 Let's jump in with Klaus. Let's listen. Here is his interpretation of what the great reset means. And notice how this is all set up. At a virtual press conference to launch the book, Professor Schwab said humanity now had to make big choices about the future. So, oh, I forgot to say, whoa, before I say it, before we go there. Why the great reset? Why the whole point of this is, we have an opportunity. What was it? Rami Manuel said, I'm sure he was citing somebody else, never let a crisis go to waste. Never let a crisis go to waste. What is the crisis? Well, the crisis is COVID. The great reset is the reset to the global political and economic system, post COVID. So, as you'll hear, we have learned certain things about the world, what the world can do, what the world can get away with, what is good for the world, what is bad for the world. We've learned all these things from COVID. We're going to exit COVID. As we exit COVID, we need a reset. We need to change the world. Never let a crisis go to waste. This is the crisis that cannot go to waste. This is the reset that is now going to move us forward, right? That is now going to provide the opportunity, the opportunity for these people to do what they want to do, to do what they think is right, to do what they think needs to happen in the world. All right, so let's listen to Klaus. We are at a turning point of humankind. We're at a turning point of humankind. Notice, the COVID has created a turning point in humankind. Why? I don't think he's going to tell us. We just know it is a turning point. It's an opportunity, never let a crisis go to waste. I think we should not underestimate the historical significance of the situation we are in. We know the world will look differently when we move out from the acute face of the virus into a new situation. Now, we have three options for the new situation. So notice, this is all about we, we, global we, this is not even a country we're here, it's a true global we. We are going to move out of the crisis and we have three options on kind of what is our behavior going to be post-crisis. What could we do post-crisis? Now, you know what I think we should be resetting the world is towards more capitalism, more individualism, more self-interest, more of the things that create values, that make it possible for us to value and to enjoy those values. Note what his three options are going to be. He'll start with the option that he least likes. So first one is set all the negative aspects which we have seen during the crisis and I refer to the egoism which has increased I would say on an international national but also let's face it on an individual level. So notice, I mean this guy is intellectual, he gets it and he gets what the terminology needs to be and to him the number one problem is if we embrace egoism. Now, what does he consider egoism? Well, what he considers egoism in this context is that people, it's like Kugman's article about Ayn Rand. Do you remember Kugman's article about Ayn Rand? Egoists don't care about other people. Egoists don't wear, never wear a mask. Egoists sneeze at other people just to get them infected because who cares about other people, right? That's egoism and of course egoism means on a state basis that countries don't coordinate with one another, that countries do different policies from one another, that some countries don't play along. But he says on a personal level, so the first step is attack egoism. That is step number one. These guys know what they're doing. Don't be selfish, don't be self-interested, don't pursue your own values. That is incompatible with the post-COVID world. So, this negative tendencies will even increase, will continue. I would say in this case, I'm very concerned about the life of my grandchildren. So, and we'll get to the life of his grandchildren a little bit because this is important to him. Notice that he doesn't have to say anything to prove that egoism is bad. He just states it. He just states it. So, egoism is bad and we don't want it and it has bad consequences and egoists don't care about his grandchildren and an egoistic policy post-COVID is destructive and bad and he doesn't have to say in what way it's bad. He doesn't have to articulate the case because all he has to say is egoism and that triggers in people an immediately negative response, an immediate negative response. That's all he has to count and this is... So, second situation is this is why our job is so difficult. Those of us who believe in egoism, proper egoism, those of us who believe in Iron Man's philosophy, those of us who are trying to argue for Iron Man's philosophy is if we talk about egoism, what's triggered in people's minds is exactly what Klaus assumes is going to be triggered in people's minds. We then have to explain, we have to articulate, we have to show them that it's the opposite of what... Not the opposite, that's wrong. It's completely different. It's in a sense in a different dimension than his conception of egoism. Somebody, you know, somebody asked me, I saw a comment somewhere, maybe it was under Lex Friedman's, under the podcast, somebody says, oh, all we need now this guy's telling us people are not egoistic enough, really? Not selfish enough, really? Yeah, that's exactly what I'm telling you. Because to me, selfishness is not about, not about, and this is important particularly for you guys who are relatively new to this, selfishness is not about doing what you feel like doing. It's not about following your emotions, your desires, your whims. Egoism is about taking your life seriously. Egoism is about pursuing, thinking, figuring out what your values are and should be, and pursuing them rationally with reason. Egoism means again, taking your life seriously, which means thinking, using your mind, being rational, pursuing values rationally. How many people do that? On a global scale, how many people do that? I mean, maybe some of you guys do it, but how many people regularly live it, do it constantly? Almost nobody. And that's why, yes, we need more selfishness in the world because more egoism in the world, because there's not a lot of it right now. There's very little of it. This superficiality, this women worship, there's people driven by