The World Economic Forum published a separate article in August 2018 by Peter Engelke, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council (an institution that contains several current members of the Trilateral Commission).
In ‘Three ways the Fourth Industrial Revolution is shaping geopolitics‘, Engelke argues that innovative systems create productivity, which serves to enhance technology and in the long run benefit society. As stressed by Klaus Schwab, though, ‘disruption‘ is an unavoidable consequence of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Engelke asks whether nations in their current form are ‘sufficiently well prepared‘ for what is to come. He concludes that they are not, meaning ‘we can expect more upheavals in the future.’
Engelke makes the point that as industries are disrupted by the onset of new technology, ‘entire categories of work‘ could be made obsolete. His remedy? ‘States will need to adapt their educational, workforce and social welfare systems‘. But the technology emerging out of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is, according to Engelke, arriving ‘well ahead of the rules and standards needed to govern them.‘
In other words, global governance will be necessary to cope with the ferocity of change.
To demonstrate the true scale of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the World Economic Forum released a map detailing all of the major constructs throughout the world that will be affected. The key tenets to the revolution include disruption to jobs and skills, business disruption, innovation and productivity, agile governance, security and conflict, and the fusion of technologies.
Connecting through these tenets are a raft of concerns, some of which are blockchain, global governance, future of enterprise, workforce and employment, future of government, future of production, sustainable development, and public finance and social protection systems.
The unveiling on June 3rd by the World Economic Forum of ‘The Great Reset‘ agenda appears on the surface to be a newly devised concept created directly in response to Covid-19. As it turns out the first soundings of a ‘reset‘ were actually made as far back as 2014.
To appreciate the significance of the WEF’s intervention, it is important first to recognise the years leading up to 2020 and how they laid the foundations for where we are today.
2014
Each January the WEF host their annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. In 2014, Christine Lagarde, who was then the managing director of the IMF, called for a ‘reset‘ of monetary policy, the financial sector regulatory environment and structural reforms of global economies.
Lagarde was adamant that a reset was required ‘in the way in which the economy grows around the world‘. Fleshing this out, Lagarde cited the dangers to financial stability due to ‘bubbles developing here and there‘, the over 200 million globally who were unemployed and economic growth being too slow.
Despite these concerns, Lagarde’s view was that fiscal consolidation within national economies was still necessary in order to control spending and ensure the post 2008 ‘recovery‘.
Nice find everyone is so scared by dr Frankenstein that they become him hoping that will help but it doesn’t What tortured souls and all because of (nothing)
The World Economic Forum published a separate article in August 2018 by Peter Engelke, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council (an institution that contains several current members of the Trilateral Commission).
In ‘Three ways the Fourth Industrial Revolution is shaping geopolitics‘, Engelke argues that innovative systems create productivity, which serves to enhance technology and in the long run benefit society. As stressed by Klaus Schwab, though, ‘disruption‘ is an unavoidable consequence of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Engelke asks whether nations in their current form are ‘sufficiently well prepared‘ for what is to come. He concludes that they are not, meaning ‘we can expect more upheavals in the future.’
Engelke makes the point that as industries are disrupted by the onset of new technology, ‘entire categories of work‘ could be made obsolete. His remedy? ‘States will need to adapt their educational, workforce and social welfare systems‘. But the technology emerging out of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is, according to Engelke, arriving ‘well ahead of the rules and standards needed to govern them.‘
In other words, global governance will be necessary to cope with the ferocity of change.
To demonstrate the true scale of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the World Economic Forum released a map detailing all of the major constructs throughout the world that will be affected. The key tenets to the revolution include disruption to jobs and skills, business disruption, innovation and productivity, agile governance, security and conflict, and the fusion of technologies.
Connecting through these tenets are a raft of concerns, some of which are blockchain, global governance, future of enterprise, workforce and employment, future of government, future of production, sustainable development, and public finance and social protection systems.
The unveiling on June 3rd by the World Economic Forum of ‘The Great Reset‘ agenda appears on the surface to be a newly devised concept created directly in response to Covid-19. As it turns out the first soundings of a ‘reset‘ were actually made as far back as 2014.
To appreciate the significance of the WEF’s intervention, it is important first to recognise the years leading up to 2020 and how they laid the foundations for where we are today.
2014
Each January the WEF host their annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. In 2014, Christine Lagarde, who was then the managing director of the IMF, called for a ‘reset‘ of monetary policy, the financial sector regulatory environment and structural reforms of global economies.
Lagarde was adamant that a reset was required ‘in the way in which the economy grows around the world‘. Fleshing this out, Lagarde cited the dangers to financial stability due to ‘bubbles developing here and there‘, the over 200 million globally who were unemployed and economic growth being too slow.
Despite these concerns, Lagarde’s view was that fiscal consolidation within national economies was still necessary in order to control spending and ensure the post 2008 ‘recovery‘.
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/index.php
Totally fabricated by language I don’t think the Hopi nation has a word for the concept of nothing
Nice find everyone is so scared by dr Frankenstein that they become him hoping that will help but it doesn’t What tortured souls and all because of (nothing)
👺 what could go wrong? Benevolent purposes for sure 🤣 Someone please stop these psychopaths
La condition humaine Micael Baird.