![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ddstory.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWhile we're on that pesky class thingy that apparently nobody seems to bother thinking or talking about, let's begin with this segment.
'The Daily Show' Mocks the Hypocrisy of the Davos Forum
Yeah, yeah, t'is the Daily Show. The liburl mouthpiece, right. Ya know, that place where today's liburl youth are taking their notions from. But do bear with me.
"Thursday night's Daily Show swiveled right past the latest Bieber affair to take on another scandal of decadence and excess: namely, the ongoing World Economic Forum's annual gathering in Davos, Switzerland.
The conference at the fancy ski resort is supposedly taking on the issue of income inequality, but Jon Stewart exposed the goofy hypocrisy of the whole thing: "Okay, so a group of the world's wealthiest people get together in a secluded mountain enclave to discuss concerns over income inequality," he scoffed. "Hmm.""
Yep. That's right. The World Economic Forum is currently underway in the remote Alpine resort of Davos here in Switzerland, and the criticism is back again, too. The main accusation being that the summit is merely a place for the rich elite to compare their dick sizes (see next paragraph below), rather than to forge any plans for actually tackling the problems they claim to be discussing. Income inequality, in this case. In a nutshell, the super-wealthy have gathered in a secluded place, bathing in luxury, surrounding themselves with friendly journalists, and talking about how they could help the poor by... wait for it... closing the gap between themselves and said poor. Indeed, Jon, hmmmmm.
Talking of dicks (literally), some have inevitably noticed that there's a well visible shortage of ladies involved in the whole thing:
"Some of the online discussion focused on how few delegates are women - only 15 percent of the more than 2,500 participants attending - and whether the profile of the attendees adequately represented the world".
Of course, there's also the issue of the influence of corporate money on the summit, and respectively, on the "solutions" it may or may not eventually come up with:
"World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab said he’s in a “constant fight” to keep corporate interests from commandeering the annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, even as his organization collects about $200 million from sponsors such as Citigroup Inc., Google Inc. and Accenture Plc."
...
"It’s a balancing act for Schwab, admonishing his corporate benefactors for an overemphasis on profits while at the same time holding his hand outstretched. Companies each pay 500,000 Swiss francs ($550,000) annually to become a “strategic partner” of the forum. In return they get exposure - a larger delegation and roles in panel discussions at the annual meeting - and media support. The 110 listed on the WEF’s website generate about $60 million in fees."
There are of course the useful corporate-friendly journalists (never mind those gleeful morons drooling over the prospect of having a cup of fondue in the presence of the super-rich and super-powerful; those barely meet even the most basic requirements for being called journalists), who are more than eager to defend the event by arguing that, while corporate involvement is real, after all, crafting strategies is what matters most:
"I myself have been covering the event as a Bloomberg Television anchor for over eight years and I’m a big fan of Davos, so I disagree with the cynics."
Of course you do, m'dear. Of course you do.
"For me, it is all about the exchange of ideas whether that takes place on a panel in the conference hall, on the dance floor or in the hotel bar – it really doesn’t matter." ... "Much like political party conferences in the UK, socialising with a glass of bubbly goes hand in hand with the major speaking events and announcements that take place over the course of the four days." ... "In fact, most of the time, it provides a welcome distraction from the serious nature of the conversations being discussed. Delegates tend not to party too hard though, given the schedule kicks off at 8am each day and the daily programme is jam-packed with side events and other forums for debate."
Poor them. That must be such a tough life, eh?
"This year’s meeting is particularly significant as it is the first Davos in five years where we aren’t tackling a crisis - the broader financial outlook is a little more positive for economies around the globe compared with 2012 or 2011. This helps to create a slightly less pressurised environment both for delegates and the journalists chasing down the stories." ... "Nevertheless, with chatter moving away from talk about whether certain companies will survive the global downturn toward more forward-focused discussion about the products they are producing and other innovations, there’s still a lot for us to cover."
You, you mean, like... income inequality, right? RIGHT? That's what they said, I heard them! The guys you're supposed to be covering!
I hope at least a tiny part of those guys are aware where social gaps opening up to a certain critical level tend to lead to. I'm sure at least some of them are acquainted with the lessons of history - they must be, they've got so many fancy old books in their libraries at their mansions, which I'm sure they've read to the very last page. So where do social gaps lead to, m'dear? Tell you what, to cut the long story short: the sight ain't pretty at all.
That said, it's always worth mentioning some of the most notable figures whose absence from the forum hasn't gone unnoticed. Some of them seem to be having quite a reason for all that, and oh boy, do they hold strong feelings on the matter:
"The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, once attended Davos only to dismiss it as “a constellation of egos involved in massive mutual orgies of adulation.”
Ohhh, snap?
"Whatever their reasons for staying away, the leaders of some of the largest and most transformative companies are demonstrating, with their absence, the difficulty of convening a global conversation with all the main stakeholders. Given that one of the themes this year is how to address economic inequality, it would be helpful to have the world’s largest employers participate in that discussion, not to mention a sampling of rank-and-file workers, who never receive an invitation."
