Can WEF realistically improve the state of the world?
Political, business and civil society leaders are once again gathering at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland.
WEF says it is “Committed to Improving the State of the World” by encouraging forward-thinking, long-term and sustainable debate to tackle the world’s problems.
Critics complain of elites jetting into luxurious Davos hotels, trailing pollution and greed, and completely out of touch with everyday people.
Is WEF an antidote for the growing list of global problems or a catalyst for further frustration?
From the article WEF tries to dodge revolutionary pitchforks
The following contribution has been automatically translated from JA.
Only now, only money, only me.
A bunch of greedy people who only have that,
今だけ、金だけ、自分だけ。
それだけしか無い、強欲な連中の集まり、
The following contribution has been automatically translated from JA.
An organization that promotes profit and money in the name of the environment...
When they are in economic downfall, they decide on a target and beat them with lusantiman, and set up a false policy against them..................they try to survive and gain only for themselves.
環境と云う名の利権、金儲け推進組織…
自分達が経済的に落ち目になると、ターゲットを決めてルサンチマンで叩いて、相手に嘘の政策を仕掛けて…自分達だけ得をして生き残ろうとする。。。
The following contribution has been automatically translated from IT.
Davos is a power group linked to the single-minded thinking of neoliberalism.
I see no chance that it can improve the world, in fact it can only make it worse by giving space to economic power and no attention to the problems of societies
Davos è un gruppo di potere legato al pensiero unico del neoliberismo.
Non vedo nessuna possibilità che possa migliorare il mondo, anzi può solo peggiorarlo dando spazio al potere economico e nessuna attenzione ai problemi delle società
The following contribution has been automatically translated from ES.
Why, despite more scientific medical research institutes, is the rate of illness worse than in 1900?
Porque a pesar de haber más institutos de investigación médica científica, la tasa de enfermos es peor que en 1900?
The following contribution has been automatically translated from ES.
The WEF
If the undeveloped countries had a little bit of education, knowledge of Economics, Civil Rights in basic form,
The Governments would be democratic, fair, we would not need a WEF Group, because we are rich we have a lot of Natural resources we would not have abIlusos to steal them. We would have enough Food South America with the best Climate in the World and loving people, they separate us they destroy those human elements to share, to value to have life to be able to breathe in this Planet!
We do not need them! Let them keep their Millions and go to Marye or Jupiter and be happy far away from Humanity, money does not buy the Planet.
El WEF
Si los Paises no desarrollados tuviera un poquito de educacion, saber de Economia, Derechos Civiles en forma basica,
Los Gobiernos serian Democraticos, justos no nesecitariamos a un Grupo WEF, porque somos ricos tenemos muchos recursos Naturales no tendriamos abIlusos que se lo tegalen. Tendriamos suficiente Alimentos Sudamerica con el mejor Clima Mundial y personas amorosas, ellos nos separan destruyen esos elementos humanos el compartir, el valorizar tener vida poder respirar en este Planeta!
No los nesecitamos! Que se guarden sus Millones y que vatan a Marye o Jupiter que sean felizes alla lejos de la Humanidad, el dinero no compra el Planeta.
The WEF IS the problem.
The following contribution has been automatically translated from JA.
I don't think Davos is making the world a better place because the reality is that the world is not getting better.
At least the people who attend Davos should be able to make investments, but the NPOs, NGOs, and UN agencies that are trying to make the world a better place are suffering from a lack of funds.
現実として世界は良くなっていないから、ダボス会議は世界を良くしていないと思う。
少なくとも、ダボス会議に出席するような人々は投資を行えるはずだが世界を良くしようとしているNPO、NGOや国連機関などは資金不足に苦しんでいる。
The question you ask depends on whether you believe that people do have the right to form political communities and to regulate their social, ethical, economic, financial, and legal systems all in line with their national constitutions.
If that is the case, why would it be "the future of mankind" to demolish these existing national sovereign communities and subordinate all their self-governing laws and regulations to those of a "bureaucratic authoritarian group of rulers" that are self-appointed among those politicians whose one and only interest is to take over control of humans over which they do not have any national constitutional rights?
The following contribution has been automatically translated from AR.
Just meetings can't change the current situation
مجرد اجتماعات لا تستطيع تعديل الوضع الحالي
The following contribution has been automatically translated from ES.
The World Economic Forum has undoubtedly declined and is managed according to the interests of its members, leaving behind the origin and intention that initially led to its creation. There is no doubt that it is currently only promoting policies for the benefit and interests of its members. The world population has become (as they imply with their "suggestions" of improvements) a market niche that they intend to manage at will, as merchandise, even as guinea pigs. They are totally detached from reality. They give the sensation of living in another world, out of any reality, reduced only to their vision, a vision privileged by their status, without any empathy with the rest of the inhabitants of this planet.
