Post: #1

Looks like these are the findings of their an annual poll done right before every Davos meeting.

World Economic Forum - Press Release

Quote:A Rejection of Populism: Global Public Opinion Comes out Strongly in Favour of Openness and Collaboration

· The global public overwhelmingly favours multilateral cooperation, is open to immigration and rejects the notion that countries’ best interests are achieved at the expense of others, according to a unique global survey published today by the World Economic Forum

· Majority of respondents say they believe upward mobility is too elusive and that governments are not doing enough to provide people with opportunity

· North Americans have the least trust in climate science, while Western Europeans are least likely to regard technology companies as altruistic

· Read the report here

Geneva, Switzerland, 20 January 2019 – A global opinion poll published today by the World Economic Forum finds that a clear majority of people in all regions of the world say they believe cooperation between nations is either extremely or very important. It also finds that a large majority rejects the notion that national improvement is a zero-sum game, and that most people feel that immigrants are mostly good for their adopted country.

The research, covering a sample size of over 10,000 people from every region of the world, was commissioned ahead of next week’s World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland. The findings can be viewed as an endorsement by the public of the key principles of the multilateral system. It also roundly debunks the negative notion of immigrants that has raced to the top of the news agenda across Europe, North America and elsewhere.

However, regional viewpoints differ. Asked how important it is that countries work together towards a common goal, a global average of 76% said they believe it is either extremely important or very important. These sentiments are felt most strongly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, where 88% share the same view. At the other end of the scale, only 61% of Western Europeans and 70% of North Americans say they consider cooperation to be extremely or very important.

Asked whether their country has a responsibility to help other countries in the world, South Asians again registered the highest levels of concurrence, with 94% answering positively compared to a global average of 72%. Again, North Americans and Western Europeans were the least effusive, with only 61% and 63% respectively answering in the affirmative.

While a global majority of respondents – 57% – say they believe that immigrants are “mostly good” for their new country, only 40% of those living in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and 46% of respondents in Western Europe subscribe to the same opinion. Perhaps unsurprisingly given its history, North Americans trailed only South Asians in their approval of immigrants, with 66% saying they believe immigrants are mostly good.

The data, which came about as a result of a collaboration with Qualtrics, will be used in panel discussions and workshops at the Annual Meeting as a guide for participants as they explore how to build an architecture for global governance that is capable of fostering the international collaboration necessary to solve the world’s most critical challenges.

One finding that will surely prove valuable to the discussions is the fact that, while most people still believe in the power of international cooperation, they share a much less positive view of their own country when it comes to social progress. This despondency at the lack of upward mobility is felt most acutely in Western Europe, where only 20% of respondents said they feel it is either extremely common or somewhat common for someone to be born poor and become rich through hard work. Respondents in the United States, where the ideal of the American Dream is deeply rooted in the national consciousness, were only a little more positive with 34% saying they believe the statement to be either extremely or very common.

“The combination of climate change, income inequality, technology and geopolitics pose an existential threat to humanity. What we see with this research is that, while the international community’s capacity for concerted action appears constrained, the overwhelming desire of the global public is for leaders to find new ways to work together that will allow them to cooperate on these critical shared challenges we all face,” said Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum.

“This is a bold reminder that listening is critical to leadership,” said Bill McDermott, CEO of SAP. “If we just have the courage to ask, the people always know what problems need solving. I’m proud we will enter this annual meeting with such a compelling view of the human experience, unfiltered, from the people who are actually living it.”

As well as providing insight into the global public’s attitudes on opportunity and international relations, the survey also shines a light on other important matters of global importance in 2019. For example, on the subject of sustainability, 54% of respondents said they have either a “great deal” or “a lot” of trust in what climate scientists say. At the other end of the spectrum, the region in the world where most respondents have little or no trust in climate scientists is North America, with only 17% responding positively.

When it comes to the role of technology in society, the number of people that say they believe technology does more good than harm outnumber those who say they think it does more harm than good by a factor of nearly four to one. However, when asked whether they agree with the statement that technology companies are more interested in making the world a better place rather than simply making money, responses differed markedly between regions. The region of the world where respondents take the most positive view of technology is sub-Saharan Africa, where 66% of those surveyed agree that technology companies want to make the world a better place, followed by South Asia (64%) and East Asia and the Pacific (63%). This compares to only 39% of Western Europeans and 40% of North Americans and respondents from Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2019 will take place on 22-25 January 2019 in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland. The meeting brings together more than 3,000 global leaders from politics, government, civil society, academia, the arts and culture, as well as the media. Convening under the theme, Globalization 4.0: Shaping a Global Architecture in the Age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, participants will focus on defining new models for building sustainable and inclusive societies in a plurilateral world.

