of smart cities | World Economic Forum

Digital Currencies

Governing the Coin: World Economic Forum Announces Global Consortium for Digital Currency Governance > Press releases | World Economic Forum

Carbon based currencies

How blockchain will help save the environment | World Economic Forum

I can see how a conspiracy theories can draw a few lines between those and think that these guys are a bit nuts.

 

[MachoPants]

All hogwash, Illuminati Billionaire Davos Club always meets more than once a year.

 

[Nicodeamus]

the road to hell being paved with good intentions?

just look at how global warming climate change has been both blamed for many things as well as used as an excuse for countless political decisions ... multiply that by a big factor and imagine what can be done under the guise of a "great reset" ...

Humans are always driven by fear, climate change, overpopulation, soil erosion, HIV, endless growth, swine flu, the millennial bug, nuclear war, nuclear waste, communism, swart-gevaar, water scarcity, plastics in the ocean, food insecurity, running out of resources, etc

I would add covid19 to that list.

I used to believe in many of them until I actually looked at the data then I realized that they aren't as scary and that the world is actually improving. Many of them are real world problems, but with sensible engineering and problem solving they can mostly be overcome.

That being said, nutcases such as Klaus Schwab always work themselves up the international organizations, just like the Mr. Tedros that runs the WHO. They ultimately use fear to try and sell their ideology.

 

[CaptainOblivious]

Hence why I don't get all the paranoia and conspiracy theories around it.

Yeah, just give up private property and swear fealty to your new feudal overlords and obviously we can all have a nice utopia, why has no one ever thought of this before?

 

[Ancalagon]

Yeah, just give up private property and swear fealty to your new feudal overlords and obviously we can all have a nice utopia, why has no one ever thought of this before?

You'll eat your vegan gruel and you will like it because you will think you're helping the environment.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

So it's just Davos being Davos. I never really paid much attention to them until now.

I suppose that I am not entirely on board with a club of billionaires telling us what policies we have to pursue in the future (but that is probably how the world works already).

I mean, you could just look at what they're saying/proposing and evaluate it like you would anyone else.

Some of their ideas will be good, some will be stupid/unworkable etc.

Like Elon Musk, for example. Probably worth listening to what he has to say on electric vehicles and commercial space flight. Not so much on public transport or cave rescue missions.

If billionaires with agendas are something that irks you the wrong way, have I got a good book for you!

On what they stand for,

• I am all for international co-operation,
• Public-private co-operation also happens in most countries of the world and in SA in particular its most likely a new road to corruption.
• Sustainable development is a bit of an insult to any thinking person, but it has become the new buzzword of large co-operations that all want to get their hands on state subsidies (it's essentially greenwashing your product).

Seems like unfounded generalisation, tbh. They can be those things, or they can... not. Depends.

What sounds a bit strange to me about Klaus Schwab in particular is his dedication to stakeholder capitalism as if that is the only thing that the world needs. Milton Friedman already wrote in the 70s that the main purpose of a company is to make money for its shareholders and if you think about it clearly, no company can exist without making money.

What don't you like about stakeholder capitalism? And who cares what Milton Friedman wrote in the 70s (for arguments' sake)? Nothing about stakeholder capitalism precludes companies from making money for shareholders.

The WEF also has a few prophets that tries to predict the future and the one phrase that got a few people (including myself) a bit upset is "you will own nothing, and be happy", now unless that are going to push me into an Aldous Huxley World, I am not sure if I am on board of being a serf with billionaires owning everything.

What...? What's the context?

 

[Nicodeamus]

I mean, you could just look at what they're saying/proposing and evaluate it like you would anyone else.

Some of their ideas will be good, some will be stupid/unworkable etc.

Like Elon Musk, for example. Probably worth listening to what he has to say on electric vehicles and commercial space flight. Not so much on public transport or cave rescue missions.

If billionaires with agendas are something that irks you the wrong way, have I got a good book for you!

Fair enough, some of them are clever, but my view has always been that a lot of billionaires just got lucky, I like listening to Bill Gates for example,

Seems like unfounded generalisation, tbh. They can be those things, or they can... not. Depends. Public-private cooperation happens in every country on earth,

Correct, hence I don't see what their point is in promoting it, in my view it's mostly large cooperation that have the ability to engage the public. I am not particularly opposed to that.

