5 ms·

Wow, this is increadibly weak stuff. A left-leaning newspaper reports on the liberal-leaning WEF, airing the complains of an anonymous group of employees, some

by gyulai 4y ago

Wow, this is increadibly weak stuff. A left-leaning newspaper reports on the liberal-leaning WEF, airing the complains of an anonymous group of employees, some of them not even current employees. > Klaus has been at the helm of the WEF for 52 years. Wouldn't that make him qualified to continue doing what he has been doing for 52 years? > When he was born [in 1938] 122 of the 195 states in the world right now did not even exist. God only knows what they're implying here. > He is completely unaccountable to anyone inside and outside the organisation,” the group said. Which is supported by what evidence? ...not to be found in the article. Also unclear who he is supposed to be accountable to. Apparently some trustees or something. ...now that would have been interesting for the article to go into detail about.

uoaei 4y ago
[flagged]
- gyulai 4y ago
  > It might, if economics was a settled science. But a lot has changed in the last 50 years, and half-century old intuitions are actually less than useful by this point and have the real possibility of leading us down paths of ruin. Also, cognitive abilities decline with age. Wow, that's very ageist. > What "evidence" would appease you that's not written in the WEF bylaws? Precisely that. The article could have given a little context by saying something about the WEF bylaws. If the WEF is just this man's private enterprise with no other purpose than to be an alter-ego for him that makes money for him, then sure, why not. If it's a listed corporation, there are shareholders to consider. If it is a tax-exempt foundation, there is the question of tax fraud to consider. I simply don't know what the WEF is, and it would be useful for a reader of this article to know that, before they get to be outraged, which outrage, presumably, is what the article is driving at.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - stakhanov 4y ago
      You're tone policing, and you did imply that Schwab's outlook is guided by half-century old intuitions and called into question his cognitive abilities, basing both on nothing but his age. That is ageist. How do you know he's not open-minded and up-to-date on all the latest research?
      - uoaei 4y ago
        I am not making a positive argument in the opposite direction. This is not a debate. I am stating obvious facts and simple conjectures to make clear just how narrow-minded and apparently intentionally oblivious the original analysis is. Also, the HN guidelines are already tone-policing. I am not really tone-policing because I don't want the person above to say what they're already saying but nicer. I want them to acknowledge just how narrow and clouded their reasoning is due to the apparent outrage, and how to take an edge off of what apparently was a very bad start to a day for someone.
lostlogin 4y ago
What has the political slant of the paper and WEF got to do with it? If that’s relevant, surely a left leaning paper attacking a left leaning organisation makes the article more compelling?
- gyulai 4y ago
  By liberal, I mean free-market liberalism (like FDP in Germany). I'm European. It didn't occur to me that people in the U.S. would misunderstand and think "liberal" means "left". Is that the miscommunication that's happening here?
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    Likely. I live in the US, and the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are used to mean left/right in US politics. Thus, in US politics terms, your comment says "A left-leaning newspaper reports on the left-leaning WEF...".
    - uoaei 4y ago
      Right, to Americans, "liberalism" -> "classical liberalism", and "globalist neoliberalism" -> "liberalism".
      - stjohnswarts 4y ago
        I'd say that's incorrect, to the vast majority of Americans "liberalism" means left/progressive, that's simply what the word has evolved into in the mainstream. You use "classical liberalism" when you mean "classical liberalism" unless you're talking to some kind of economic historian or libertarian pedant and it has more context.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    Ha, yes. However I’m a New Zealander in New Zealand.
    - 4y ago
gist 4y ago
> When he was born [in 1938] 122 of the 195 states in the world right now did not even exist. I would like to know where writing such as this is taught. Everyone knows what '52 years' is there is no reason to embellish it in that way UNLESS you are writing to a tabloid audience (mainstream media to be sure does this as well). And it deprecates the main point which (if true) is the strongest 'not accountable'.
snapcaster 4y ago
Liberal leaning? I hate to be rude have no idea what you're talking about and it sounds like you have a terminal case of "two party system brain"
- nwah1 4y ago
  This is unfair. The commenter you are replying to is claiming that a liberal organization is being attacked from the left, and this is a pretty fair statement. Even the sales pitches for why you should subscribe to The Guardian make it clear what their bias is, and those are on the bottom of every page. And this is actually a pretty refreshing take because it correctly distinguishes between liberalism and the left. Both of which are distinct from conservatism. At worst you could say they have a three party system brain.
jjulius 4y ago
>Wouldn't that make him qualified to continue doing what he has been doing for 52 years? A long tenure does not necessarily mean that one is qualified to continue.
fidgewidge 4y ago
Their concern is not whether he's qualified but that he's going to die of old age soon without leaving anyone clearly in charge.

