Davos, for those who don’t know is a little town high in the Swiss Alps where many of the world’s financiers and intellectual muckity mucks gather once a year. There are conferences, lots of “Oprah style” conversations with bank CEOs and former heads of state, Kissinger waxes on about whatever. Perhaps little bit of skiing too (for those still limber enough) and expensive prostitutes (for the same limber set). CNBC and Bloomberg descend to read the tea leaves and to rub elbows. Lots of business cards are exchanged. Much cognac is enjoyed. It’s a nice way for people who want to rule the world to get to know the people who actually DO run the world. In general it sounds like a pretty good time.
But man, are some of the folks who attend just stinking hypocrites. (Soros is there almost every year.)
We obviously have no problem with anyone who is immensely wealthy who gained their wealth through honest means. In fact we celebrate these people. That is what capitalism is about to a very large degree. However, many of the folks attending the high altitude cocktail party tend to be of the crony disposition and even more annoyingly take Davos as an opportunity to go full “crony philosopher king” on us, as Kevin D. Williamson explains.
Please do tell us how the world will solve the problem of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa while wearing $400 socks.
(From The National Review)
Progressives say that they want inclusive social decision-making, but the most radically inclusive process we have for social decision-making is the thing that they generally distrust and often hate: capitalism — or, as our left-leaning friends so often put it, “unfettered” capitalism. And who should decide what sort of fetters are applied to whom? The view from Davos is, unsurprisingly: the people at Davos.
The hypocrisy and material self-indulgence on display at Davos may rankle, but the deeper problem is the unspoken assumption that the sort of people who gather in Davos are the sort of people who have the answers to social problems. Historically speaking, there is little evidence to support that proposition.