So can you see now which institutions the Globalist Elite are using? It doesn't get any clearer. If you want to see the cultural decay reversed (ref: Inversion Agenda), you'll have to take these institutions back and weed out the bad influencers -- not likely. And boycotts are just a drop in the bucket.

Here's a list of their Strategic Partners (Hi... P&G, Google, Facebook): https://www.weforum.org/about/strategic-partners

Post: #2

"A Rejection of Populism: Global Public Opinion Comes out Strongly in Favour of Openness and Collaboration"

Translation;

A rejection of the will of the people: Brainwashed idiots (majority women) comes out strongly in favour of global free trade and further enrichment of elites, (and also the resulting destruction of the environment) decimation of Europeans and Zionist elite rule.

Post: #3

The pollyanna image of Globalism painted in the average person's mind is a group of brown children in a thatched school hut interacting with a color 3D hologram of a 747. That's why your average person thinks its a good thing - Globalists have conflated the byproduct of international trade and technology as an 'open border success story.'

An AT&T commercial is not reality.

Post: #4

I think this is classed as when Rome burns. No need to worry about the smoke and anger on the streets when our online polls say everything is going well!

Post: #5

I can't sleep at night because all incomes are not equal. Somebody do something!
These people are educated retards.

Post: #6

(01-20-2019 06:19 PM)rpg Wrote:  I can't sleep at night because all incomes are not equal. Somebody do something!
These people are educated retards.

They don't actually believe this.

This kind of thing is designed to create an illusion of majority opinion within the perception of business and political leaders. It's an attempt to leverage the Asch Conformity principle to further their agenda.

Even IF it's true (which we know it isn't) the snapshot doesn't really matter. It's the long term trend that matters and that trend is turning sharply against socialism/globalism.

Post: #7

Wow. 4.5 Billion Indians, Chinese and Africans don't want a return to the politics that will derail the gravy train of Western self destruction.

Makes you feel all warm and gooey inside, doesn't it?

Kinda like two cannibals and a vegan voting on what's for lunch.

Post: #8

- I like how they tell you exactly what they want: "...to build an architecture for global governance"
- Where they need to focus: which regions/countries need little and more work for their agenda
- And how they plan on shaping policy and opinion: "...government, civil society, academia, the arts and culture, as well as the media"

It's all in plain sight for those willing to look. National sovereignty must be abandoned for the greater good.

Another gem is this one, if you're into "open borders" and the UN migration pact - https://parispeaceforum.org

Any citizen of these partnering countries (especially in the EU) are living under the illusion of a democracy where they think they're free people and their vote matters. Protest against the larger agenda and you'll be labeled "anti-government" by the media.

Destroy the culture > Destroy national identity > Win the minds (NWO)

Post: #9

It should be relabeled as follows:

Globalists agree: doubling down on idiotic (and doomed to fail) policies thinking that "this time they will rule the world" is what the world wants.

What they do not realize is that they are once again doomed to fail because they do not consider the X-Factors that thwart their plans. Also, even if they pull it off, there will be no more humans on the planet since they will resort to killing everyone to get what they want.

Post: #10

How they phrased these questions is what matters the most.

Post: #11

Below are the poll questions for those interested. As you can see, they're a bunch of simpleminded questions more or less about helping your neighbor, pollution, access to education and opportunities.

Quote:- How much do you trust what scientists say about the environment?

- Do you favor or oppose policies that put extra taxes on businesses that pollute?

- Would you say that technology does more harm or good in society?

- Which comes closer to your view, even if neither is exactly right? “Most technology companies want to make the world a better place” OR “Most technology companies only want to make money”

- Would you say that new immigrants are mostly good or mostly bad for [your country]?

- Generally speaking, do you think [your country] has a responsibility to help other countries in the world?

- Generally speaking, do you think that all countries can improve at the same time or that if some countries improve others must become worse off?

- Supposing that you are still working, how likely are you to be doing the same kind of work in 5 years that you are doing today?

- About how much of what you do in your job do you think could be done today by a machine or robot?

- How many people in [your country] have access to a good education?

- Thinking about [your country] today, how common is it for someone to start poor, work hard, and become rich?

- When it comes to laws and regulations to make sure that opportunities are available to all groups of people, would you say the government of [your country] is doing too much, too little, or just enough?

- How important do you think it is that countries work together towards a common goal?

- Generally speaking, when leaders from different countries work together is it good or bad for people like you?

Post: #12

All these individuals present at Davos are the cancer of the globe. All determined to work the puppet strings to bring about a global collective society where evreyone is a slave.