Good point, Andrew Ross Sorkin. A very good point. After all, isn't it kinda curious that the wealthiest folks in biz and guv'mint are all meeting here in a remote little town in the middle of the mountains, claiming to be seriously concerned about "tackling inequality", while paying $70-grand per person, mhmm? Indeed, the voices that would've really mattered in this debate (if there were any real debate to begin with), are all missing from the event.
That, of course, hasn't stopped the forum from growing every next year, generating a lot of buzz, and tons of ink being spilled over it, and gazillions of terabytes of storage space being occupied with articles on the matter. Not to mention the hours upon hours of TV coverage, with idiots like the ones shown on the Stewart segment behaving like toddlers who've just been parachuted in the middle of Candy Land.
All said and done, after all the limos and glitter has gone and the cosy snowy town of Davos returns to its regular winter skiing routine, what will have changed in the world? Will any of the problems that've been discussed there, be moved even one bit toward solution? Once more, I'll be following the news for subsequent articles reporting on tangible events and decisions that'd be a direct consequence of the words that have been uttered among sips of brandy andcrack cocaine posh cigars. Maybe a year from now, come the next Davos summit, some companies would've made some changes in the way they conduct business and treat their customers and employees? Maybe some media would've started doing their actual job and asking tough questions to their respective governments? Maybe next time the people who are directly affected by the issue that's been discussed here, would be invited to attend, and provide their 2 cents? HA. HA.
Yeah, I know. I'm just being funny right now, am I not.
But for me, the most disgusting part of the whole affair was not the blatant hypocrisy protruding through the thin masks of faux concern displayed by those people, while they were talking on the "issues" between exchanges of gold-lined business cards and toasts with champagne-filled crystal glasses. It wasn't even the mind-boggling sumptuousness of the whole event. Or the fact that a bigger part of the Swiss population is against this event taking place every year, and costing tax payers millions of dollars for security which these Uncle Scrooges could pay for themselves in a heartbeat instead of constantly jerking each other off and pretending to care about the less fortunate. It was what the above segment actually emphasized on:
"In an especially cutting segment, Stewart showed highlights from how financial reporters have been covering the conference. Instead of addressing the issues at hand, TV reporters have been bragging about "eating the cheesy swiss fondue" and scoring access to the most exclusive parties. "What's with the giddiness?" Stewart pressed. "Are you financial journalists or just excited to be invited to the money Oscars?""
Yep. Stay classlessly classy, pseudo-journalists.
'The Daily Show' Mocks the Hypocrisy of the Davos Forum
Yeah, yeah, t'is the Daily Show. The liburl mouthpiece, right. Ya know, that place where today's liburl youth are taking their notions from. But do bear with me.
"Thursday night's Daily Show swiveled right past the latest Bieber affair to take on another scandal of decadence and excess: namely, the ongoing World Economic Forum's annual gathering in Davos, Switzerland.
The conference at the fancy ski resort is supposedly taking on the issue of income inequality, but Jon Stewart exposed the goofy hypocrisy of the whole thing: "Okay, so a group of the world's wealthiest people get together in a secluded mountain enclave to discuss concerns over income inequality," he scoffed. "Hmm.""
Yep. That's right. The World Economic Forum is currently underway in the remote Alpine resort of Davos here in Switzerland, and the criticism is back again, too. The main accusation being that the summit is merely a place for the rich elite to compare their dick sizes (see next paragraph below), rather than to forge any plans for actually tackling the problems they claim to be discussing. Income inequality, in this case. In a nutshell, the super-wealthy have gathered in a secluded place, bathing in luxury, surrounding themselves with friendly journalists, and talking about how they could help the poor by... wait for it... closing the gap between themselves and said poor. Indeed, Jon, hmmmmm.
Talking of dicks (literally), some have inevitably noticed that there's a well visible shortage of ladies involved in the whole thing:
"Some of the online discussion focused on how few delegates are women - only 15 percent of the more than 2,500 participants attending - and whether the profile of the attendees adequately represented the world".
Of course, there's also the issue of the influence of corporate money on the summit, and respectively, on the "solutions" it may or may not eventually come up with:
"World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab said he’s in a “constant fight” to keep corporate interests from commandeering the annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, even as his organization collects about $200 million from sponsors such as Citigroup Inc., Google Inc. and Accenture Plc."
...
"It’s a balancing act for Schwab, admonishing his corporate benefactors for an overemphasis on profits while at the same time holding his hand outstretched. Companies each pay 500,000 Swiss francs ($550,000) annually to become a “strategic partner” of the forum. In return they get exposure - a larger delegation and roles in panel discussions at the annual meeting - and media support. The 110 listed on the WEF’s website generate about $60 million in fees."
There are of course the useful corporate-friendly journalists (never mind those gleeful morons drooling over the prospect of having a cup of fondue in the presence of the super-rich and super-powerful; those barely meet even the most basic requirements for being called journalists), who are more than eager to defend the event by arguing that, while corporate involvement is real, after all, crafting strategies is what matters most:
"I myself have been covering the event as a Bloomberg Television anchor for over eight years and I’m a big fan of Davos, so I disagree with the cynics."
