The Economist and the World Economic Forum (WEF) have "dumb and dumber" competing notions as to what is the gravest threat to the global economy.
The WEF says "Social Media Feed" biggest threat to democracy.
The Economist says Populist Nationalism 'Gravest Threat Since Communism'
Priced Out of the 'Open Society'
Saxo Bank editor Michael S. McKenna takes on the Economist in Priced Out of the 'Open Society'.
On Saturday, The Economist published a rather panicked editorial stating that the US presidential contest between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton represents "the gravest risk to the free world since communism," with "the future of the liberal world order" depending on Clinton's success.
What is it that The Economist fears might disappear? All social orders orbit central values from which they derive their legitimacy. For globalism, or international liberal democracy, this takes the form of a strong belief in free markets, free trade, and openness towards the sorts of human migrations that such systems inevitably produce.
This final aspect is an interesting one, as the past 24 months have seen a dramatic ramping-up of hate-speech legislation, social media policing, and more broadly the taboo against speaking ill of this or that group – in Germany, for instance, multiple people have been arrested for posting messages critical of that country's recent migration wave on social media. In Scotland, a 40-year-old man was arrested in February after condemning his country's decision to welcome Syrian refugees to its shores on Facebook.
While The Economist decries protectionist measures in general and Trump's opposition to certain nascent trade deals (such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership) specifically, it is relatively silent on other, more familiar forces warping free markets across the developed world.
"If The Economist believes so strongly in free markets, why does it accept central bank measures and [overall policies] that distort that very market?" asks Saxo Bank chief economist Steen Jakobsen.
Key Question
"If The Economist believes so strongly in free markets, why does it accept central bank measures and [overall policies] that distort that very market?" asks Saxo Bank chief economist Steen Jakobsen.
Democratic Strategist Calls for Assassination of Julian Assange
Meanwhile, back in the US, ZeroHedge reports Democratic Strategist Calls for Assassination of Julian Assange.
Assange is the founder of Wikileaks. His crime? He leaked Hillary Clinton emails.
In other words, he reported facts.
For that, Bob Beckel, Democratic strategist says "The way to deal with this is pretty simple. ... A dead man can't leak stuff. ... I am not for the death penalty ... we should illegally shoot the son of a bitch".
In case you think that may be out of context, here is the video clip.
Just Imagine
Just imagine what would have happened if you said similar things about Hillary or Obama because you disagreed with them.
Where would you be now?
Idiocy WEF Style
The WEF says in its concluding remarks that "Intimated by the power of internet users, our current governance institutions are, however, incapable of handling the dynamism and diversity of digitally-mediated citizen opinions."
The WEF never bothered to consider the fact that just interment users may have a complaint or may even be right.
The WEF was specifically bothered by Brexit.
"The Leave campaign's main social media messages appealed to the agency of ordinary voters to reject the rule of the bureaucracy and 'take control' of their own country. Using very simple language, largely consisting of only a few syllables, these messages spread very fast across the internet and were often reinforced with amusing memes, instead of rigorous expert opinions or statistics."
Yeah – please note the "rigorous" expert opinions who all said Brexit would crash the stock market. Amusingly, they said Brexit would never happen in the first place.
In the US, "rigorous" expert opinions said there was no housing bubble. Rigorous expert opinions at the Fed believed there would be four hikes this year!
"Rigorous" expert opinions on the global economy have been wrong for years.
The experts have been so wrong, for so long, that it's a wonder people did not turn to social media sooner.
I will never be invited to give a speech at the WEF because the first thing I would do would be to call the WEF elites a bunch of arrogant jackasses.
That would actually be too polite. Yet, by Beckel's standards, it could get me killed.
How much different is Beckel from ISIS leaders? What right does the WEF have to imply that public opinion should be suppressed?
Which Statement is More Idiotic?
The gravest threat to society are the arrogant fools at the WEF, the Fed, the Economist, people like Bob Beckel and warmongers like Hillary Clinton.
