I know this sounds like tin foil hat stuff but I can promise you it isn't. It's straight from the World Economic Forum's website.
In this article, I'll explain (1) why the Great Reset Agenda CANNOT work from an economic standpoint, and (2) what the most likely end game scenario looks like to YOU.
P.S. I want to thank Lynette Zang who brought this “Great Reset” to my attention in a recent interview I had with her. Second, in the video I mention unemployment being at an all-time low.
Just be clear, I was bouncing back and forth between pre-Covid-19 and Covid-19. I should've made that more clear.
If you are you an investor or you have a 401k or some other retirement portfolio, then click here to see how to protect yourself against the Great Reset Agenda.
Overview Of The “Great Reset”
To start, it's very important that you watch the video clip below. The Global Elites believe we need a top-down solution to all the world's problems.
As a warning, this is extremely bizarre, to say the least. I dare you, I challenge you to watch this clip and not think this is straight out of a James Bond movie.
Hit the play button and the video will start right where the World Economic Forum clip is inserted.
What is the “Great Reset”?
To better understand the great reset agenda, we'll analyze an article where Klaus himself outlines his three steps to this great reset agenda.
The title of this post by Klaus is: Now is the time for a “great reset.”
In his article, he explains three steps or what he calls, the three main components of the great reset agenda.
1. The first component would steer the market toward fairer outcomes.
I want to point out the words he's using:
- Steer: Which would imply that he believes in this top-down approach because these global elites are so intellectually superior to all of us rubes in the real economy that we need them to tell us what to do.
- Outcome: He chose the word outcome instead of opportunity.
To this end, the government should improve coordination. (For example, in tax, regulatory and fiscal policy), upgrade trade arrangements, and create the conditions for a “stakeholder economy.” At a time of diminishing tax bases and soaring public debt, governments have a powerful incentive to pursue such action.
I‘d like to remind you that governments don't have any resources. They don't produce anything.
The only thing they have control over is what they steal from the private sector production.
Moreover, the government should implement long-overdue reforms that promote more equitable outcomes.
Again, he's not using the word opportunities. He's using the word outcomes.
Depending on the country, these may include changes to wealth taxes, the withdrawal of fossil fuel subsidies and new rules governing intellectual property, trade, and competition.
2.”The second component of the “Great Reset” agenda would ensure that investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability.”
We go right back to implying equal outcomes and not equal opportunities.
The third and final priority of the Great Reset agenda is to harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the public good, especially by addressing health and social challenges.
Lastly, I want to point out Klaus's own quote. Remember this isn't an editor. Klaus is writing this himself.
So, out of all of the sentences in the article, he chooses this one in particular:
The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.
He's saying that the pandemic is an opportunity to reflect, re-imagine, and reset our world.
Let that sink in for a moment.
If that didn't make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, look into the pictograph that he had at the end of this post.
It's a round circle that revolves around the great reset agenda. All of the things on the exterior of the circle feed into the seven main points.
The main points that go into this “Great Reset” start with strengthening regional development. I have no idea what that is or how does someone achieve that objective.
And you'll notice the same thing with all of them. The main points are these broad-stroke over-generalized platitudes that don't mean anything whatsoever.
They have no meat and substance to them. The other mains points are:
- Revitalizing global cooperation
- Developing sustainable business models – which I always thought meant the business just had to make a profit, but I guess those days are long gone-
- Restoring health in the environment – I kind of get that one –
- Redesign social contract skills and jobs – I have no idea what a social contract is, but it doesn't sound very enticing at all, especially if it's coming from Klaus and his friends –
- Shaping an economic recovery – I'm all for an economic recovery right now, but I'm not in favor of these global elites shaping it in the form that they see fit –
- Fourth Industrial Revolution – What is this exactly? I'll show you a couple of charts to explain it further.
If you look at it, it's really just about advancing technology…
- Real-time optimization
- Cloud computing
- Cyber-physical systems
- Additive manufacturing
- Augmented reality, and…
- This is where it starts to get really bizarre in my opinion…Machine learning!
- Internet of things
- Big data.
What else would you expect from global elites that want to micromanage your entire life and know where you are and what you're doing at all times?
