Societal Reset

Klaus talks about societal reset starting on page 76.

He tells us historically pandemics have tested societies and COVID-19 is no exception. According to Klaus:

“… the societal upheaval unleashed by COVID-19 will last for years, and possibly generations.” (76)

To Klaus, he says that governments, policy-makers, and political figures have “appeared inadequate or ill-prepared in terms of their response to dealing with COVID-19.” (76)

He goes on to state what Henry Kissenger observed:

“Nations cohere and flourish on the belief that their institutions can foresee Henry Kissinger calamity, arrest its impact and restore stability"

If you read the article, one would think society is doomed. This is just a piece of what Henry said:

“The coronavirus has struck with unprecedented scale and ferocity. Its spread is exponential: U.S. cases are doubling every fifth day. At this writing, there is no cure. Medical supplies are insufficient to cope with the widening waves of cases. Intensive-care units are on the verge, and beyond, of being overwhelmed. Testing is inadequate to the task of identifying the extent of infection, much less reversing its spread. A successful vaccine could be 12 to 18 months away.”

This was in April 2020, yet we know from the other articles Klaus sites there was talk of it

being like a flu and returning yearly!

Seems like the propaganda machine was in full force regarding COVID-19.

Klaus, again tells us that after the pandemic, many countries will feel that their governments have failed in their response.(76)

Klaus thinks that among the rich countries:

“… the very essence of their social fabric and socio-economic system may emerge and be denounced as the ‘real’ culprit, guilty, of failing to guarantee economic and social welfare for the majority of citizens.”(76)

Notice how Klaus alludes to the current way we live and interact as the reason the covid response was doomed.

He goes on to state that in poor countries, the potential for societal and social disintegration due to increased poverty, inequality, and corruption. (76)

As I read this book, I can’t help but feel he writes as if the pandemic is over.

Remember this was published in July 9, 2020, yet he asks “are there any systemic lessons to be learned relating to what has and hasn’t worked in terms of dealing with the pandemic?” (77)

Six months into “a coronavirus pandemic [that] has no parallel in modern history” (11) yet we already know from what he has already told us that we’ve got another 24 months before we are out of the woods.

Remember, on page 42 he told us we have:

“at least another 18-24 months of significant COVID-19 activity, with hotspots popping up periodically in diverse geographic areas.”(42).

And he wants to know if there are any lessons learned?

The pandemic hasn’t even reached its full potential.

Seems a little pre-mature to me, but if we continue, we will see Klaus has a plan.

He identifies some reasons some countries are fairing better than others; they include:

• They were “prepared” for what was coming (logistically and organizationally).
• They made rapid and decisive decisions.
• They have a cost-effective and inclusive health care system.
• They are high-trust societies in which citizens have confidence in both the leadership and the information they provide.
• They seem under duress to exhibit a real sense of solidarity, favouring the common good over individual aspirations and needs.

So, to be blunt, countries that are fairing better than others are because they have all the attributes that are required for the 4th industrial revolution.

Notice how he is very subtlety stating that westernized nations, those who believe in individual rights primarily are one the of the reasons why some nations are doing poorly, namely the USA, Italy, and the UK.

Yet countries like Singapore, South Korea, and Denmark are doing better. (77)

One would think, the general health of the population would be a factor considering COVID-19 affects humans, not to mention age, since Covid seems to target the old, but I guess that isn’t really important.

What is more important is the “’favourable’ societal characteristics, proving that core values of inclusivity, solidarity and trust are strong determining elements and important contributors to success in containing the epidemic.” (78)

So we are clear, trust your government, do what you are told, don’t question authority, and think in relation to the group and you’ll be fine.

I don’t buy it.

Klaus goes on to say that COVID-19:

“first and foremost, the post-pandemic era will usher in a period of massive wealth redistribution, from the rich to the poor and from capital to labour. Second, COVID-19 is likely to sound the death knell of neo-liberalism, a corpus of ideas and policies that loosely be defined as favoring competition over solidarity, creative destruction over government intervention and economic growth over social welfare.” (78)

The only conclusion is Communism, or Globalism if you don’t like that term.

Now again, remember when I said it seems like this book was already written and Klaus just updated it? Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

“… but for COVID-19 brought the coup de grâce.” (78)

Six months into a pandemic, nothing is finalized, yet Klaus feels Covid is a death blow?