What don't you like about stakeholder capitalism? And who cares what Milton Friedman wrote in the 70s (for arguments' sake)? Nothing about stakeholder capitalism precludes companies from making money for shareholders.

well a company cannot make it a priority in my view,


it's all good and well to take care of your stakeholders, but it is rather naive in my view to think that a company can survive without putting profit ahead of anything else.

Here is Friedman's article for what it's worth, http://umich.edu/~thecore/doc/Friedman.pdf
I find it to be a good rebuttal of the whole theory.

My experience has been that a company always use the stakeholders capitalism as a bit of a PR and it also keeps the HR department better. As soon as profit starts falling, they forget about share holder capitalism and start thinking about cutting costs.

I have also seen how managers try and use the stakeholder model with a box tick mentality and all common sense goes out of the window. Theoretically it sounds great, in practice I remain rather skeptical.

What...? What's the context?

Here's how life could change in my city by the year 2030

It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service.

www.weforum.org

Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city - or should I say, "our city". I don't own anything. I don't own a car. I don't own a house. I don't own any appliances or any clothes.
It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.

Here's how life could change in my city by the year 2030

It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service.

www.weforum.org

Their website points to that odd 2030 dystopia, that seems to me to be an advanced version of serfdom mixed with a bit of Aldous Huxley.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Correct, hence I don't see what their point is in promoting it, in my view it's mostly large cooperation that have the ability to engage the public. I am not particularly opposed to that.

Well, partly because cooperation isn't a binary thing. The way it happens can vary a lot.

well a company cannot make it a priority in my view,


it's all good and well to take care of your stakeholders, but it is rather naive in my view to think that a company can survive without putting profit ahead of anything else.

Here is Friedman's article for what it's worth, http://umich.edu/~thecore/doc/Friedman.pdf
I find it to be a good rebuttal of the whole theory.

My experience has been that a company always use the stakeholders capitalism as a bit of a PR and it also keeps the HR department better. As soon as profit starts falling, they forget about share holder capitalism and start thinking about cutting costs.

I have also seen how managers try and use the stakeholder model with a box tick mentality and all common sense goes out of the window. Theoretically it sounds great, in practice I remain rather skeptical.

Well, that's mainly anecdotal, so not sure it means much. I don't disagree that corporate commitments are often just PR fluff, but it's not necessarily always the case.

There does seem to be some evidence that it is actually better for businesses in the long-run.

The case for stakeholder capitalism

Consumers and society at large are expecting more from business. Embracing these responsibilities can help shareholders, too.

www.mckinsey.com

Second, there is growing evidence that companies that take a long-term view—and stakeholder capitalism requires that—perform better. In a study that looked at 615 large- and mid-cap US publicly listed companies from 2001–15, the McKinsey Global Institute found that those with a long-term view outperformed the rest in earnings, revenue, investment, and job growth. Other McKinsey research concluded that companies with strong environmental, social, and governance norms recorded higher performance and credit ratings through five factors: top-line growth, lower costs, fewer legal and regulatory interventions, higher productivity, and optimized investment and asset utilization.

Here's how life could change in my city by the year 2030

It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service.

www.weforum.org

Here's how life could change in my city by the year 2030

It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service.

www.weforum.org

Their website points to that odd 2030 dystopia, that seems to me to be an advanced version of serfdom mixed with a bit of Aldous Huxley.

Author's note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.

lol.

You're reading into it way too much, imo.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Well, partly because cooperation isn't a binary thing. The way it happens can vary a lot.



Well, that's mainly anecdotal, so not sure it means much. I don't disagree that corporate commitments are often just PR fluff, but it's not necessarily always the case.

There does seem to be some evidence that it is actually better for businesses in the long-run.

The case for stakeholder capitalism

Consumers and society at large are expecting more from business. Embracing these responsibilities can help shareholders, too.

www.mckinsey.com

It's a mixed bag, it makes sense to take care of your staff, of your clients and the area around you, all of it has an affordability tag though, but I don't see why we need this special kind of promotion for something that is rather common sense and that has been the business practice in most European countries since the 2nd World War.

