WEF 2023

[Moonbox]

6 minutes ago, West said:

Sustainable Development is a conspiracy theory? 

https://www.un.org/en/sustainable-development-goals

 

Agenda 2030 is a conspiracy theory? 

https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

ESG investment is a conspiracy theory? 

https://www.rbcgam.com/en/ca/about-us/responsible-investment/?utm_dc=ga_SEG_1591924734_96750851246_623551894035_aud-1014319794123:kwd-299973852369_m_g_&gclid=Cj0KCQiA_bieBhDSARIsADU4zLcw1o75a3orrhwB9Y77D9nvLYBXMTOcz6NIwji9Ms-yUbwcSfVHn8caAsytEALw_wcB

 

😆... okay Mike.. quick Google search 

Nobody said those are conspiracy theories.  Your ridiculous narratives about them are.

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, West said:

1. Sustainable Development is a conspiracy theory? 

https://www.un.org/en/sustainable-development-goals

 

2.Agenda 2030 is a conspiracy theory? 

https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

3. ESG investment is a conspiracy theory? 

https://www.rbcgam.com/en/ca/about-us/responsible-investment/?utm_dc=ga_SEG_1591924734_96750851246_623551894035_aud-1014319794123:kwd-299973852369_m_g_&gclid=Cj0KCQiA_bieBhDSARIsADU4zLcw1o75a3orrhwB9Y77D9nvLYBXMTOcz6NIwji9Ms-yUbwcSfVHn8caAsytEALw_wcB

 

😆... okay Mike.. quick Google search 

1.  2. 3. Yes.  It's the name of a conspiracy theory under that title.

Just remind me before we end this - what is wrong with sustainable development ?  

 

Edited January 23 by Michael Hardner

[West]

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

There's a lot of stupidity around that - the idea that ESG, stakeholder capitalism and sustainability are codewords for DESTROYING OUR ECONOMY.  

West apparently went to "business school" or at least took classes and learned about these, but somehow doesn't actually know anything about them beyond his usual hysterics. 

Again... you are making sh^t up about what I actually Said. 

 

[West]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  2. 3. Yes.  It's the name of a conspiracy theory uner that title.

Just remind me before we end this - what is wrong with sustainable development ?  

 

There is no conspiracy theory Mike. Agenda 2030 is right on their website... 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, West said:

There is no conspiracy theory Mike. Agenda 2030 is right on their website... 

And yet the claim is that they're going to do something else other than what it says, right?

[Moonbox]

2 minutes ago, West said:

Again... you are making sh^t up about what I actually Said. 

Gosh, I must have misread:

[West]

As for what's wrong with it, on its surface, nothing is wrong with it.

Dig a little deeper to the issues:

Environment - Forcing energy workers into poverty through elimination of jobs. 

Social- race/gender based hiring, threats to diversity of thought creating a group think mentality, corporate nazism where intolerance for diverging views exists

Etc etc.. 

[West]

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Gosh, I must have misread:

Of course... just look at the loonies losing their sh^t over a hockey player not wearing a rainbow. 

[Moonbox]

What are you even talking about now?  🥴

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, West said:

As for what's wrong with it, on its surface, nothing is wrong with it.

Dig a little deeper to the issues:

Environment - Forcing energy workers into poverty through elimination of jobs. 

Social- race/gender based hiring, threats to diversity of thought creating a group think mentality, corporate nazism where intolerance for diverging views exists

Etc etc.. 

Right.  But the diversity trends will happen independent of international symposiums and meetings.

They're also not the point of those meetings.  

 

As for energy industry changes.. this is the climate change thing again.  You didn't agree with it, and so that's the root cause of your complaint here. I feel that you just don't agree with the direction of the global business and government groups.  If they came up with things you agreed with, WEF would be fine for you.  Am I right?

 

Maybe you just consider WEF to be a superspreader event?

[West]

34 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Nobody said those are conspiracy theories.  Your ridiculous narratives about them are.

Yes you did.. 

Now you are backtracking. 

[Moonbox]

Just now, West said:

Yes you did.. 

Now you are backtracking. 

Did I?  Where? 

Where did I say that ESG is a conspiracy theory?  Considering I've had investment firm VPs shoving this idea in my face for the last 10 years, and I have clients asking about it occasionally, that's a pretty bizarre assertion.  🤷‍♂️

 

 

[West]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Right.  But the diversity trends will happen independent of international symposiums and meetings.

They're also not the point of those meetings.  

 

As for energy industry changes.. this is the climate change thing again.  You didn't agree with it, and so that's the root cause of your complaint here. I feel that you just don't agree with the direction of the global business and government groups.  If they came up with things you agreed with, WEF would be fine for you.  Am I right?

 

Maybe you just consider WEF to be a superspreader event?

Actually my main issues with it are. 