El Foro Económico Mundial sin duda alguna ha decaído y se maneja en función den los intereses de sus miembros dejando atrás el origen e intención que lo llevó inicialmente a su creación. No cabe duda que actualmente está promoviendo únicamente políticas en beneficio e intereses de quien lo conforman como socios. La población mundial se convirtió (así lo dan a entender con sus "sugerencias" de mejoras ) en un nicho de mercado que pretenden manejar a su antojo, como mercancía, incluso como cobayas. Se alejaron totalmente de la realidad. Dan la sensación de vivir en otro mundo, fuera de cualquier realidad, reducido únicamente a su vision, una visión privilegiada por su status, sin tener empatía alguna con el resto de los pobladores de este planeta.
The following contribution has been automatically translated from JA.
I would like to see a list of attendees.
I have no idea.
出席者名簿を出してほしい。
さっぱりわからない。
By what right is the (WEF) interfering with governments of the world, like the Canadian Government?
In my opinion, the WEF is an unelected, undemocratic cartel which promotes policies primairly for the benefit of its members to increase their wealth even further.
Allen to Allen. Economics is born of classical liberalism which is a branch of sociology derived from the Bible thus Moses and the Ten Commandments; all this is in relation to my Anglo Swiss Dutch roots which is another topic for another day. Adam Smith and secondary theories of Economics rely heavily on a just world not the current state of human sacrificial consumerism — Jesus and the Golden Calf. The idea of sanctions have become individual acts of war through the dis- mis- and un- regulated internet which is dis- mis- and not aligned with Adam Smith’s theories in regards to laissez-faire economics; on Earth as it is in Heaven. Inclusivity is being sacrificed for proper teaching of laws which will be in play in the United States with the potential eventual disavowed practices in regards to affirmative action. As mentioned in a prior comments Economics is a beautiful science its proper application is heavily reliant on a just world. But then again there’s market regulation; laissez-faire Economics.
The following contribution has been automatically translated from ES.
It is really a blessing the existence of the WEF. Imagine the world's elites gathered to hear what the world's problems are. All we need is a good captain to steer the whole fleet to the right port. My contribution to this thriving human group (the WEF) is that we leave behind the wild capitalism. Let us no longer think of proving that we are the best, but of applying common sense to govern our beautiful planet. Is it logical to extract so much oil on a daily basis? Is it logical to cut down so many hectares of forest? or is it logical to manufacture so many millions of cars? Of course it is not. The businessmen and politicians of Davos, who have already demonstrated that they are the best in the world, now show that they have common sense. I congratulate them on their business achievements and encourage them to keep going in this global race that is not over yet.
Realmente es una bendición la existencia del WEF. Imagínense a las élites mundiales reunidas para escuchar cuales son los problemas del mundo. Sólo necesitamos un buen capitán para llevar a toda la flota a buen puerto. Mi aporte a este pujante grupo humano (el WEF) es que dejemos atrás el capitalismo salvaje. Ya no pensemos en demostrar que somos los mejores, si no en aplicar el sentido común para gobernar nuestro hermoso planeta. Es lógico acaso, extraer tanto petróleo diariamente??? Es lógico talar tantas hectáreas de bosque??? o es lógico acaso, fabricar tantos millones de autos??? Claro que no. Los empresarios y políticos de Davos, que ya demostraron que son los mejores del mundo, ahora demuestren que tienen sentido común. Yo los felicito por sus logros empresariales y los aliento a que sigan adelante en esta carrera mundial que todavía no acaba.
The following contribution has been automatically translated from FR.
Ms. Paulin Turuban describes Greta Thunberg's interventions in Davos as "sharp criticism".
Acerbic means "seeking to hurt, criticizing with malice".
The Swedish woman's speech highlights the reality.
It is true that some people may feel hurt when reality is revealed. But I don't see any malice in Greta's words as reported in the article. As for her level of aggressiveness, it is much lower than that of the multinationals and their ads.
Why do you denigrate the activist in this way?
Signed: Michel Baumgartner
Mme Paulin Turuban qualifie les interventions de Greta Thunberg à Davos de "critiques acerbes".
Acerbe signifie "qui cherche à blesser, qui critique avec méchanceté".
Le discours de la Suédoise met en lumière la réalité.
Effectivement certaines personnes peuvent se sentir blessées lorsque la réalité est dévoilée. Mais je ne vois aucune méchanceté dans les propos de Greta rapportés dans l'article. Quant à son niveau d'agressivité il est bien inférieur à celui des multinationales et de leurs publicités.
Pourquoi cette façon de dénigrer la militante?
Signé : Michel Baumgartner
SWI SWISSINFO.CH
The following contribution has been automatically translated from FR.