I wouldn't exactly put this up there with the industrial revolution, electricity, the telephone, things of this nature, but this is what they're calling the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
I also want to point out another one of their diagrams that add a couple more things to the mix of augmented reality, and big data.
Here we have:
- Controlled system – that does not sound good-
- What sounds even worse: A monitoring tool
Please go back to the first diagram and further examine some of the suggestions on the exterior of the circle, or what they think will lead into this great reset.
One of the ways we're going to supposedly harness this Fourth Industrial Revolution is by the future of media entertainment and culture.
For the strengthening of regional development, they think we're going to somehow achieve that through biodiversity. It's not that I'm opposed to biodiversity.
It's just I don't think it will help us strengthen regional development in any way, shape, or form. And they want to revitalize global cooperation with things like international security.
Basically, what that means is more invasion on your personal privacy, such as banking and FATCA regulations.
And sustainable business models are somehow going to be a result of agile governance.
Restoring the health of the environment is somehow going to come from something they're calling a circular economy.
Redesigning social contracts, skills, and jobs, we'll achieve through justice and the law.
I always liked the word justice because, who defines exactly what justice is?
Is that going to be Klaus, or is that going to be me and you?
Finally, my favorite is shaping the economic recovery. According to them, we're going to get out of this global recession and depression by of course including more LGBTI people.
I have no idea what I stands for. Last time I checked it was only LGBT, but of course, these things change daily.
We're also going to achieve an economic recovery by gender parity, and through things like taxation and inclusive design.
It's amazing that such an intricate diagram with so many words can actually say so little.
So this is their great reset agenda. If you're saying to yourself “Well, George, I don't really get it. It just seems like this overly vague word salad of just this drivel that doesn't mean anything.”
Go ahead and join the club. I am right there with you, but I don't think it's really about their agenda.
I think it's about what's playing out behind the scenes and what their true intentions actually are.
For more on this, I quote a little piece of a fantastic interview that I found from Joe Rogan interviewing one of my favorites, Bret Weinstein.
Joe Rogan: Equality of outcome, it's impossible. If you pursue it, you end up with a dystopia and even if it were possible, it would not be desirable for the reasons you point to, about the benefits of what you're calling competition.
Bret Weinstein: But there are people in this world that do want to push towards an equality of outcome…
Joe Rogan: Yes.
Bret Weinstein: … and they make it sound as if this is not just logical, but ethical and possible in the future.
And that you are on the wrong side of history if you think that capitalism and competition and all these things that you just talked about, are good.
And that really the best thing is to force people to become some sort of utopian creature that works together in unison and everybody is egalitarian, and there's no need for feminism and men's rights activists because everybody looks at everyone as an equal.
Joe Rogan: Well, there are two kinds of people who will advocate for equality of outcome.
One kind of person who will is confused. They don't understand what happens if you go down this road.
The other one is cynical, and they're using this as an excuse to justify something that just so happens to reward them.
(End of interview)
I couldn't agree with Brett more… So are Klaus and his cronies just confused, or are they using this as an excuse to further their own hidden agenda? I'll let you be the judge.
The Economic Reality Of The “Great Reset”
Now, I'll go ahead and take the tinfoil hat off. Although, you have to admit, Klaus sure looks like he could come straight out of a James Bond movie.
He can be that evil villain from Spectre, that's for sure. But I want to explain the economic impact of what they're proposing.
1. First, we need to understand that people are always going to pursue their own self-interest and the interest of their family.
It's not to say they won't give to charity or be altruistic, but it is to say that they're going to prioritize their own self-interest and their family.
Regardless of what culture I've experienced around the world, what ethnicity, it doesn't matter. People all fall into this category.
It's hard-wired into our brain and it's not going to change.
2. I'd like to point out what the great Thomas Sowell always reminds us. “There are no solutions, only alternatives.”
Why is this? Because we're dealing with scarce resources that have alternative uses.
What I mean by this specifically is regardless of what you're doing, we always have to include a cost-benefit analysis.
It's very easy to focus on the intentions of some regulation, laws or programs, and totally ignore the actual results.