1. It violates human rights under the guise of protecting them. All to force compliance.

2. Governments actively participate and even protect the nonsense. 

3. I'm not a huge fan of pushing people into poverty over politics... 

Now if you want to support that, I guess that's your choice. But it's vile and disgusting 

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, West said:

Actually my main issues with it are. 

1. It violates human rights under the guise of protecting them. All to force compliance.

2. Governments actively participate and even protect the nonsense. 

3. I'm not a huge fan of pushing people into poverty over politics... 

Now if you want to support that, I guess that's your choice. But it's vile and disgusting 

Sure - I get it.  

You need to accept that the people you discuss politics with don't share your morals 100%.  In fact nobody does.  We have to work it out, though, that is the gift and burden of democracy.  If you think I'm vile and disgusting then I guess that's a starting point for you.

Myself, I try to find a way to categorize moral questions so they can be worked out.

Again - your problem isn't WEF per say, it's that the meetings are used to discuss ideas you find vile and disgusting.  Probably a few decades ago you would have been ok with WEF...

[Contrarian]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sure - I get it.  

You need to accept that the people you discuss politics with don't share your morals 100%.  In fact nobody does.  We have to work it out, though, that is the gift and burden of democracy.  If you think I'm vile and disgusting then I guess that's a starting point for you.

Myself, I try to find a way to categorize moral questions so they can be worked out.

Again - your problem isn't WEF per say, it's that the meetings are used to discuss ideas you find vile and disgusting.  Probably a few decades ago you would have been ok with WEF...

Michael I take that comment back about you being arrogant. Trully, in this conversation I see you as Buddha teaching reason to a student.

Aside from the satire, great message really. Standing Ovation from The Contrarian.

Edited January 23 by Contrarian

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Contrarian said:

Michael I take that comment back about you being arrogant. Trully, in this conversation I see you as Budha is teaching reason to a student.

Aside from the satire, great message really.

I'll tell you - almost every single poster here will get me to the point of taking them seriously if they follow my line of questions to the bedrock, ie. "what principles do you believe in here?"

With regards to West, he/she doesn't ascribe to the corporate trends along sustainability and diversity.  Fine with me, we need to have people question such things from a pragmatic point of view and who better than someone who doesn't buy into it at all.

It's a discussion forum, so our job is to work things to the point of 'agree to disagree'.

[West]

51 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Michael I take that comment back about you being arrogant. Trully, in this conversation I see you as Buddha teaching reason to a student.

Aside from the satire, great message really. Standing Ovation from The Contrarian.

Did Buddha support discrimination? I'm not sure 

[West]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Sure - I get it.  

You need to accept that the people you discuss politics with don't share your morals 100%.  In fact nobody does.  We have to work it out, though, that is the gift and burden of democracy.  If you think I'm vile and disgusting then I guess that's a starting point for you.

Myself, I try to find a way to categorize moral questions so they can be worked out.

Again - your problem isn't WEF per say, it's that the meetings are used to discuss ideas you find vile and disgusting.  Probably a few decades ago you would have been ok with WEF...

Yes but we cannot openly challenge this sh^t and that's the problem. 

A doc raised concerns about the vaccine, as one example, he's mocked, ridiculed and has his license threatened. 

That's ESGs at work... THEY pick the topic, tell you the side you must take, then go on the war path. 

I can't see how we should tolerate that in a free and democratic society.. it's not a "difference of opinion" it's a direct attack against the very foundation of our once shared values... 

Edited January 23 by West

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, West said:

Did Buddha support discrimination? I'm not sure 

I assume you're not a Buddhist.

You probably wouldn't have liked him.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, West said:

1. Yes but we cannot openly challenge this sh^t and that's the problem. 

2.I can't see how we should tolerate that in a free and democratic society.. it's not a "difference of opinion" it's a direct attack against the very foundation of our once shared values... 

1. I see you challenging it on here.  Maybe you mean you can't challenge it, in your own name.  Well, I also GET that and it's indeed a problem.  But again, nothing to do with WEF.  If they were around in the 18th century they would have been all about the best way to optimize Slave Trading Routes and cooperate against piracy.  So they ARE big business.
2.  Ok but you would probably agree that there is a time to move on.  We don't always discuss things forever, we often make an agreement and move ahead.

[Michael Hardner]

@West 

There is also the problem of ... let's call it ... the "fringe" opinion.  You couldn't be gay, Communist or athiest openly in the 1950s.  Was that right ?  Maybe not but you couldn't.

You could be against integration, mixed marriage, or such... and then you couldn't.

I'm interested in these questions because the moral sphere of the public changes.  What do we do with that ?  There's a point at which we stop discussing Gay Marriage and it becomes law.  The people who lost the debate - should they be demonized the day the law passes ?  I would say not.