Author's note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.

lol.

You're reading into it way too much, imo.

The idea that the website is pitching is that of a Smart City where essentially data is collected and everything is optimized etc, great idea, but I doubt that it is even executable. (one reason being that historically people prefer suburbia over densification).

I wouldn't have pointed out their "own nothing and be happy" phrase if it wasn't part of their promotional video for their "trends of the future".

Davos does seems to be a club of a bunch of wierdos with too much money.

A Useful Pandemic: Davos Launches New ‘Reset,’ this Time on the Back of COVID | National Review

Why it is capitalism that has to be reset is unclear.

www.nationalreview.com

In a recent article (skillfully dissected by Richard Morrison for NR’s Capital Matters), Schwab explained how the Great Reset would be dedicated to exorcizing that phantom known as neoliberalism:

Free-market fundamentalism has eroded worker rights and economic security, triggered a deregulatory race to the bottom and ruinous tax competition.

As Morrison observes, “this will come as puzzling news to scholars of government regulation.”

Schwab then asserts that “today’s consumers do not want more and better goods and services for a reasonable price. Rather, they increasingly expect companies to contribute to social welfare and the common good.”

Perhaps Schwab, who holds “17 honorary doctorates, and national medals of honour, including the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun of Japan, the Grand Cross with Star of the National Order of Germany and the Knight of the Légion d’Honneur of France” and has “been knighted by Queen Elizabeth II (Knight Commander of the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George (KCMG))”, should get out more.

That being said, if we take a bit of a perspective then I suppose that this is probably the biggest marketing campaign failure in human history.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

It's a mixed bag, it makes sense to take care of your staff, of your clients and the area around you, all of it has an affordability tag though, but I don't see why we need this special kind of promotion for something that is rather common sense and that has been the business practice in most European countries since the 2nd World War.

It really depends. It's obviously not common sense and standard business practice everywhere, especially not in the US. If it is in Europe, and has been for decades - why all the catastrophising about it now?

The idea that the website is pitching is that of a Smart City where essentially data is collected and everything is optimized etc, great idea, but I doubt that it is even executable. (one reason being that historically people prefer suburbia over densification).

Not really. People like all sorts of things, including high density living and low density living. Doesn't really speak to what's best for cities and countries in general. Nothing about suburbs that precludes smart city changes, either.

The density that's standard in suburban Europe (and is totally fine) would feel claustrophobic to many sprawl-loving Americans.

Also, you could triple the US population and it would only have the density of France.

That being said, if we take a bit of a perspective then I suppose that this is probably the biggest marketing campaign failure in human history.

Pretty big claim.

 

[Pineapple Smurf]

TL;DR

Back in the day Zuma would reboot the country every few days to do a reset but it never worked, he dubbed it 'load shedding' but we all knew what he was trying to do.

How much longer does this world reset take?

 

[Nicodeamus]

It really depends. It's obviously not common sense and standard business practice everywhere, especially not in the US. If it is in Europe, and has been for decades - why all the catastrophising about it now?

I have no idea and actually it's also quite common in the US if you look at the large corporations, the difference is that in the EU they actually mean it and in the US it tends to be more of a PR Campaign (I am probably generalising a bit).

Not really. People like all sorts of things, including high density living and low density living. Doesn't really speak to what's best for cities and countries in general. Nothing about suburbs that precludes smart city changes, either.

No, the historical trend has been quite clear on this, people tend to prefer urban sprawl and planners tend to love densification.

Cities such as Paris, London and NY are actually less dense now than they were 100 years ago and the reason is that the city expanded faster than net migration did,

It is not so much about what people prefer, but what they can afford, sprawling to the outside is generally cheaper than going to the sky.

The density that's standard in suburban Europe (and is totally fine) would feel claustrophobic to many sprawl-loving Americans.

Also, you could triple the US population and it would only have the density of France.

many EU cities are actually on par with the US, their inner cities make up a small fraction of the actual cities.

Pretty big claim.

yes, I know. I cannot see any other time that people hated Davos this much, most of us had only a vague idea of them before all of this started.