There is a level of finality in that statement, which just isn’t true for July 2020.

It gets stranger:

“it is no coincidence that the two countries that over the past few years embraced the policies of neoliberalism with the most fervour — the US and UK — are among those that suffered the most casualties during the pandemic.” (78)

Looking at the data for Covid, that isn’t true at all, but I guess if you are pushing a narrative it’s not really necessary to be entirely correct.

Now I will say if we are talking western nations that are on the world stage, sure the US and UK are both in the top 10 for sheer numbers, considering the US has 340 million people, the third most populated country in the world, I might add and the UK, has 67 million, one would think their numbers would be high, but again, I find it hard to believe that an economic policy is responsible for people dying of Covid, but that’s just me.

To Klaus, “… massive redistribution on the one hand and abandoning neoliberal policies on the other will exert a defining impact on our societies’ organization, ranging from how inequalities could spur social unrest to the increasing role of governments and the redefinition of social contracts.” (78)

In other words, a NEW WORLD ORDER, or what Klaus calls a new normal, or what Marx said burn everything to the ground. It’s all the same, a march to a new type of paradigm that no one is really seeing, except for those who are pushing it.

Klaus goes on to tell us that Covid in reality is a “great unequalizer” (79) it has exacerbated current hardships and faults in society and the economy and it shows in glaring detail the severity of the issues prior to the pandemic, but are now amplified as a result.

He goes on to state that covid showed a huge disparity between white and blue collar jobs, where the white-collar jobs were able to tele-commute while the blue-collar jobs had to show up to work and perform (79). This isn’t new.

One thing he does point out which I think is a true statement is:

“we value least economically the individuals society needs most.” (81) 

He goes on to give us a list of jobs, such as:

• nurses
• cleaners
• delivery drivers
• workers in food factories.(81)

Excluding the nurses, which I don’t think are blue-collar jobs as I see it, the other ones seem to be on the lower level of what we consider a blue-collar job, more like “unskilled labour” in a sense.

In some ways, they are different that what we traditionally think of when we say blue-collar job, i.e. jobs in trades.

It is curious that Klaus tells us:

“the phenomenon is global but particularity stark in the Anglo-Saxon countries, where poverty is coupled with precariousness. The citizens in this group are not only the worst paid but also those most at risk of losing their jobs.”(81)

Some places in the world work in worse conditions with more risk of losing their jobs, but given that the global reset is going to reduce everything everywhere, those who have the most to lose live in the “Anglo-Saxon countries”.

So what is Klaus advocating for?

One would think, those less fortunate living a subsistence lifestyle would be paramount on his list of people to care about, but they aren’t because they aren’t the ones who will have to adjust their lifestyle, it’s the middle class in the wealthiest nations on the planet, because they are the ones who will have to “sacrifice” so there will be less inequality.

According to Klaus, he thinks that

“it could be that enough people are sufficiently outraged by the glaring injustice of the preferential treatment enjoyed exclusively by the rich that provokes a broad societal backlash.”(82-83).

Proletariat vs bourgeoisie anyone? 

Let’s not kid ourselves, Klaus isn’t talking about “the rich” ie the elites, he’s talking about middle and upper middle classes and most likely the rich without any political power.

This is exactly what Marx conveniently omitted from his manifesto, the ruling elite, instead he pointed at the bourgeoisie and told the proletariat they are the ones who they should direct their anger at.

Having said that, I don’t think Klaus is wrong when he uses the example of a hedge fund manager making millions vs a nurse making 50,000/year.

Which has a greater effect on social welfare?

We all know it’s a nurse, but “If history is any guide, this optimistic scenario [better pay for those jobs that really matter] is unlikely to prevail without massive social turmoil.” (83).

Or what Marx said, burn everything to the ground.

To Klaus, this is a very real concern. He tells us that study after study has shown that

“… when people have no jobs, no income, and no prospects for a better life, they often resort to violence.” (84)

This is obviously not good when it is basically a nihilistic act, but when it is managed and co-ordinated, it is a very powerful way to manipulate people into a feel good act that has dire consequences.

Jobs and income are important no doubt, but something that is more important than that is food.