If any of these emerging countries had any sense they would launch a rocket to land at Davos and rid the earth of the cancer that is the elite globalists. That may sound provacative but I don't care one bit. All these elite leaders care nothing about the wellbeing and freedoms of the human race.

Globalisnm is to ensure rock bottom labour prices, the absolute protection of the environment, and the uploading of force into a global central unit that will be sold as "peace keeping". It will ensure the elite can maintain compete control all while controlling the throttle of growth where evreyone lives no better than a working class dude in some 2nd tier shit hole city in Brazil or China. For a For a Venuleanean who is eating soil cookies this is great improvement, but for those in the west , to will live no better than your bumpkin rural country mates that live off Cheetos, mountain Dew, and pork belly.

Post: #13

NYT this week: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/techn...forum.html

As suggested in the survey, the Davos Elite are very interested in seeing robots/AI take over people's jobs -- more money for them, less people required. Who's ready for a guaranteed income? With so many people potentially going out of work, what will everyone do? It seems this question should be tackled first by society before corporations jump in head first into automation.

Quote:The Hidden Automation Agenda of the Davos Elite

DAVOS, Switzerland — They’ll never admit it in public, but many of your bosses want machines to replace you as soon as possible.

I know this because, for the past week, I’ve been mingling with corporate executives at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos. And I’ve noticed that their answers to questions about automation depend very much on who is listening.

In public, many executives wring their hands over the negative consequences that artificial intelligence and automation could have for workers. They take part in panel discussions about building “human-centered A.I.” for the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” — Davos-speak for the corporate adoption of machine learning and other advanced technology — and talk about the need to provide a safety net for people who lose their jobs as a result of automation.

But in private settings, including meetings with the leaders of the many consulting and technology firms whose pop-up storefronts line the Davos Promenade, these executives tell a different story: They are racing to automate their own work forces to stay ahead of the competition, with little regard for the impact on workers.

All over the world, executives are spending billions of dollars to transform their businesses into lean, digitized, highly automated operations. They crave the fat profit margins automation can deliver, and they see A.I. as a golden ticket to savings, perhaps by letting them whittle departments with thousands of workers down to just a few dozen.

“People are looking to achieve very big numbers,” said Mohit Joshi, the president of Infosys, a technology and consulting firm that helps other businesses automate their operations. “Earlier they had incremental, 5 to 10 percent goals in reducing their work force. Now they’re saying, ‘Why can’t we do it with 1 percent of the people we have?’”

Few American executives will admit wanting to get rid of human workers, a taboo in today’s age of inequality. So they’ve come up with a long list of buzzwords and euphemisms to disguise their intent. Workers aren’t being replaced by machines, they’re being “released” from onerous, repetitive tasks. Companies aren’t laying off workers, they’re “undergoing digital transformation.”

A 2017 survey by Deloitte found that 53 percent of companies had already started to use machines to perform tasks previously done by humans. The figure is expected to climb to 72 percent by next year.

The corporate elite’s A.I. obsession has been lucrative for firms that specialize in “robotic process automation,” or R.P.A. Infosys, which is based in India, reported a 33 percent increase in year-over-year revenue in its digital division. IBM’s “cognitive solutions” unit, which uses A.I. to help businesses increase efficiency, has become the company’s second-largest division, posting $5.5 billion in revenue last quarter. The investment bank UBS projects that the artificial intelligence industry could be worth as much as $180 billion by next year.

Kai-Fu Lee, the author of “AI Superpowers” and a longtime technology executive, predicts that artificial intelligence will eliminate 40 percent of the world’s jobs within 15 years. In an interview, he said that chief executives were under enormous pressure from shareholders and boards to maximize short-term profits, and that the rapid shift toward automation was the inevitable result.

The Milwaukee offices of the Taiwanese electronics maker Foxconn, whose chairman has said he plans to replace 80 percent of the company’s workers with robots in five to 10 years.CreditLauren Justice for The New York Times

“They always say it’s more than the stock price,” he said. “But in the end, if you screw up, you get fired.”

Other experts have predicted that A.I. will create more new jobs than it destroys, and that job losses caused by automation will probably not be catastrophic. They point out that some automation helps workers by improving productivity and freeing them to focus on creative tasks over routine ones.

But at a time of political unrest and anti-elite movements on the progressive left and the nationalist right, it’s probably not surprising that all of this automation is happening quietly, out of public view. In Davos this week, several executives declined to say how much money they had saved by automating jobs previously done by humans. And none were willing to say publicly that replacing human workers is their ultimate goal.