emotions, but what there isn't, what there isn't is real egoism. All right, let's, let's keep listening to Klaus. So people assume we are just going back to the good old, whoops, sorry, which we had, and everything will be normal again in how we are used to normal in the old fashioned. This is fiction. It will not happen. The cut, which we have now is much too strong in order not to leave traces. So option number one is we become more egoistic. And I think, I think his view on a, on a, on a international scale, that probably means we moved more towards right wing authoritarianism. Option number two is we go back to normal the way it was before COVID. And he says, that's not going to happen. It's just not going to happen. Too much has happened. Too much is involved. We're not going back to normal. So what is option number three? All right, we're up to Klaus is saying we can't go back to normal. Why? Well, because normal was COVID has changed everything he says. He doesn't say why. Now I agree with him. We're not going to go back to normal. COVID has proved a lot of things. We'll talk about some of the things that's proved among them that were sheep, among them that will tolerate authoritarianism in ways that we nobody could have imagined. You know, and, and he will say that COVID has proved that we can do public private partnerships, that corporations and government can work together, all these things. So COVID has changed the mindset of the world and of Americans. COVID has changed the mindset of politicians in terms of what they think they can get away with. Thank you, Alex. COVID has changed the world in which we live. It is true. We are not going back to the way things work. And look, the way things work was not great. A mixed economy is never great. A mixed economy has to go somewhere. A mixed economy, for those of you new to the concept, is a mixture of some freedom and some control, some capitalism and some socialism. But a mixed economy never stays put. It either moves towards socialism or towards capitalism. The egoism he's expressing is moved towards capitalism. He says, that's not going to happen. I don't think that's going to happen. I agree with him. The alternative is to stay where we are. That's not going to happen. Then are we moving towards more socialism? A type of socialism? Let's listen to where he wants us to move. And then we have a certain possibility to construct a new concept based on the learnings, on the observations we have seen and to create really a more resilient, a more inclusive and a more sustainable world. More resilient, more inclusive and more sustainable. More resilient, more inclusive, more sustainable. We'll come back to some of these ideas. What does that mean? What does that mean to be more resilient, more sustainable, more inclusive? These are the terms you're going to hear a lot of in the next few years. These are the terms you're going to hear a lot of from the Biden administration. These are going to be the words you're going to hear from AOC and from the people on Biden's left are going to be pushing and tugging and pulling him leftwards. And who are going to be putting him right and right on what issues? That's going to be the challenge. But let's see what this breaks down to, what this actually involves. That will be achieved. Professor Schwab sets out five priorities that should be built into the great reset. Five things, five priorities. The first one is we have to redefine our social contract. We define the social contract. Now, for those of you who don't know what the social contract is, the social contract is this abstraction that comes from, I think it comes from Housseau. I think it comes from Housseau. And it's an idea that you and the state, when you're born into the state, you've got a contract. The contract is that the state provides you with XYZ and that you do, you pay your taxes, you're loyal, you do the things expected of you. And in exchange, depending on the social contract, what you believe the social contract should include, it should include the kind of free market social contract. Ask, I don't really believe in a social contract. You can't have a contract which you didn't sign. It's the idea that the government will protect you from force, will protect you from coercion, will protect you from authority, will protect you from your neighbor trying to steal your stuff. But the social contract has evolved from that idea, which I don't think was ever Housseau's idea, that's kind of the free market interpretation of it, to this idea of, well, we need to guarantee your basic income and we need to give you your job and we need to give you your healthcare and we need to give you all. But there's a contract. There's this relationship between the state and the individual and we need, Klaus tells us, we already have a pretty broad social contract. We pretty have a lot of responsibilities from the state. And of course, what this demands is your obedience. You signed a contract. You have to buy it. You have to pay your taxes, pay them on time, pay as much as they require, you know, and do the things that society, society in quotes, expects you to do, behave yourself. Don't step out of line. Don't be too radical. Don't say the wrong things. You know, you signed a contract. That's the whole idea of a social contract. So when I, a lot of times when people, when I give a lecture or something, people say, well, what about the social contract? Right? You have accepted these terms. Why are you challenging them? And I'm going, I never accepted them. When did I accept them? Show me my signature. Show me my choice. I didn't choose to be born, was born into this world. And I believe when you're born into this world, you're born free. You're born with rights. You're born with the freedoms to act in pursuit of your own life, your own happiness. I didn't sign a contract. There is no contract. So there's already, in a sense, an expansive view of the social contract. Klaus, a good friend, Klaus, wants to refrain that. Thank you, Matt. Thank you, Donna. Thank you, John. Thank you, Ed. Thank you, Alex. Really appreciate it. You know, even, you know, I know, I know these are small contributions, but they mean a lot that you're supportive. Integrate