The 5 biggest WEF biases: which ones are there? Expert classifies pilot test Lausanne: 4.5 kg of legal cannabis sold so far

1. Accusation

Stefan Legge: There is some truth in this accusation: people meet to do business. But the basic idea of ​​the WEF is different. A distinction must be made between what the WEF should be and what it actually is. It is actually a good idea to bring together politicians and representatives from business and science. Because many problems are too big to be solved by just one actor, for example just the economy or just politics.

But it is clear: some participants come to the WEF with the aim of furthering their career or better positioning their own company. Ultimately, the reality is: the WEF is what those who attend make it. The spirit and purpose would actually be different, but it is humans and not angels who participate in the WEF.

2. Accusation

Stefan Legge: The question is: what would have happened without the WEF, would it have been even worse? The WEF ensures that many relevant actors from different areas meet in one place. If you bring two people who are arguing to the table and they talk to each other again, that’s not a bad thing. But that does not mean that these bickering people can then resolve their conflict.

We live in a world where interests and ideological views are so divergent that bringing politicians together is still commendable. Unfortunately, these meetings don’t always bring the success you hope for because your interests are so different.

3. Accusation

Stefan Legge: The business world wants a solution to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. But this one is extremely difficult. No one can claim to know a solution. What should a solution look like that both warring parties agree on?

The follow-up question would be: why invite Zelensky at all if there is no solution? It is also about bringing the WEF into the media and making it bigger. I’m sure they would have liked to have Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky at the same table. But the reality is that Putin won’t come – then you can invite Zelensky or not. If you invite him now, you can send a signal about where you stand politically; the WEF is not so neutral, but rather on Ukraine’s side.

Finally, I must say: the goal of improving the world that the WEF has set for itself is reaching its limits in this conflict.

4. Accusation

Stefan Legge: There is a big difference between the normal population and the vast majority of participants. There is a huge gap there. Globalization means: open markets, international trade and travel from one country to another. The ‘Davos Man’ or the ‘Davos People’ are people who think globally and travel that way. They benefit enormously from globalization.

But: not everyone benefits from this globalization. That is why there is criticism of the WEF and this global elite. The WEF is now – rightly – trying to address this criticism. It says: “We also recognize these voices and we also invite people who are critical of globalization or who are politically left and speak on behalf of other groups.”

But you don’t have to fool yourself: the idea that you’re bringing different people to the table really indicates that the global elite has an interest in being more responsive to the needs of others if it comes at their own expense , might even be something heroic. The WEF is a place where diverse interests come together, even if no solutions are found. The world elite could also meet privately and not involve anyone.

5. Accusation

Stefan Legge: The same could be said about the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 28). The climate crisis will not be solved through political regulation. The climate crisis – if it is solved at all – will be solved through technical innovation. These innovations come about when the incentive is there and the conditions are created. This requires economics, politics and large financial capital, because research costs a lot of money.

I believe it is right to sit down together and discuss real solutions – and by that I don’t mean renunciation and other proposals that will not be politically adopted.

But I don’t think that’s why you should travel on a private jet and that it requires so many people. So there really is something in this criticism: you travel on an airplane, pollute the environment to an extreme degree and then talk about climate protection. This is as absurd as those economists’ conferences where you meet in nice luxury hotels to talk about income inequality.