World Economic Forum @ Davos Discussion Thread

[M. Montaigne]

Several years ago, I was at Davos for the first time. I remember it being a whirlwind of egos, and just a horribly overpriced town with a lot of arrogant, judgmental jerks.

I also had a great time meeting some brilliant policymakers and corporate giants, and surprisingly, the self-effacing wives of the Davos elites seemed to be a stark (and interesting) contrast.

I haven't attended Davos since, but every year, I am curious to see what the media has to say on the subject. So, with that, what are your thoughts on Davos?

Is it economic leadership? Or is it a meeting place for the elites? Is it a bit of both? Discuss.

[Chronopolitano]

A lot of rumors abounds.
Be that as it may, dogs bark but the caravan moves on.
This much, I think, is possible, if not at Davos per se, then somewhere else.

A room full of people who can more or less guide or even alter the course of history and the future of humanity and what's left of the planet:

I think they would seriously consider the question of population reduction. Economic policy would be a means to an end, maybe THAT end.

Increased food production and better distribution? That too. But more reduction of mouths and unemployable bodies.

We are running out of time, and cannot rely on people to be rational for the greater good, which would include the wealthy being less greedy, and much more charitable.

Yet, we now have the technology to guarantee, more or less, a near-utopian world for say, 500 million.
More, better kind of technology may be stored elsewhere too, I imagine. Black Projects, etc.
(I rather think 90% of unidentified "flying saucers" are our own. But who would want to divulge that kind of technology when it is so much more useful when it is cloaked in secrecy?)

Georgia Guide Stones? What?

I know I would, if I were among them, even if I may think twice about acting on the available options.
Just sayin.

[crownpuller]

So, with that, what are your thoughts on Davos?

I've always hated the Daleks !

[pepperami]

A shower of 'Me Feiners' , surrounded in luxury and lack of want with no motivation to change anything involving a decrease in profit for their backers.

The all holy 'growth' consuming the remaining resources exponentially.

Natural resources all being both and prices secured for multinationals.

I'm sure they will maximise the potential to further enslave the working. Secretly promote extreme right wing views and tag anyone who speaks out as extremists/terrorists. Troops on every street corner to 'protect' us.

I think we are in a serious time, with the world superpowers (together) slicing up the earth to secure resources before the inevitable division that will have enormous consequences for all but the super elite.

Kudos to Putin. .hes not hiding his intent, bad as it is!







Sent from my GT-I9505

[Bwana]

I liken them to the Masons, and anyone with a secret handshake.

[M. Montaigne]

So, Tom, let me boil your comment into themes, and please correct me if I misinterpreted your statements:

A lot of rumors abounds.
Be that as it may, dogs bark but the caravan moves on.
This much, I think, is possible, if not at Davos per se, then somewhere else.

The inevitability of the group you mention below (this or another):

A room full of people who can more or less guide or even alter the course of history and the future of humanity and what's left of the planet:

I think they would seriously consider the question of population reduction. Economic policy would be a means to an end, maybe THAT end.

Increased food production and better distribution? That too. But more reduction of mouths and unemployable bodies.

We are running out of time, and cannot rely on people to be rational for the greater good, which would include the wealthy being less greedy, and much more charitable.

Is your concern the sustainability of resources given our current consumption levels?

Yet, we now have the technology to guarantee, more or less, a near-utopian world for say, 500 million.
More, better kind of technology may be stored elsewhere too, I imagine. Black Projects, etc.
(I rather think 90% of unidentified "flying saucers" are our own. But who would want to divulge that kind of technology when it is so much more useful when it is cloaked in secrecy?)

Georgia Guide Stones? What?

I know I would, if I were among them, even if I may think twice about acting on the available options.
Just sayin.

So, your third theme would be leveraging technology to address a lot of the world's problems. Yes?

But I think this ties into the sustainability question, which I would think more, i.e., ~2 billion. On the other hand, increasing population also may provide us with the impetus to seek resources elsewhere (e.g., space).

On some level, I think populations do tend to plateau -- this is inevitable as societies get more progressive. The challenge would be getting them there.

[M. Montaigne]

A shower of 'Me Feiners' , surrounded in luxury and lack of want with no motivation to change anything involving a decrease in profit for their backers.

The all holy 'growth' consuming the remaining resources exponentially.

Natural resources all being both and prices secured for multinationals.