Regardless of someone’s economic situation as long as they can eat the possibility of riots and property damage are somewhat mitigated but the moment the food supply is put in jeopardy, every human being will find a way to eat.

Once you’ve got people killing each other over calories, they will look at you as a savior when they give you a bag of rice.

As an aside, some aspects of US foreign policy are based on this idea, give them food, not give them the tools and knowledge to grow their own food.

It will be interesting to see how the 30% reduction in nitrogen fertilizer will be received and what the backlash will be.

Like I said, a riot is just a riot, unless it is co-ordinated and managed.

Klaus briefly talks about The BLM movement on page 86-87, regardless of what you think of them it’s hard to believe that it continued as an organic movement when they went from relative obscurity to a world-wide phenomenon after the death of George Floyd.

It also doesn’t help that Patrisse Cullors, the co-founder of BLM has stated, “We are trained Marxists”.

Training would imply someone taught them.

Which means someone provided to them Marxist materials to study and learn, which means on some level a co-ordinated effort.

All this was done for a reason.

It’s curious that even Klaus has observed that:

“… indications show it is turning into something broader than race-specific issues.” (87)

I would suggest although I don’t know, a broader scope would have to mean a level of funding that could support all of these efforts.

I’m curious how much input the leaders have now when the ones who are funding them seem to be co-opting the movement.

Klaus continues on about hardships and social unrest and he tells that individualistic societies are more at risk.

He obviously has a preference, and it isn’t a western style society.

He does tell us one thing which is true and that is “the greatest underlying cause of social unrest is inequality.”(89)

He then tells us:

“the policy tools to fight unacceptable levels of inequality do exist and they often lie in the hands of governments.”(89)

Apparently they aren’t doing anything about it, but don’t worry, Klaus has a plan.

The article he sites is called: The Virus Should Wake Up The West.

The long and short of the very long article is that the governments of the west are not up to task and that governments in the east, ie Korea, Singapore are and they should be looked into.

Those governments take care of their citizens.

The authors of that article quote Thomas Hobbes, but Klaus doesn’t quote the sentence in the article before it, and that, to me, makes a difference.

I’ll quote the first two paragraphs for context.

”In 1651, a gentleman scholar who readily admitted that ‘fear and I were born twins’ published one of the great books on government. Thomas Hobbes had survived the notoriously bloody English Civil War by fleeing to France — and his great philosophical concern was personal safety. Life in a state of nature was, he observed, ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’ because people were always fighting. So, he argued, citizens should contractually give up their freedoms to a ruler who could offer them protection. The state’s legitimacy depended on it fulfilling that contract and keeping its citizens safe, a revolutionary idea at a time when kings, like his former pupil Charles II, claimed their position came by divine right. For Hobbes, who also managed to survive the Great Plague in 1665-66 and died in his bed at 91, our contract with “Leviathan,” as he called his book, depended on its ability to keep us safe.

If Hobbes were alive today, he would feel vindicated.

Around the world, fear is on the march — and, in order to be protected from this terrible virus, we are willingly surrendering basic rights, even the freedom to leave our own homes, to Leviathan.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has made government important again. Not just powerful again (look at those once-mighty companies begging for help), but also vital again: It matters enormously whether your country has a good health service, competent bureaucrats and sound finances. Good government is the difference between living and dying”

This now gets us into a debate on Hobbes vs John Stuart Mill, or Security vs Liberty.

Klaus tells us:

“One of the great lessons of the past five centuries in Europe and America is this: acute cries contribute to boosting the power of the state. It’s always been the case and there should be no reason why it should be different with the COVID-19 pandemic.” (89)

Generally, most of that power manifests itself as more taxes, as Klaus alludes to in the handful of examples he provides. As we have seen, it does appear to be the case.

All of this tax, as Klaus puts it, “… translated into tangible societal gains in different domains, such as the creation of the welfare system.” (91).

Sure I don’t think many could argue with that, but then Klaus says something which doesn’t ring true.

He tells, us:

“Today the situation is fundamentally different; in the intervening decades (in the Western world) the role of the state has shrunk considerably.” (91)

From a sheer numbers perspective that isn’t true, at least in the US and I am sure elsewhere, more employees generally mean they are doing something which requires them to be employed.