But all of the mumbo jumbo we heard you've heard so far really boils down to a couple things:
- Klaus and the cronies want to increase regulations and taxes.
- They're most likely also going to have this hiring quote “everything needs to be green.”
So I'll explain how this can play out in a little simple example using my whiteboard drawings. Check it out!
I'll use farmer Frank, who is right in the middle of the truck and moody.
He has a plot of land. He's growing wheat, corn, and some sort of food.
Klaus (the one with glasses and a cat) comes in and says, “Listen, Frank, from now on, you have to buy cyber tractors.
No more of those diesel tractors, you are buying from Caterpillar.”
What this does is allocate resources to something that was very efficient. And why do I say it was efficient?
Because Frank was using it in the first place, and we know that Frank knows more about farming than Klaus and Mr. Bigglesworth ever will.
Human ingenuity, materials, and capital all go into building these cyber tractors and get diverted from building something else that may have been more efficient.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't focus on green energy. What I am saying is that it should be based on market demand.
It should be a bottoms-up approach, not tops down. If it is top-down, we're most likely going to have this misallocation of resources that are very scarce, I'd like to point out.
On the left of my drawing, we also have Moody the millennial and of course, it is “they” because I don't know Moody's personal pronoun, but I do know that Moody does not like work.
She's giving it a thumb or they are giving it a thumbs down because they don't want to work in this field at all.
But farmer Frank has to hire them because he needs someone in the LGBTI community.
They fit the category that Klaus, the cronies, and Mr. Bigglesworth are laying out for farmer Frank.
We also know for sure that moody is going to offer a lot less productivity than someone that Frank would hire based on merit alone.
What we have in this very simple example is:
- Misallocation of scarce resources
- We have less economic output – which is going to lead to a lower standard of living-
Why is that? Because Frank can't produce as much wheat. If Frank can't produce as much food, that means someone else in the economy is going to have to start growing food.
That person could have done something else, such as become a doctor, scientist, or an engineer that maybe could have worked on something like green energy.
But now they can't because they're going to have to grow wheat or they're going to have to grow their own food.
I also like to point out that we're seeing this play out in real life right now with the Covid-19.
We know what it looks like when economic activity goes down by 75%, 95%, 85%, whatever. It's not good.
It gets really ugly, very fast and we just haven't seen the worst of it because, as you know, the fed and the government have come in with all of their stimulus packages that will most likely be temporary.
And if they are permanent, it's going to lead to an even worse outcome through inflation and a loss of purchasing power.
Let me be crystal clear.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't strive to have greener energy.
I like breathing clean air better than anybody, and I'm not saying we shouldn't try to eliminate discrimination, but what I am saying is we need to persuade individual people that can make decisions for themselves, to take action that will lead to those outcomes.
We shouldn't try to force people into doing something, and we definitely shouldn't regulate them into doing that either.
Now, about sustainability. I hear this word all the time. To be sustainable, we need to always remember that it has to be profitable.
I think in today's day and age, we've completely forgotten the concept of a business needing to actually make a profit.
If we have businesses that are zombie companies feeding off the government, that's always going to come at the price of future taxation or inflation, and most likely a lower standard of living.
But really the takeaway is it has to be a bottoms-up type approach. You've got to convince individuals in the real economy to want to take these actions, and the entrepreneurs will satisfy those needs and wants.
We can't have this tops down approach or the results are going to be even worse than what we have today, regardless of the intentions.
And for those of you who favor this type of tops down approach in certain aspects of our economy, and have these arguments:
- We can't rely on the entrepreneur because they're greedy
- We have to have some public official in there that's actually benevolent and virtuous that we can rely on for the greater good of society.
I want to tell you why this opinion is fundamentally flawed, but nobody does it better than Milton Friedman himself, which is why I quote him in one of his interviews.
Phil Donahue: When you see around the globe the maldistribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few haves and so many have-nots, when you see the greed and the concentration of power.
Did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed is a good idea to run on?
Milton Friedman: Well, first of all, tell me…
Is there some society you know that doesn't run on greed?
Do you think Russia doesn't run on greed?
Do you think China doesn't run on greed? What is greed?
Of course, none of us are greedy. It's only the other fellow who's greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests.