“That’s the great dichotomy,” said Ben Pring, the director of the Center for the Future of Work at Cognizant, a technology services firm. “On one hand,” he said, profit-minded executives “absolutely want to automate as much as they can.”

“On the other hand,” he added, “they’re facing a backlash in civic society.”

For an unvarnished view of how some American leaders talk about automation in private, you have to listen to their counterparts in Asia, who often make no attempt to hide their aims. Terry Gou, the chairman of the Taiwanese electronics manufacturer Foxconn, has said the company plans to replace 80 percent of its workers with robots in the next five to 10 years. Richard Liu, the founder of the Chinese e-commerce company JD.com, said at a business conference last year that “I hope my company would be 100 percent automation someday.”

One common argument made by executives is that workers whose jobs are eliminated by automation can be “reskilled” to perform other jobs in an organization. They offer examples like Accenture, which claimed in 2017 to have replaced 17,000 back-office processing jobs without layoffs, by training employees to work elsewhere in the company. In a letter to shareholders last year, Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, said that more than 16,000 Amazon warehouse workers had received training in high-demand fields like nursing and aircraft mechanics, with the company covering 95 percent of their expenses.
Interested in All Things Tech?

The Bits newsletter will keep you updated on the latest from Silicon Valley and the technology industry.

But these programs may be the exception that proves the rule. There are plenty of stories of successful reskilling — optimists often cite a program in Kentucky that trained a small group of former coal miners to become computer programmers — but there is little evidence that it works at scale. A report by the World Economic Forum this month estimated that of the 1.37 million workers who are projected to be fully displaced by automation in the next decade, only one in four can be profitably reskilled by private-sector programs. The rest, presumably, will need to fend for themselves or rely on government assistance.

In Davos, executives tend to speak about automation as a natural phenomenon over which they have no control, like hurricanes or heat waves. They claim that if they don’t automate jobs as quickly as possible, their competitors will.

“They will be disrupted if they don’t,” said Katy George, a senior partner at the consulting firm McKinsey & Company.

Automating work is a choice, of course, one made harder by the demands of shareholders, but it is still a choice. And even if some degree of unemployment caused by automation is inevitable, these executives can choose how the gains from automation and A.I. are distributed, and whether to give the excess profits they reap as a result to workers, or hoard it for themselves and their shareholders.

The choices made by the Davos elite — and the pressure applied on them to act in workers’ interests rather than their own — will determine whether A.I. is used as a tool for increasing productivity or for inflicting pain.

“The choice isn’t between automation and non-automation,” said Erik Brynjolfsson, the director of M.I.T.’s Initiative on the Digital Economy. “It’s between whether you use the technology in a way that creates shared prosperity, or more concentration of wealth.”

Post: #14

I have experience of working with multinational companies and I've been watching with interest their sudden concern for the environment and humanity in recent years!
Call me a cynic, but I would be amazed if this was not all about making ever more profits for these companies while simultaneously indoctrinating today's youngsters into thinking that austerity is normal and just so as to 'help save the world!', simultaneously indoctrinating Western students into willingly accepting lower wages than their predecessors.
As part of this agenda, SAP are one of the companies heavily involved with this, and their CEO Bill McDermott was one of the major players at Davos recently.
I suspect SAP's push to train legions of people around the world is not really about 'making the world run better and changing peoples' lives' but moreso about mobilising huge amounts of new cheap labour who will be encouraged to migrate to the West to replace more expensive Westerners in time.
PROFIT!
https://www.sap.com/corporate/en/vision-...ss-for-all

Post: #15

(01-28-2019 10:38 AM)amity Wrote:  Call me a cynic, but I would be amazed if this was not all about making ever more profits for these companies while simultaneously indoctrinating today's youngsters into thinking that austerity is normal and just so as to 'help save the world!', simultaneously indoctrinating Western students into willingly accepting lower wages than their predecessors.

Correct. That's why hearing the messaging being suggested by the Elite is so interesting. Remember when Obama kept lecturing Americans about the country's shift from manufacturing to an "information economy"? "Those jobs aren't coming back," he said. "People need to be retrained." Similar deal here. Soon you'll hear other corporations and leaders using these talking points to describe what's going on/required. These two paragraphs in the NYT article touch on this. I wouldn't be surprised if they cite climate change for a reason why we must quickly start automating everything (less commuter traffic, less power/resource usage by workers, etc.).

Quote:Few American executives will admit wanting to get rid of human workers, a taboo in today’s age of inequality. So they’ve come up with a long list of buzzwords and euphemisms to disguise their intent. Workers aren’t being replaced by machines, they’re being “released” from onerous, repetitive tasks. Companies aren’t laying off workers, they’re “undergoing digital transformation.”