Does he mean influence perhaps?

Government’s control and influence are a lot at any given moment in time.

More laws and regulations means compliance and a mechanism to enforce it so I don’t understand what Klaus means when he said this.

He’s obviously painting a picture that a capitalist economy and society are basically ill equipped to handle the corona virus.

He seems to suggest that in capitalist societies we only look at market solutions to problems, which, as we know, is incorrect.

He states “… it is hard to imagine how an exogenous shock of such magnitude as the one inflicted by COVID-19 could be addressed with purely market-based solutions.”(91).

Did anyone ever say this, or even think it?

The statement to me doesn’t make sense because as far as I understand it, governments all over the world managed this problem from the beginning.

He goes on to say things again, which isn’t reality.

“It has revealed that social insurance is efficient and that offloading an ever-greater deal of responsibilities (like health and education) to individuals and the markets may not be in the best interest of society.”(91)

When did that happen?

No country that I can think of has offloaded education and healthcare to individuals.

Unless of course he is thinking that millions of people started home-schooling their kids?

But in the end he tells us his point “….governments can further the public good while runaway economies without supervision can wreak havoc on social welfare may now become the norm.”(91-92).

In other words, a managed/planned economy is good, capitalism is bad. In case you didn’t know, that is a tenant of Communism.

Next he quotes the economist Mariana Mazzucato, yes before you ask, she’s connected to Klaus via the WEF. She tells us:

“move towards actively shaping and creating markets that deliver sustainable and inclusive growth. They should also ensure that partnerships with business involving government funds are driven by public interest, not profit."(92)

I might add that Mariana Mazzacato, according to a wired article is an originator of The Green New Deal in the US.

The point is, she isn’t some independent thinking economist; she has a point of view and she’s pushing the WEF vision of a public-private partnership.

If you go to her site, she wrote a book called Mission Economy.

The synopsis is telling.

It’s basically everything Klaus is saying.

Wouldn’t people call that an echo chamber?

Now, I will say I don’t think clean drinking water for all, being free from food insecurity and disease, and living in a house and all the other good things the UN is pushing is a bad thing but, to suggest that by 2030 all of these things, or more, need to happen, come hell or high water I think is pushing an agenda that has other nefarious uses.

We haven’t been able to figure out world hunger for the last 100 years. What makes anyone think we can tackle 17 simultaneous goals in eight?

Everything she says sounds great, just like Klaus, but history has shown us, Communism isn’t a utopia and using different words and using a different strategy to get to the same place will likely yield the same result.

Cui bono - who benefits?

I’m quite sure it won’t be you or me.

In the end it looks like big government is back on the rise because:

“only governments had the power, capability and reach to make such decisions, without which economic calamity and a complete social meltdown would have prevailed.”(93).

I might add, it was also governments who concluded that almost a complete economic lock down was necessary, which created the mess we find ourselves in, again that is a moot point.

The curious thing is that Klaus says:

“looking to the future, governments will most likely, but with different degrees of intensity, decide that it’s in the best interest of society to rewrite some of the rules of the game and permanently increase their role.” (93)

Rewrite what rules exactly, and for what betterment?
It sounds great, but what are the consequences?

Thomas Sowell famously had three questions for any liberal policy

1. Compared to what?
2. At what cost?
3. What hard evidence do you have?

I’m curious if any of these questions were pondered on any level?

Pie in the sky thinking is fine, but if the expectation is buy in from a mass of population, then answers to these three simple questions would seem at the very least necessary, unless of course policies will be pushed through regardless of consequence.

But one thing is clear, according to Klaus, is that the government will increase and so will the rise of stakeholder capitalism (93).

In other words, profit won’t be the only over-riding concern, but “businesses will also be held to account on social and environmental features for which they will be expected to be part of the solution. As an add-on, governments will strongly encourage public-private partnerships so that private companies get more involved in the mitigation of global risks.” (94) And so we go marching down the globalist road.

Notice the subtlety of advocating for a managed economy when Klaus says:

“To varying degrees, business executives in all industries and all countries will have to adapt to greater government intervention… Taxation will increase particularly for the most privileged…”(94)

Who else are they going to tax? 

Again, it’s “the rich” and middle classes because you can’t tax the poor.