[West]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I see you challenging it on here.  Maybe you mean you can't challenge it, in your own name.  Well, I also GET that and it's indeed a problem.  But again, nothing to do with WEF.  If they were around in the 18th century they would have been all about the best way to optimize Slave Trading Routes and cooperate against piracy.  So they ARE big business.
2.  Ok but you would probably agree that there is a time to move on.  We don't always discuss things forever, we often make an agreement and move ahead.

1. I would say it is related to ESGs. 

2. I would equate it to midevil ages where kings etc would rule via an iron fist. Eventually when you trample on the neck of people, sh^t starts to bubble under which is what you saw during Covid. 

Now I don't necessarily support violence per se but it's an inevitability when you use tactics such as what we are seeing deployed right now.

[Moonbox]

14 minutes ago, West said:

That's ESGs at work... THEY pick the topic, tell you the side you must take, then go on the war path. 

No, it's really not, and it's not even easy to find a standard criteria for it. 

You're the one going on the war path, and it's unfortunately against a lot of stuff that you tend to argue in favor of, like privacy, human rights, anti-corruption/bribery, lobbyists etc. 

None of that has anything to do with the "wokeness score" you like to rant about, so does that mean you're against privacy and human rights, and that you're pro corruption and pro lobbyists?  

As someone who invests large amounts of other people's money for them, I've not really bothered with ESGs.  I don't really have a problem with them per se, but my job is to make my clients money rather than worry about whether my clients are doing their best to fight climate change, and I'd prefer not to have any restrictions that way. 

That being said, even the non-ESG analysts and fund managers are discovering that many of the criteria for the concept are profitable and risk-mitigating factors in a good company.  We don't have to look far to find bad corporate actors struggling as a result of poor governance.  Just look at SNC-Lavalin and their corruption problems - that's the sort of thing that ESG would seek to avoid, among other things.   

 

 

 

[West]

10 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

No, it's really not, and it's not even easy to find a standard criteria for it. 

You're the one going on the war path, and it's unfortunately against a lot of stuff that you tend to argue in favor of, like privacy, human rights, anti-corruption/bribery, lobbyists etc. 

None of that has anything to do with the "wokeness score" you like to rant about, so does that mean you're against privacy and human rights, and that you're pro corruption and pro lobbyists?  

As someone who invests large amounts of other people's money for them, I've not really bothered with ESGs.  I don't really have a problem with them per se, but my job is to make my clients money rather than worry about whether my clients are doing their best to fight climate change, and I'd prefer not to have any restrictions that way. 

That being said, even the non-ESG analysts and fund managers are discovering that many of the criteria for the concept are profitable and risk-mitigating factors in a good company.  We don't have to look far to find bad corporate actors struggling as a result of poor governance.  Just look at SNC-Lavalin and their corruption problems - that's the sort of thing that ESG would seek to avoid, among other things.   

 

 

 

1. "So does that mean you're against privacy and human rights, and that you're pro corruption and pro lobbyists? "

No. I'm against forcing people to wear a rainbow or face the wrath of the mob. AKA woke scores. Sh^t like that. 

2. "We don't have to look far to find bad corporate actors struggling as a result of poor governance."

Sure. But stakeholder capitalism takes it a bit further than that. 

 

I'm not anti business by any means

Edited January 23 by West

[Moonbox]

3 minutes ago, West said:

1. "So does that mean you're against privacy and human rights, and that you're pro corruption and pro lobbyists? "

No. I'm against forcing people to wear a rainbow or face the wrath of the mob. AKA woke scores. Sh^t like that. 

and how many certified financial analysts and fund portfolio managers do you think are meeting with top company execs and asking how many rainbows they paint on their corporate headquarters?  

Do you know how often this comes up in conference calls, shareholder meeting etc?  

3 minutes ago, West said:

2. "We don't have to look far to find bad corporate actors struggling as a result of poor governance."

Sure. But stakeholder capitalism takes it a bit further than that. 

Not really.  The point of stakeholder capitalism is to consider future risks and liabilities to a company's reputation and operations.  Look at BP oil and their disaster, or Activision-Blizzard and their (alleged) culture of harassment, or even CIBC, who just settled for 153 million in a class action for unpaid overtime.  The point is that focusing only on your shareholders can end up costing you bigtime in the long-run, and not just in legal fees and settlements.  

3 minutes ago, West said:

I'm not anti business by any means

Neither am I.  I did go to business school, and even back then when ESG was only starting to be mentioned, there was substantial time and effort expended on teaching students that there was more to being a good leader than the short-term bottom line.  You can no doubt boost your numbers in the short-term by cutting corners and standing on your employees' necks, but that incurs a debt to the future.  When your employees are all suing you, leaking info or whistleblowing on you, you're in trouble.  When the local government is levying huge fines and charges against you, those have costs.  When your brand is completely trashed by all of the negative attention you bring, those cut corners come home to roost.  When you stick your head in the sand and ignore the technological and social progress, you risk getting left behind.