The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat.
Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses of escape from the kind of grinding poverty you're talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade.
Phil Donahue: If you want to know where the masses are worst off, it's exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that.
So the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving a lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by free enterprise systems.
It seems the reward not virtue as much as the ability to manipulate the system.
Milton Friedman: What does reward virtue?
You think the communist commissar rewards virtue?
You think a Hitler rewards virtue?
Excuse me, if you'll, pardon me…
Do you think American presidents reward virtue?
Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout?
Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economics outfitters?
I think you're taking a lot of things for granted and just tell me, where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?
(End of the interview)
Do you honestly think that Klaus and his buddies at the world economic forum are those angels that are going to lead us to this utopian future?
Do you honestly think they're less greedy than those capitalists or they're more virtuous?
The only thing we're going to get from this great reset is:
- More cronyism
- More corporatism
- A lot less personal freedom.
And that's if we don't have the tinfoil hat on. If we take that tinfoil hat, put it back on, it gets real crazy once you go down that rabbit hole.
The Reset Agenda Endgame
How does this play out for ordinary people like you and me?
I think their plan is to stagflate, tax, and lie.
Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. It's a total coverup and sham, and this is a fantastic way to sum it up.
I have to give all the credit to my good buddy, Jason Burke with Wall Street for Main Street.
If you're not checking him out, make sure you do so. Again, there are a few things we know:
- Government debt is at an all-time high. This is a huge problem, especially if you're a government official and you want to keep power.
- The world economic forum is a group of government leaders that's been meeting since the 1970s, of course they all know each other. They're trying to help each other out. It's the cronyism I was talking about before.
- This isn't about climate change. It's about increasing your taxes.
- It's not about equality. It's about increasing regulation on everyday people like you and me.
- It's about micromanaging everything. These global elites think that they're so much smarter than you, that you can't make decisions on your own.
- It's not about increasing your living standards. It's about giving them more and more power. Don't be fooled, they care about any of these topics or your wellbeing.
They care about one thing and one thing only, that is pursuing their own self-interest. I went back to the reset agenda pictograph published in his article, but now I've done it in a way it's far more accurate.
Instead of his mumbo jumbo, we have their real intentions:
Stagflate, tax, and lie.
We need to understand the details, so we can connect the dots and see what's most likely coming down the pipeline for everyday people like you and me.
One way they've already increased them without you even knowing it, which is a combination of both tax and lie, was this 2018 bill that was passed.
You think that it lowered your taxes.
In short term, it might have, but longterm, it's going to increase them. It's this tax bracket scam that nobody is talking about. It's very important you understand how this works.
Look at this chart:
What they've done is they've changed the way they measure inflation from something called the CPIU to the CCPIU.
Of course, the CCPIU measures inflation at a lower rate than how it was measured before.
Why is this important?
Because it keeps tax brackets lower longer. If your income is going up in nominal terms, your purchasing power isn't increasing at all.
You go to a higher and higher tax bracket. They're stealing more and more of your income without you even knowing it, and this was baked into that 2018 tax bill that was sold to the general public as a way to lower their taxes, but of course, it's increasing your taxes longterm. Total scam.
I also think they're going to increase longterm capital gains to the same level as income.
They're going to increase the wealth tax, the exit tax, and they're definitely going to increase property taxes at a local level, if you live in one of these states or cities that are totally bust.
And they're going to lie the way they've always done it: through bogus numbers with the CPI and the unemployment rate.
Look at these two charts that we all know well from Shadowstats.
If the CPI was measured the same way today as it was back in the 1970s, the inflation rate for the last decade would be almost 10%.
And, unemployment, although they say it's at an all-time low, Shadowstats would tell us a lot different.
Now, I want to make sure everyone understands that Shadowstats don't come up with their own formulas for CPI and unemployment.
They just take the way the government themselves measured it back in the '70s and '80s and apply it to today.
The only anything that's different is if you look at their metric that's above the government's use six number, it includes people that haven't looked for a job for over a year.
The government just pretends they don't exist and they always have, but Shadowstats I think accurately says, “Hey, these people are unemployed as well.” And then it goes back to the GDP growth. Of course, we hear that this is the greatest economy ever.