by gyulai 4y ago

uoaei 4y ago

[flagged]

gyulai 4y ago
> It might, if economics was a settled science. But a lot has changed in the last 50 years, and half-century old intuitions are actually less than useful by this point and have the real possibility of leading us down paths of ruin. Also, cognitive abilities decline with age. Wow, that's very ageist. > What "evidence" would appease you that's not written in the WEF bylaws? Precisely that. The article could have given a little context by saying something about the WEF bylaws. If the WEF is just this man's private enterprise with no other purpose than to be an alter-ego for him that makes money for him, then sure, why not. If it's a listed corporation, there are shareholders to consider. If it is a tax-exempt foundation, there is the question of tax fraud to consider. I simply don't know what the WEF is, and it would be useful for a reader of this article to know that, before they get to be outraged, which outrage, presumably, is what the article is driving at.
- uoaei 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - stakhanov 4y ago
    You're tone policing, and you did imply that Schwab's outlook is guided by half-century old intuitions and called into question his cognitive abilities, basing both on nothing but his age. That is ageist. How do you know he's not open-minded and up-to-date on all the latest research?
    - uoaei 4y ago
      I am not making a positive argument in the opposite direction. This is not a debate. I am stating obvious facts and simple conjectures to make clear just how narrow-minded and apparently intentionally oblivious the original analysis is. Also, the HN guidelines are already tone-policing. I am not really tone-policing because I don't want the person above to say what they're already saying but nicer. I want them to acknowledge just how narrow and clouded their reasoning is due to the apparent outrage, and how to take an edge off of what apparently was a very bad start to a day for someone.

lostlogin 4y ago

What has the political slant of the paper and WEF got to do with it? If that’s relevant, surely a left leaning paper attacking a left leaning organisation makes the article more compelling?

gyulai 4y ago
By liberal, I mean free-market liberalism (like FDP in Germany). I'm European. It didn't occur to me that people in the U.S. would misunderstand and think "liberal" means "left". Is that the miscommunication that's happening here?
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  Likely. I live in the US, and the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are used to mean left/right in US politics. Thus, in US politics terms, your comment says "A left-leaning newspaper reports on the left-leaning WEF...".
  - uoaei 4y ago
    Right, to Americans, "liberalism" -> "classical liberalism", and "globalist neoliberalism" -> "liberalism".
    - stjohnswarts 4y ago
      I'd say that's incorrect, to the vast majority of Americans "liberalism" means left/progressive, that's simply what the word has evolved into in the mainstream. You use "classical liberalism" when you mean "classical liberalism" unless you're talking to some kind of economic historian or libertarian pedant and it has more context.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  Ha, yes. However I’m a New Zealander in New Zealand.
  - 4y ago

gist 4y ago

> When he was born [in 1938] 122 of the 195 states in the world right now did not even exist. I would like to know where writing such as this is taught. Everyone knows what '52 years' is there is no reason to embellish it in that way UNLESS you are writing to a tabloid audience (mainstream media to be sure does this as well). And it deprecates the main point which (if true) is the strongest 'not accountable'.

snapcaster 4y ago

Liberal leaning? I hate to be rude have no idea what you're talking about and it sounds like you have a terminal case of "two party system brain"

nwah1 4y ago
This is unfair. The commenter you are replying to is claiming that a liberal organization is being attacked from the left, and this is a pretty fair statement. Even the sales pitches for why you should subscribe to The Guardian make it clear what their bias is, and those are on the bottom of every page. And this is actually a pretty refreshing take because it correctly distinguishes between liberalism and the left. Both of which are distinct from conservatism. At worst you could say they have a three party system brain.

jjulius 4y ago

>Wouldn't that make him qualified to continue doing what he has been doing for 52 years? A long tenure does not necessarily mean that one is qualified to continue.

fidgewidge 4y ago

Their concern is not whether he's qualified but that he's going to die of old age soon without leaving anyone clearly in charge.