Of course you do, m'dear. Of course you do.
"For me, it is all about the exchange of ideas whether that takes place on a panel in the conference hall, on the dance floor or in the hotel bar – it really doesn’t matter." ... "Much like political party conferences in the UK, socialising with a glass of bubbly goes hand in hand with the major speaking events and announcements that take place over the course of the four days." ... "In fact, most of the time, it provides a welcome distraction from the serious nature of the conversations being discussed. Delegates tend not to party too hard though, given the schedule kicks off at 8am each day and the daily programme is jam-packed with side events and other forums for debate."
Poor them. That must be such a tough life, eh?
"This year’s meeting is particularly significant as it is the first Davos in five years where we aren’t tackling a crisis - the broader financial outlook is a little more positive for economies around the globe compared with 2012 or 2011. This helps to create a slightly less pressurised environment both for delegates and the journalists chasing down the stories." ... "Nevertheless, with chatter moving away from talk about whether certain companies will survive the global downturn toward more forward-focused discussion about the products they are producing and other innovations, there’s still a lot for us to cover."
You, you mean, like... income inequality, right? RIGHT? That's what they said, I heard them! The guys you're supposed to be covering!
I hope at least a tiny part of those guys are aware where social gaps opening up to a certain critical level tend to lead to. I'm sure at least some of them are acquainted with the lessons of history - they must be, they've got so many fancy old books in their libraries at their mansions, which I'm sure they've read to the very last page. So where do social gaps lead to, m'dear? Tell you what, to cut the long story short: the sight ain't pretty at all.
That said, it's always worth mentioning some of the most notable figures whose absence from the forum hasn't gone unnoticed. Some of them seem to be having quite a reason for all that, and oh boy, do they hold strong feelings on the matter:
"The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, once attended Davos only to dismiss it as “a constellation of egos involved in massive mutual orgies of adulation.”
Ohhh, snap?
"Whatever their reasons for staying away, the leaders of some of the largest and most transformative companies are demonstrating, with their absence, the difficulty of convening a global conversation with all the main stakeholders. Given that one of the themes this year is how to address economic inequality, it would be helpful to have the world’s largest employers participate in that discussion, not to mention a sampling of rank-and-file workers, who never receive an invitation."
Good point, Andrew Ross Sorkin. A very good point. After all, isn't it kinda curious that the wealthiest folks in biz and guv'mint are all meeting here in a remote little town in the middle of the mountains, claiming to be seriously concerned about "tackling inequality", while paying $70-grand per person, mhmm? Indeed, the voices that would've really mattered in this debate (if there were any real debate to begin with), are all missing from the event.
That, of course, hasn't stopped the forum from growing every next year, generating a lot of buzz, and tons of ink being spilled over it, and gazillions of terabytes of storage space being occupied with articles on the matter. Not to mention the hours upon hours of TV coverage, with idiots like the ones shown on the Stewart segment behaving like toddlers who've just been parachuted in the middle of Candy Land.
All said and done, after all the limos and glitter has gone and the cosy snowy town of Davos returns to its regular winter skiing routine, what will have changed in the world? Will any of the problems that've been discussed there, be moved even one bit toward solution? Once more, I'll be following the news for subsequent articles reporting on tangible events and decisions that'd be a direct consequence of the words that have been uttered among sips of brandy and
Yeah, I know. I'm just being funny right now, am I not.
But for me, the most disgusting part of the whole affair was not the blatant hypocrisy protruding through the thin masks of faux concern displayed by those people, while they were talking on the "issues" between exchanges of gold-lined business cards and toasts with champagne-filled crystal glasses. It wasn't even the mind-boggling sumptuousness of the whole event. Or the fact that a bigger part of the Swiss population is against this event taking place every year, and costing tax payers millions of dollars for security which these Uncle Scrooges could pay for themselves in a heartbeat instead of constantly jerking each other off and pretending to care about the less fortunate. It was what the above segment actually emphasized on:
"In an especially cutting segment, Stewart showed highlights from how financial reporters have been covering the conference. Instead of addressing the issues at hand, TV reporters have been bragging about "eating the cheesy swiss fondue" and scoring access to the most exclusive parties. "What's with the giddiness?" Stewart pressed. "Are you financial journalists or just excited to be invited to the money Oscars?""
Yep. Stay classlessly classy, pseudo-journalists.
(no subject)
Date: 26/1/14 16:49 (UTC)Why don't you trot back to your hotel and blow a few more money-daddies, Dick?
(no subject)
Date: 26/1/14 17:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/1/14 19:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/1/14 20:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/1/14 22:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 27/1/14 07:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/1/14 16:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 28/1/14 17:49 (UTC)(No I don't).
(no subject)
Date: 28/1/14 17:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 26/1/14 22:58 (UTC)BTW, I believe the word is spelled "librule."
(no subject)
Date: 27/1/14 07:21 (UTC)