more inclusion. We also have to make sure that we integrate much more in a social contract, our responsibility towards the next generation. So more inclusive, more inclusive is the whole social justice. More inclusive is codeword for, you know, the whole Black Lives Matter, systemic racism, all of that. We need to make sure that everybody is included, everybody benefits, everybody is supported, everybody moves forward. It really is a concern with the big issue, which he doesn't name, but it's the big issue, one of the big, I'd say the three big issues, three big agenda items that they have. I'll get to that later. But one of them is inequality. An inclusive means no inequality or less inequality. We need to get rid of the inequality that exists. Inequality is a huge problem. Being more inclusive means less inequality. Cannot just think of the debt. Leave all the solutions and to be paid for by the next generation. He's actually talking about the debt here, and the debt is too high, and we're leaving the debt to future generations. I find this interesting, because no way in the program, in the great reset, do I see anything about how you deal with that debt? How they propose to deal with that debt? Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Skyler. That's great. Thank you, Adam. That's fantastic. And thank you, Lester. So they don't, they never mentioned how they're going to deal with the debt. The debt is just, we shouldn't burden future generations with it. How do you do that? Nobody ever says. So the social contract, and in the social contract, we also have to look at one specific issue. So COVID will create again a gap between the so-called industrialized and emerging countries. So it's not just inequality between people. It's inequality between countries. Inequality between countries, by the way, that has been closing rapidly as the developing world has become richer, has become less poor, has become more free. But that's not good enough for them. They are worried, and it's true actually, that COVID might increase that inequality. I actually don't think it will. I think poor countries have done better with COVID than rich countries, because rich countries can afford to shut down, whereas poor countries haven't. So economically, they've taken a lot less of a hit from COVID than rich countries. So I don't think the economic so-called inequality will expand under COVID. But he does, and he's worried, and he wants more, more shrinkage of inequality on a global scale. Now that's, that's ambitious, guys. That's ambitious. As emerging countries, at least some of them suffering much more compared to some of the countries which have a well-established social safety net. Second, it's a decarbonization of the economy to... So being more inclusive means to, A, reduce inequality. Second, it's to decarbonize the economy. Now, I've often said the only way to decarbonize is to die. I mean, you emit carbon in every breath that you take. So the only time you stop emitting carbon is not just when you're dead, but when you actually decomposed, because the decomposition process, I think, emits carbon as well. So yeah, decarbonize the economy. Good luck with that. Hectors against, say, an environmental virus. And here, we will publish tomorrow, by the way, report, which shows clearly there is no contradiction between taking care of nature and particularly creating the need to create jobs and to invigorate the economy. So notice the massive Keynesian fallacy here, and it's not just Keynesian, it's this idea that what creates wealth, what creates jobs, what creates economic activity is money printing. It doesn't matter what the job is. It doesn't matter how productive it is. It doesn't matter what its real value is, but that the government could just engage in infrastructure projects, in this case infrastructure products that decarbonize us to benefit nature somehow, that that is good economics. This is a huge issue. You're going to hear more and more about this. This is something that people like Paul Krugman are going to make a big deal out of it and going to use their Nobel Prize in economics to really highlight and to say, look, I'm a Nobel Prize winning economist. I know what this is, right? David says, printing money is a debt placed on the unborn, yet, well, it's a debt placed on all of us and the unborn. Don't forget, you're going to have to pay for it, your children who are already born, your grandchildren who might be already born, and future generations who are unborn, right? It's a debt on people, multiple generations. And he has audacity to speak about caring about the next generation. Guy is walking around with billions and wants us to shoulder the burden of helping the emerging world. Why doesn't he? Well, let's say he does, still doesn't give him an excuse to enslave us, to pursue values he believes in. Travis, thank you, really appreciate that. But absolutely, David, I mean it's the fact that these people claim to care about future generations as they're destroying them. Now, he will argue that he wants to tax and that's how he's going to reduce the debt. He wants to print money to spend on infrastructure, climate change, nature, and at the same time tax the wealthy. Now, if you know even a little bit of math, you know that that doesn't add up, but that doesn't stop them. Reality has never stopped these people. Never stopped these central planners, authoritarians, little dictators. I don't know if Klaus Schwab is little, but he's a little dictator anyway. He hasn't stopped them from wanting to control our lives and run our lives for us. All right, let's keep going. So this is still under his five priorities. This is still the first priority. Social contract built into the second one. Green economy, but number three. So the second one was green economy. So the first is reframing the social contract to be more inclusive and to include future generations, particularly as we'll see when it comes to climate change. The second one is to establish a green economy. Green economy means windmills and solar and whatever. Yeah, it really means a dramatic decline in standard of living and quality of life, and it means decarbonization. Carbon is the enemy. Carbon is evil, and we