What senator stood up to more than 90 countries, successfully defending U.S. sovereignty before the Supreme Court? Answer.

Please use the PayPal button above to donate to The US Report.

Subscribe with Kindle

Search the US Report. 

Please visit The US Report bookstore!

Need a speaker for your next event? Contact us.



 The US Report, an indie publisher, features stories about politics, public figures and government. Learn more about The US Report  and the credentials of our contributorsHelp us keep TUSR online; use the PayPal link in the right column.



How would World Economic Forum initiatives affect Main St., USA?

Commentary by Kay B. Day

DAVOS,23JAN03 - Hilde Schwab (L) and Klaus Schwab (R), Founder and President, World Economic Forum, during the 'Annual Meeting 2003' of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 23, 2003. [Copyright by World Economic Forum swiss-image.ch/photo by Remy Steinegger; used with permission.]The World Economic Forum founded by Klaus Schwab begins its 40th anniversary meeting on Wednesday in Davos, Switzerland. If Schwab and his ideological peers had their way, Main St., USA would feel a big bite in the wallet as well as the lifestyle. The WEF has policy statements from former U.S. president Bill Clinton, Queen Elizabeth and a number of other charity minded world politicos. The goal is to eradicate world poverty but that isn’t the problem. The problem is the method these politicos want to use to end poverty.

In an announcement about the forum, the WEF said, “The leaders support a refreshingly simple plan that will end poverty, protect the environment and allow developing countries to choose their own futures, unchained from onerous debt obligations and unbalanced trade policies.” The announcement also said those same world leaders “note the failures of a system that has been more intent on using poor countries as supply-houses for raw materials rather than bringing them out of poverty.”

Note there is no allusion to the leaders of those poor countries, or to the cultures or practices of their people. There is no allusion to the oppression of women or faiths. There is no allusion to agrarian practices that lack a conservation component. There is no allusion to anything other than a desire to transfer wealth from so-called rich countries to poor ones, humanitarian aid aside. There is no allusion to freedom, something sorely lacking in most of the world.

One policy Schwab and company want to initiate suggests work isn’t necessary: “Human Rights Initiative: The global guarantee of food, drinking water, shelter, healthcare, education, as basic human rights that must be provided free to all.” Free?

Another policy involves property and a subject dear to all leftwing hearts, taxes: “Sane Tax Initiative: The cancellation of taxes on labor and basic consumption, the creation of a 2% worldwide tax on property ownership (except basic habitation for the poor), and the implementation of a global 0.5 percent flat tax on all financial transactions with a total prohibition of speculation on food products.”

And the communal spirit reigns supreme with the uber-wealthy: “Local Governance Initiative: An end to private monopoly ownership over natural resources, with a minimum 51% local communal ownership in corporations that control such resources. The termination of intellectual property rights on pharmaceutical drugs.”

There’s also the standard debt relief and climate change rhetoric as well.

Blaming others for problems is a corrupt or inept politico’s best offense.

Meanwhile Democrats in the US and their political kin in the UK are eager for a tax on all financial transactions, marching in step with Schwab’s policy.

That we have a former US president whose spouse is our current Secretary of State endorsing the types of initiatives Schwab is pushing should give every one of us pause. Think about that 2 percent worldwide tax on property ownership.

What kind of leaders would support the idea of a global property tax? What kind of leaders in the US would allow our sovereignty as a nation to be undermined on the level we are seeing now? What kind of leaders look to you to fund their philanthropy in other countries when your taxes are already funding aid and assistance to those countries?

What moral or legal right do these politicos have to our property and our wealth here in the U.S.?

The arrogance of politicos who decide we are going to pay for their utopian vision is astounding. I’d be willing to bet that if every policy wonk who headed to Davos gave up all of his or her wealth and pooled it, they’d make a good dent in poverty. Problem is the Clintons of the world want to have that utopian dream on your dime while they multiply their own.

If Klaus Schwab is so concerned about the poor, he should relinquish all his personal wealth and give it to those in need. A former colleague said on a blog Schwab is subject to temper tantrums—a commonality among demagogues it seems. The colleague said Schwab has a hard time hanging onto top managers.

If you transferred every dime from the US to other countries, you’d still have poverty. You’d still have oppression, war and strife. Politicos just can't quite transform themselves into a deity, though it's not for lack of trying. 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

« Obama forgets top donor pool as he rallies the troops, scolds Supremes and GOP | Main | Upcoming debate tackles questions about Christians and capitalism »

References (2)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Source
    Barclays Capital boss Bob Diamond warned that threats from the US President and moves from the Prime Minister such as the bankers' bonus tax were damaging. “This is a time when isolated actions in the US and UK are not beneficial,” he said. “Without risk we do not have a banking industry. Having banks willing to take risks, particularly cross-border risk is essential to economics.”
  • Source
    Klaus Schwab continues to be able to recognize and attract top managers but then these managers end up leaving for two reasons: either they can´t put up with Klaus temper tantrums or Klaus can´t put up with their success.