Many today think they pay enough or too much tax, yet Klaus quotes people like Joseph Stiglitz and his article A Lasting Remedy for the COVID-19 Pandemics Economic Crisis.

One just needs to read the byline to figure out what he’s advocating:

“For the past forty years, we’ve been underfunding government - including spending that prepares us for crises and disasters and that’s made our economy and our society less resilient."

Or, have we as a society have relied too much on government to help us, and not enough on ourselves to get us out of crises.

I guess it depends on the way you look at things, but I find it funny that almost everyone complains about its government and its incompetence, yet the solution is to give them more money and power.

The ultimate aim is a “new world order”, or to put it mildly “a new normal” or in Klaus’ words from this book:

“Nowhere will this intrusion of governments, whose form may be benign or malign depending on the country and the culture in which it is taking place, manifest itself with greater vigor that in the redefinition of the social contract.” (95).

A redefinition because we, as a society, have lost faith and trust in our leaders and institutions.

I don’t think that is a wrong observation.

One only needs to look at a G7 event.

The leaders are so far removed from the people they rule they have an enormous amount of police presence to keep the masses away from them.

I would suggest the reason that is the case is that our leaders are not interested in doing what’s best for the majority of their countrymen, or they are beholden to others to push an agenda that isn’t in keeping with what the people want.

Instead of re-writting the social contract, why doesn’t government just uphold the one we currently have?

Klaus tells us “although they are complex, the policy solutions do exist and broadly consist in adapting the welfare state to today’s world by empowering people and responding to the demands for a fairer social contract.” (97)

You may be wondering how that will happen? 

Well, Klaus quotes the World Bank and their document Toward a New Social Contract.

They’ve “adjusted to this new reality and have now outlined on how to make it happen.”(97)

Funny how it’s the same old thing. Page 18 of that document states:

• Promote labor market flexibility, while maintaining protection for all types of labor contracts
• Seek universality in the provision of social assistance, social insurance, and good-quality basic services
• Expand the tax base by complementing progressive taxation on labor incomes with taxation on capital

This it is hoped will at least close the gap between inequalities that COVID-19 apparently brought to the fore.

It sounds benign, and maybe that is one of the reasons why so many people don’t pay any great attention to what he is saying, yet when Klaus tells us:

“the pandemic will mark a turning point by accelerating this transition. It has crystallized the issue and made a return to the pre-pandemic status quo impossible.” (97)

Sounds kind of final, doesn’t it? 

In fact, it sounds like this was the thinking for a majority of economists and those in power for a while, and COVID-19 is just a vehicle to push the agenda forward.

Remember Klaus said on page 19

“you get the point: we should take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity to re-imagine our world, in a bid to make it a better more resilient one as it emerges on the other side of the crisis.” (19)

At least Klaus understands that China and the US are different countries, yet it is curious that he uses those two countries when he tells us the social contract will look different.(97) They will look different until they look the same, I might add, but they will have some common features (98)

1. A broader, if not universal, provision of social assistance, social insurance, health care, and basic quality of services.

2. A move towards enhanced protection for workers and for those currently most vulnerable (like those employed in and fueling the gig economy in which full-time employees are replaced by independent contractors and freelancers.)***

The problem with what Klaus advocates is that it seems entirely reasonable and in many ways desirable.

• Who wouldn’t want to get rich yet save the environment?
• Who wouldn’t want a social safety net?
• Who wouldn’t want to work and know that you won’t be replaced arbitrarily?
• Who wouldn’t like to move back in with their parents and have them take care of all the bills and everything else that’s necessary to live so you can sit on your ass, get a paycheque, and have 100% disposable income?

This is what will ultimately become the case. I

In a very subtle way, as far as I can see is that Klaus is advocating for him/WEF and their minions to be our Philosopher Kings.

This goes all the way back to Plato’s Republic but the point is, the masses (us) should be governed by a group who are basically experts, i.e. philosopher kings who “know better”.

It sounds like it would be a good idea, however, in Plato’s world these philosopher kings appear to have no wants or needs other than to logically determine what is in the best interest of those they rule, we all know that isn’t what we’ve all experienced in reality.

Ever notice that the Davos crowd Klaus invites every year are the elites in business and government?