[..]

In Davos, executives tend to speak about automation as a natural phenomenon over which they have no control, like hurricanes or heat waves. They claim that if they don’t automate jobs as quickly as possible, their competitors will.

What we are seeing is a re-balancing of wages as the world moves to a global workforce. Robots and AI will further demolish living wages in first world countries within the next decade.

This is why the "Learn to code" meme is hilarious. The progressive left (journalists) are getting a taste of their own medicine. [ZeroHedge]

Post: #16

I agree with what Doug Casey says about the Davos crowd:

https://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/d...-in-davos/

BTW, Doug says the basis of Western civilization is individualism, capitalism, rational thought, and personal freedom.

Post: #17

Globalists being globalists again...

U.N. official, Christiana Figueres, admits the "Climate Change" agenda isn't about saving the planet. It's about destroying Capitalism, stupid.

Let me guess... and "Carbon Taxes" aren't about punishing polluters, it's about redistribution of wealth from developed nations to poor nations?

Quote:“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

Source: http://www.investors.com/politics/editor...apitalism/

Hat tip: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-0...capitalism

Post: #18

Another example why everyone needs to watch their backs as AI slowly takes over. The journalists who recently got let go should have been preparing for a career move long ago, as this is fairly old news. AI is also an area of great interest to the Globalists.

Quote:The Rise of the Robot Reporter
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/05/busin...obots.html

Roughly a third of the content published by Bloomberg News uses some form of automated technology. The system used by the company, Cyborg, is able to assist reporters in churning out thousands of articles on company earnings reports each quarter.

The program can dissect a financial report the moment it appears and spit out an immediate news story that includes the most pertinent facts and figures. And unlike business reporters, who find working on that kind of thing a snooze, it does so without complaint.

How much in jeopardy are any of your jobs? Are you taking any steps to avoid the inevitable?

Post: #19

Baristas, you're next. San Francisco: Robot coffee shop on the left. Homeless on the right.

Post: #20

Who wants to be served by robots, seriously ..
It might seem interesting at first but it is beyond stupid.

It's like those supermarkets without cashiers, where you have to scan your articles yourself.
First some people need these jobs, second who ever dreamed of having to be his own cashier ? third are the articles you scan yourself less expensive because you're forced do someone else's job ? No.
So fuck this shit.

Post: #21

If the machine made good coffee quickly it would be hard to pass up, even at a comparative price.

These days I've had to get into the habit of sipping my soy mochachinolatte before I leave the store so I can decide whether I want to keep it or ask for a refund. The minimum wage peasantry isn't what it used to be.

I suppose in France they still have higher standards for such things.

Post: #22

Hey, it's the great promise of capitalism. Your car can double as a taxi, your apartment can double as a hotel and you can yourself double as whatever professional service you need. That is if you own something to begin with.

Aren't we lucky for having thrown away the 'servitude' of feudalism...

Post: #23

(02-07-2019 04:41 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  If the machine made good coffee quickly it would be hard to pass up, even at a comparative price.

These days I've had to get into the habit of sipping my soy mochachinolatte before I leave the store so I can decide whether I want to keep it or ask for a refund. The minimum wage peasantry isn't what it used to be.

I suppose in France they still have higher standards for such things.

Funny. Automation does lend itself to greater consistency. I'm curious to try one of these $6 Robo Burgers (also in San Francisco).




Listen and you'll catch the creator using Globlists talking points about automation (mentioned the NYT article). 5% work time to be creative / read a book - hahaha





I think this will catch on. In the condo tower where I live, food delivery services seem to be pretty popular. Who actually prepares the food doesn't really matter. In the future, folks will get trained to assist, program, maintain, and repair bots.

Post: #24

(02-07-2019 04:41 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I suppose in France they still have higher standards for such things.

In my experience it's only really in italy where you can drop by anywhere and get a great coffee (and it will almost always be cheap too).

Anywhere else (france included) and you have to know where to go.
Acceptable is easy to find here, great takes some searching.

Post: #25

The real trouble here is the rotating workforce. I'd like to imagine people are moving ahead with their lives and getting better jobs but based on the service quality I'd say they're all being fired and re-hired somewhere else in a never ending merry-go-round of shit-tier employment.

So you can go back to the place where you got great coffee last week but now there's a different chick serving and you're back to square one.

There must be something about running businesses that escapes me. I keep thinking "why don't you guys pay a bit above minimum wage and get good employees that will stay longer than a month, provide good service, stop you having to train new bozos and keep your customers happy" but if it were that simple surely some of these businesses would be doing it already.