I'm sure they will maximise the potential to further enslave the working. Secretly promote extreme right wing views and tag anyone who speaks out as extremists/terrorists. Troops on every street corner to 'protect' us.

I think we are in a serious time, with the world superpowers (together) slicing up the earth to secure resources before the inevitable division that will have enormous consequences for all but the super elite.

Kudos to Putin. .hes not hiding his intent, bad as it is!

So, if I had to break your comment into themes, it would be that increased consumerism and motivation for profits is not sustainable from a natural resources perspective (except for the elites).

And that there is a disparity of classes (the very Marxist proletariat vs. bourgeoisie divide), but also media and propaganda that brings in increased state power.

Is that an accurate summary?

[M. Montaigne]

I liken them to the Masons, and anyone with a secret handshake.

Well, that would be the Bilderberg Group. Davos is far too... open?

[Chronopolitano]

So, Tom, let me boil your comment into themes, and please correct me if I misinterpreted your statements:



The inevitability of the group you mention below (this or another):

Is your concern the sustainability of resources given our current consumption levels?

So, your third theme would be leveraging technology to address a lot of the world's problems. Yes?

But I think this ties into the sustainability question, which I would think more, i.e., ~2 billion. On the other hand, increasing population also may provide us with the impetus to seek resources elsewhere (e.g., space).

On some level, I think populations do tend to plateau -- this is inevitable as societies get more progressive. The challenge would be getting them there.

1. Isn't sustainability THE question? Isn't everything else subordinate to that Q?
I mean, unless the super rich have a Plan B that doesn't include this planet, and all its wondrous beauty.
Do they intend to inherit the earth no matter in what condition? And enslave everyone if necessary?


2. I don't see how people in their purported sanity can keep speaking of "sustainability" on the one hand, and "economic growth" on the other. I keep seeing trying to fly by raising one foot, and then before it drops and hits the ground, raising the other, and repeat.
And these two words they love to chant: 'growth' and 'sustainability': Very nice, but for WHOM? In the sense that these words are used by corporations, do we not already have a bit too much of both as is?

3. The world population at today's level is certainly not sustainable. I am not even sure about 2 billion, since the average person in the developed world consumes the equivalent of 30 persons during pre-industrial times.
Of course I accept that, although the US is only what, 5-6% of the total population, the average American consumes 10-20x what a rural person does in India or China, and elsewhere. So the problem of over-consumption starts at home, not in 3rd World. That said, "tribalism "(older, and more deeply recessed in our brains than "racism") still lives, and groups in power will tend to wish OTHER groups to diminish in number. Hence, the violent means we have to favor this sort of outcome.

PS: On a seemingly unrelated tangent: I find it rather odd that small-time hired professionals of mayhem (NYC, Paris, etc), whose job is to cause terror in the hearts of good law-abiding citizens, have a weird tendency to leave their IDs and passports behind... and intact too, when everything else has turn'd to cinder in their wake. Just sayin.

[pepperami]

So, if I had to break your comment into themes, it would be that increased consumerism and motivation for profits is not sustainable from a natural resources perspective (except for the elites).

And that there is a disparity of classes (the very Marxist proletariat vs. bourgeoisie divide), but also media and propaganda that brings in increased state power.

Is that an accurate summary?

Maybe and put far more elequently than I ever could.

The elites will climb into bunkers while the rest of battle for the last remaining resources. In fact it's happening already.

An 8 fold population increase since the discovery of oil, sea level rises arguably caused by burning that oil will eventually foul the fresh water supplies and destroy our weather systems.

Without fresh water we won't have food.

Without products made from oil, that treat, harvest and transport we won't have food.

The 'elites' at this economic forum only see the short term and the next election and are too self absorbed to care about anyone else.

The whole world is in debt but to whom?
The media feed us with diatribes that promote consumerism and ignore the real stories, unless it's to highlight that a few dying in one of out cities is an attack on our way of life and the free consumerism ,we in the west are entitled to.

History has allowed us in the west consume everything while half the world starves. This is going to bite us on the arse and will eventually mean that the elites will cosume everything left while most of the world starves.

So, if I had to break your comment into themes, it would be that increased consumerism and motivation for profits is not sustainable from a natural resources perspective (except for the elites).

And that there is a disparity of classes (the very Marxist proletariat vs. bourgeoisie divide), but also media and propaganda that brings in increased state power.

Is that an accurate summary?

Sent from my GT-I9505