@Michel Baumgartner
Good morning, Sir,
Thank you for your careful reading and your comment. The use of the word "harsh" to describe Greta Thunberg's criticisms was meant to be understood as "sharp, unapologetic, severe", which was meant to be factual. The word was certainly ill-chosen, but don't take it as an intention to denigrate the activist. Sincerely, Pauline Turuban
Bonjour Monsieur,
Merci pour votre lecture attentive et votre commentaire. L'usage du terme "acerbes" pour qualifier les critiques de Greta Thunberg était ici à comprendre dans le sens de "vives, sans appel, sévères", ce qui se voulait factuel. Ce mot était sûrement mal choisi, mais n'y voyez aucune intention de dénigrer la militante. Bien à vous, Pauline Turuban
@Michel Baumgartner
I believe that Greta does not really understand how the world and nature works. And her sharp words do result offensive. We need pragmatic and logical solutions. Complaining without any reasonable proposed solutions is toxic in my view. We shall reduce CO2, ok then let’s think how we do that without killing half of the human population from poverty and starvation. Also does Greta know that CO2 is vital for plants and animal survival? It doesn't seem so as the world solutions go around new products which will make more money for only few but have nothing to do with sustainability. It is always the same and now it is not different. I sense conflict of interests and all those leaders who are supposed to work towards a solution are part to if. It is a very difficult situation because our economical system is based on capital greed and activities that destroy the ecosystem, so all new initiatives of sustainability will be worthless until we change our economical model.
The following contribution has been automatically translated from JA.
@Anona
Yes, she is not an expert, and I think she is unrealistic in some areas. However, what I have learned from reading her book recently is that she argues that we should listen to the warnings of the experts and act accordingly. I think this opinion is correct.
たしかに彼女は専門家ではないので、現実的でない部分もあると思う。しかし、最近彼女の本を読んでわかったのは、彼女は「専門家達の警告に耳を傾け、それに基づいて行動するべき」と主張しているということだ。この意見は正しいと思う。
The following contribution has been automatically translated from PT.
Davos, like every discussion with the countries of the world with the objective of promoting economic development, is relevant.
It is a way to understand the global world more, because all true development imposes the overcoming of hunger, the inclusion of drinking water, basic sanitation, health, and education. The Amazon is a source of great wealth as an environmental issue of planetary interest.
Davos como toda discussão com países do mundo tendo como objetivo a promoção do desenvolvimento econômico se faz relevante.
É uma forma se compreender mais o mundo global, pois todo o desenvolvimento verdadeiro impõe a superação da fome, a inclusão de água potável, saneamento básico, saúde e educação. A Amazônia é fonte de muita riqueza como questão ambiental de interesse planetário.
@Odacy de Brito Silva
Poverty is a political decision. The destruction of the planet is also a political decision. These things are provoked and Davos is just a formality with a lot of bladi blaaa with no effect at all. It is always the same and no different now. Pure corruption and showmanship. It is hopeless. It is maybe time for us to stop waiting to be told what to do and to take initiative to get educated on the topic and act accordingly.
The following contribution has been automatically translated from PT.
Data is important, but as an economic forum it needs to advance with less speeches and more development indicators. Brazil, my country, needs to control serious issues in the context of risk areas and minimally cure the hunger of 32 million Brazilians with hunger indicators. The country needs to move forward and so do others.
Dados é importante, mas precisa como foro econômico avançar com menos discursos e mais indicadores de desenvolvimento. O Brasil o meu país necessita controlar questões graves no contexto de áreas de riscos e sanar a fome minimamente de 32 milhões de brasileiros com indicadores de fome. O país precisa avançar e assim acontece com outros.
@Odacy de Brito Silva
The problem is that they do not care. It is all business. If Brazil was important for them this would be solved by now. You see, like the WHO, they are health organizations supposed to preserve human health. If they took their role seriously there would not be tobacco, coca-cola, alcohol, sugar and junk food. The fact that we have each tome more and more poison legalized and offered shows that the WHO is mot interested in our health at all. They just pretend to be. And when there is a health crisis they just talk and talk, give these great emotional speeches and in the end nothing happens. Junk food is still in the market. Poison is still in the environment killing the planet. Chemicals are still in the oceans.
The following contribution has been automatically translated from ZH.
The World That Economic Forum is a platform for the world's top elite. I wish someone would survey and publish the actual annual income of all official participants, that would be interesting. The mega-rich certainly have the right to discuss their own future, but let's not say that is the future of the world, as over 90% of humanity is absent or unable to have a voice.
世界那经济论坛是全球顶级精英的平台。我希望有人能调查并公布所有正式参加者的实际年收入，那将会很有趣。大富翁们当然有权讨论他们自己的未来，但不要说那就是世界的未来，因为90%以上的人类缺席或无法发声。
Can WEF improve the world? No. Everyone who attends the summit caused the world problems, and they are not interested in fixing them as it will cost them a lot of money. Too many world leaders think short term, or kick the problem down the road for the next leader to deal with. The delegates should not be world leaders and politicians, but normal people affected by decisions out of their control. Power to the poor people.
@LynxVegas
They don’t care. If they did, a lot of problems we have today would not exist. They just go to Davos and make these ceremonies with a lot of bladi blaaa. And when the event is over, factories continue to dispose poison into the oceans. Big corporations continue producing junk food, plastic and trash which also end up in the oceans. Do they know that the biggest absorber of CO2 are the oceans? But they ask us to stop using gas, to own nothing and become vegan. The worst is that some people actually fall for that. Sad and hopeless situation.
Join the conversation!