Ramaswamy takes aim at World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab, whose new book Stakeholder Capitalism, he is reviewing. Ramaswamy finishes off by noting the names of the many programs being used to achieve the globalists’ goals. He writes:
Marxists will be as disappointed by this book as classical capitalists. Mr. Schwab makes clear that “companies do not have to stop pursuing profits for their shareholders.” All he requires is that “they shift to a long-term perspective.” Why this truism requires a book and a new name for capitalism is never quite explained. Even Milton Friedman —whose famous “Friedman doctrine” held that corporate executives are primarily responsible to company shareholders, not to “society”—believed in the importance of prioritizing long-run profit interests over ephemeral short-term gains.
Mr. Schwab’s book is defined more by what it doesn’t say than by what it does. For a book whose thesis is that corporate leaders make the world a better place by pursuing social goals in addition to profit, one would expect some discussion of the most important counterargument—namely that corporate leaders might actually make the world worse, either intentionally or unintentionally, by doing exactly what Mr. Schwab demands. He is silent on that possibility.
Mr. Schwab ignores that, to solve the world’s problems, executives must first decide which problems to solve. That isn’t a technocratic judgment; it’s a moral one. Mr. Schwab sidesteps this question by saying that the final decisions should be made by “the board or the executive management” and that the board should make its decision after going through a “consultative process” in which “all stakeholders should be included.” In the end, the opinions of powerful business leaders take precedence over those of everyone else.
Democracy offers a different vision—the idea that citizens, bound together as a nation, determine the common good through public debate culminating at the ballot box. Mr. Schwab has plenty to say about the role of elites and multinational institutions but leaves no room for actual democracy.
Stakeholder Capitalism. The Great Reset. Corporate Social Responsibility. ESG (environmental, social and corporate governance). Common Good Capitalism. The list goes on. What’s in a name? More power for the people who coin the terms. As best I can tell, “stakeholder capitalism” may indeed be a more profitable version of classical capitalism—because it tricks the general public by muddying the waters.
No matter what it’s called, stakeholder capitalism, The Great Reset, ESG, etc., there’s something wrong with billionaires asking regular people to forgo their best interests in order to achieve the goals set by the elites at Davos.
Action Line: Make sure your investments, business, and future are set up to achieve the best for you and your family. You weren’t put on this planet to be a worker bee making honey for the royalty in Davos.
E.J. Smith - Your Survival Guy
Latest posts by E.J. Smith - Your Survival Guy (see all)
- “Wow, That Was an Obvious Buying Opportunity” - October 4, 2023
- “Doctor, What Are You Doing?” “Nothing,” He Said - October 3, 2023
- Bidenflation Making It Harder to Retire - October 3, 2023
- Will Illinois Gun Owners Register Their Firearms? - October 3, 2023
- “Oh, This Is Prime Real Estate,” They Say - October 2, 2023