Funny enough, conceptually this is the same thing as a technocracy, since Klaus I am sure believes they are the so called “experts” in their fields, which has its birth in Plato’s Republic and the concept of the philosopher king.

Who would be more apt to re-engineer the social contract than the philosopher kings since the response to COVID has been lack lustre which will cause “… a thorough examination of what went right and what didn’t, we should expect a lot of soul-searching that will ultimately lead to a redefinition of the terms of our social contract.” (98)

I don’t think it’s incorrect to say the social contract needs to be looked at again, maybe even modified in some fashion, but Klaus isn’t advocating for a “tweak” he’s looking at the wholesale destruction of our current way of life.

If he came out and said it most, I am sure you wouldn’t agree, but when you are offered something in return to take something trivial away, it’s only a matter of time until you have all the trappings of materialism while you’ve lost your ability to move freely and think freely, and when they tell you, you’ll own nothing and be happy that means all of those material items you’ve bartered your freedom away with will be gone

AND YOU’LL BE A SLAVE

Klaus tells us, “’efficient management’ cannot compensate for underinvestment.” (99) which has been the case for decades in the west regarding specifically the health care sector.

He points to the Scandinavian countries as bastion of what was done right(99)

• with Norway guaranteed 80% of self-employed workers average incomes
• Denmark guaranteed 75%.

"…At the other end of the spectrum, the most market-oriented economies played catchup and showed indecisiveness…” (99)

Again, he points at the US for failing yet the countries most people equate with socialism, i.e. the Scandinavian countries, they did it right.

Why not feed into the narrative and use it to your advantage?

That’s exactly what Klaus is doing. He’s using people’s understanding of how the Scandinavian countries work to point out that they are better because they are socialist and not capitalist. ( When in fact they actually aren’t)

But page 101 is where it all comes together.

“Another aspect that is critical for social contracts in Western democracies pertains to liberties and freedom.”(101)

It’s a huge question that is based on a philosophical bend of either believing Hobbes or Mill, as I stated previously.

Klaus says, “there is growing concern that the fight against this pandemic and future ones will lead to the creation of permanent surveillance societies.” (101)

This is exactly what Klaus said on page 33.

This is what he wants. 

He’s clearly in the camp of Hobbes, whereas the security of the person is more important that liberty.

In the decade to come, I think everyone will see what Klaus is advocating is a very bad idea.

Obviously if you believe in one over the other it is unlikely an argument can change your mind, suffice to say Klaus wants you and me to go along with his plan, he wants a social contract that makes government bigger and more powerful, all for the need to protect you from things you can’t be protected from.

Maybe me and you won’t fall for what he’s offering, but the youth will. Klaus tells us:

“already the millennials… are worse off than their parents… Now, another generation (Gen Z) is entering the system what it sees as failing…” (102)

Every generation sees the one before as a problem, and every youth thinks they have the answer to every problem made by the generation before.

This isn’t new. this has been this case since Aristotle:

They - Young People have exalted notions, because they have not been humbled by life or learned its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition makes them think themselves equal to great things - and that means having exalted notions. They would always rather do noble deeds than useful ones: Their lives are regulated more by moral feeling than by reasoning - all their mistakes are in the direction of doing things excessively and vehemently. They overdo everything - they love too much, hate too much, and the same with everything else.

Why do you think socialism and communism are still live when it’s already been shown to not work?

It’s an ideal.

As Thomas Sowell said: “Socialism is a wonderful idea. It is only as a reality that it has been disastrous…“

Klaus just hopes that the youth today “… is the vanguard of social change. There is little doubt that it will be the catalyst for change and a source of critical momentum for the Great Reset.” (103).

So basically, he’s hoping the youth of today agree with him and when they are ready to take to reigns of power they can help implement The Great Reset.

Curiously, Stalin said the same thing:

“We Communists gained control of the Youth in Russia before we were able to wage a successful Communist Revolution in Russia, and Comrades, we must gain control of the Youth in the United States if we are to wage a successful Communist Revolution in that nation. For this purpose, we are ordering our Comrades to set up a new Communist Youth group in the United States.”

It appears someone is always in control so it is likely this vaguard of social change that Klaus says the youth are, will be a managed and manipulated tool to reach that end.