Skip to content

Ep. 227 Behind Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum, and the Great Reset: Part 1

Bob starts a series looking into Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum and, along with Prince Charles, proponent of the “Great Reset.” 

Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:

The audio production for this episode was provided by Podsworth Media.

About the author, Robert

Christian and economist, Research Assistant Professor with the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech, Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute, and co-host with Tom Woods of the podcast "Contra Krugman."

6 Comments

  1. Jan Masek on 01/12/2022 at 9:04 PM

    Re the German accent.. Funny, isn’t it, how it’s suspicious and scary coming from Klaus Schwabb but cute, intellectual and aristocratic coming from Mises 🙂

  2. Jan Masek on 01/12/2022 at 9:28 PM

    On the reading from the script: this may just be incompetence in showmanship. The reason I say that is I work in a large corporation and I see this all the time. These people are no Joe Rogans or Tom Woods’. When there is a company wide broadcast, they are incapable of winging it and just speaking from the tops of their heads. The whole agenda is scripted, they have their powerpoints in front of them with the text and they read it out verbatim. You can even notice when they encounter a smiley face in the text because they would read it the whole text dead serious and then they would stop and carve a smile on their faces.
    It’s FAAAAAKE but genuinely fake, if you know what I mean. Junior people (people who definitely don’t have any ulterior agenda) don’t know any better and think that’s “how it’s done” so they do the same thing when it’s their turn to speak.

    I agree with everything in this great episode but this maaaay just be reading too much into it.

  3. Not Bob on 01/17/2022 at 4:27 PM

    I think these types of people are well-intentioned. I have a friend exactly like this. Very smart, by classical measures probably the smartest person I’ve ever met. Complete technocrat. He’s so smart, he should decide for everybody, he thinks. Completely immune to arguments against this, “won’t happen to me.”

    It’s simply hubris.

    • DudeNamedBen on 01/17/2022 at 8:27 PM

      It really matters little why these people are doing these things.

      “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ~ C. S. Lewis

      • Not Bob on 01/20/2022 at 10:27 PM

        Completely agreed. This very-smart guy, who has been my friend for decades, will lie to my face with 100% sincerity. Then, when I pull out the facts to prove him wrong, he immediately 100% pivots to “Yes, and it’s good that way!” And he honestly does not recognize, after I point out this 180, that he’s just completely changed his opinion within one second.

        The very typical sequence is, like with so many libs:
        1. X is not happening
        2. X is overblown
        3. X is actually good!

        This happens within SECONDS and I honestly believe he doesn’t think he’s doing it, even when I point it out again and again.

        It’s very weird, but I do believe he’s sincere. And yes, that makes it extra dangerous.

  4. Tel on 01/18/2022 at 10:28 PM

    People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

    — Adam Smith

    There’s nothing conspiratorial about a group of people having a chat about how to work together, but most of free market economic theory is based on a presumption of a competitive marketplace, with some kind of lightweight rule of law (i.e. property rights at a minimum) and this requires the existence of an arbitration or judgement mechanism … which ideally should be as neutral as possible and free from conflicts of interest.

    In practice this is incredibly difficult to achieve … and for example we see situations where a bunch of oil producers get together to discuss how much oil they are going to produce each year … and they aren’t neutral, they aren’t competitive, and we call it the OPEC cartel. This sure annoys the buyers. There was for a while, some genuine competition as Russia was put into a position where they were ramping up international oil production … but now Russia also trots over to the cartel office and has a little chat about how much production would be appropriate.

    These examples are all over the place … with or without Schwab and his WEF … you can regard the Federal Reserve System as a government-sponsored banking cartel, they keep competitors out, and they provide a sweet deal for government, with loans at well below market rate (i.e. free money) and they stick it to the little guy by producing inflation (and then denying everything and blaming suppliers).

    If you want a more recent example … search out Dr Fauci and his disclosure (after a lot of pushing) of his investments which is still trickling out a bit at a time. There’s a brief sanitized public version of his statement of disclosure (the tip of the iceburg) and then a huge volume of royalty payments that are not normally disclosed to the public.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fauci-financial-disclosures-watchdog

    Andrzejewski said that the group officially filed suit on Oct. 25, 2021 and “that suit moved fast in federal court.”

    “And the agency admitted they were holding 1,200 pages subject to our request,” he recalled. “So think about this, we got 51 pages – there were redactions – and there’s 1,200 pages.”

    “So they admitted to holding 1,200 pages that were subject to the request and 3,000 pages of line-by-line royalty payments,” Andrzejewski said. “Every line is a potential conflict of interest and there’s up to 1,000 NIH scientists receiving royalty payments. It’s legal, but it should be disclosed.”

    Is it bad to make a profit? No, I don’t have a problem with the concept of profits in a competitive market, because it shows you are doing something right. Should the guy who is in a key government position be getting a personal share of the private profits that directly relate to the exercise of a public duty? Hmmm, I think we can all see why there’s a problem there.

Leave a Comment