need to decarbonize. So that's the green economy, and it means massive investments. Only government can make those investments. Needs massive printing of money or taking on government debt. That's what's needed. That's what needs to happen. Third, what is number three? So that's the major part also of the book, because you know, I published four years ago, the book, The Force Industrial Revolution. All those technologies are very much advanced now by COVID. The technology is advanced by COVID. I mean, notice that you'll see the collectivistic way technology is treated and the deterministic way in which progress in technology is going to be defined. By the way, technology didn't advance because of COVID. I mean, there was extra investment in it. There were certainly improvements in it. There was massive use of it. There was scaling up of it. But technology itself, what are you talking about? Digitalized, which can be digitalized. So how can we use the technologies to address the challenges, but at the same time, make sure that we create a necessarily ethical human oriented principles around those technologies? Now remember, ethical means altruistic. Ethical means what you do for other people. Ethical means sacrifice the able, sacrifice those who do, sacrifice those who have sacrifice ability to none, right? That's what sacrifice means. That's what ethical means in their framework. Sacrifice means for them. I mean, ethical means for them. God forbid, it'd be for you, for your values. By the way, where were we? Yes, we were close, close. Keep going close. Son, finally, what is the role of companies? Not finally, because he really is only, this is his fourth point. He really has five, so he can't count. But you'd expect that from Klaus. I don't know where Klaus made his money, if he inherited it. He sounds like he inherited it, but he might have been an entrepreneur. He might have, who knows how he made his money. But Klaus is on number four, the role of the corporation. And no, that Klaus is not a socialist. He doesn't believe we should just take corporations and nationalize them. He doesn't believe that the state should owns the means of production unless necessary. I don't want to give too much credit to Klaus. Klaus is a fascist, economic fascist, in the sense that he believes that corporations should be controlled, controlled by the state. That's what fascism is when industry is controlled by the state. Back to Klaus. Back to Klaus. In this new post-COVID era, I think we are moving from short-term to long-term from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder capitalism. Now, I think I've done a show on this, and I'll probably do more shows on this in the future, because this is a big topic. But stakeholder versus shareholder. Shareholder is supposed to be short-term. Tell that to the investors in Moderna who have been financing Moderna for a long time before it ever showed a profit. Tell that to the investors in Amazon who didn't see a profit for a long time. Didn't see the company make a profit for a long time. Tell that to biotech investors generally who get nothing for sometimes decades. For sometimes decades. Shareholder capitalism is capitalism and is long-term. Indeed, it's stakeholder capitalism that is undoable, and it's not long-term. It has to be short-term. There's no way to think about it long-term. So the whole way they construct this is so bogus, and they say things. Again, notice that when he says shareholder capitalism is short-term, everybody accepts it. Nobody challenges it. Nobody thinks about it. There is no, nobody on planet Earth is more long-term than American business driven by the stock market. Because, I mean, think about it. Where are all the investments made? Who does long-term R&D? Where does that happen? It's in this country, in the United States of America, which is not as capitalist as it used to be, but at least in certain sectors is quite capitalist, and at least in the way the private sector functions. Now, it could be longer-term. I would argue that the regulations, the controls, are what make it short-term. Thank you, Terry. Thank you, Tobias. Really appreciate it. So the idea that stakeholder is something long-term and stakeholder capitalism is so BS. There is no such thing. There's no something capitalism. There's only capitalism. Capitalism means freedom. And freedom means you get to invest in companies based on what they say they're going to do. And if a company wants to be a stakeholder that is not to maximize shareholder wealth, then it should register as such. It should declare itself as such in advance before I buy the shares. Because right now, according to the law in the United States, companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximize their long-term value. That's their legal responsibility. So if you're suddenly switching to stakeholder, you're violating your fiduciary responsibility. Stakeholder means you treat everybody as important, your employees, your suppliers, your customers, your debt holders, your shareholders, everybody. There's no one basis by which you make a decision. Now, again, I think I've done a whole show on this. I'll do another one because this is becoming more and more and more prevalent. But it's complete and utter nonsense. It's basically destruction. It's anti-individualism. It's anti-self-interest. And it's definitely anti-capitalism. So it's not stakeholder capitalism. It's stakeholder fascism. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. All right. Before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now. 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I think at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. But at least the people who are liking it, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know, the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there. Help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share and you can support the show at your own bookshow.com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show you support for all for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified, right? So yes, like, share, subscribe, support, like, share, subscribe, support, there you go. Easy. Do one or all of those, please.