We've never seen anything like it because all of these statistics like unemployment are so fantastic, but if we actually adjusted it for the correct CPI, although nominal GDP growth would be the same, real GDP growth would be flat if not negative, going all the way back to the GFC.
If you're one of the governments with massive debt load…
How do you get rid of it?
You can either default or you can try to inflate it away, but they're looking at Japan and Europe and saying to themselves…
“Well, they've had negative interest rates. They've done all this quantitative easing, and they still can't get inflation up high enough to reduce the debt load.”
So they're paying it back with cheaper currency units or the easiest way to look at it is they're not increasing their tax receipts faster than they're increasing the amount of money they're spending.
In order to get the type of inflation they need to really reduce the debt burden, they know they've got to increase M2, money, supply, and velocity.
There's a lot of things that go into inflation, but these are the two big components.
How do you do this if you're one of these governments?
The first thing you can do is UBI because you know that quantitative easing is done through a central bank.
The old way of doing it, the old school way back in 2008, 2009 only increases bank reserves and that just goes into assets.
Doesn't necessarily increase the amount of inflation. It may or may not, so what you need to do is get cash in the back pocket of the everyday individual that's going to go out there and spend it very quickly.
This increases M2 and velocity. Of course, UBI accomplishes this goal, but what you could do to take it a step further, which I definitely think they'll do, is band cash.
You could put this app on your phone. I've talked about it many times.
The fed or the government transfers the currency units or fed coins to the app, and you have to go out there and spend it within a certain timeframe or else, it's gone off your phone.
This is a way they can increase the money supply and increase the rate at which you spend the money.
And those of you paying very close attention might be saying to yourself, “Yeah, George, I get it. They're increasing UBI. They're banning cash or anything, but that'll most likely increase the deficits even higher. How does that get rid of the debt?”
Insert MMT! They believe the government can spend money or even should spend money without issuing treasuries at all.
If you can spend money like a drunken sailor and you don't have to issue debt, your debt never goes up. It's magical how that works!
And we look at the supply side of the equation. If you have money and velocity increasing, the last thing that you can do to really stoke inflation is to reduce the amount of goods and services that are being created in the real economy.
One way to do this is to de-globalize, so all those supply chains that were overseas, bring them back home. Another thing you can do is increase the unemployment rate.
Usually this would be on the demand side of the equation, but if you're providing everyone with more money than they were actually making at their job to stay home and do nothing, then the demand side stays the same, if not increases, while the supply side continues to shrink because people aren't even going into work to produce these goods and services.
All of these businesses are going bust and it makes one really start to ponder…
How would the global elite or how would you take this tops down approach?
How would you control it if you were a Klaus, if you wanted to de-globalize and get unemployment higher?
That's a hard thing to achieve, but it's exactly what we had with the Covid-19
So, is the Covid-19 just some random unfortunate event that just happens to increase unemployment dramatically, most likely longterm, and create this narrative, this push for de-globalization?
I have no idea, but what I do know is it's extremely convenient for these global elites that are trying to push this great reset agenda, which I think is all about reducing government debt.
What this means for you and me, the average Joe and Jane is they're going to try to steal our purchasing power, the purchasing power of our children and grandchildren through taxation and inflation.
They're going to try to take the little freedom we have left, and they're going to try to seize as much power as they possibly can because like Milton Friedman says, “They are just as greedy, if not more greedy.”
Which is why I would argue, than these corporate CEOs, and they're definitely not benevolent nor are they virtuous.
On that note, I had the change Klaus's quote that he used in his post to: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
I think that is far more appropriate and after this explanation, I think you would agree.
Is this plan about climate equality and increasing the living standard for everyone in the world?
Is it about reducing government debt through stagflate tax, and lie, or is it about something far more sinister?
What are your spidey senses telling you?
Take one last look at these global elite's words at the world economic forum, who want to impose this great reset agenda on all of us, and I'll let you be the judge of their true intentions.
Professor Klaus Schwab: Now is the historical moment of time, we need a great reset.
Kristalina Georgieva: History would look at this crisis as a great opportunity for reset.
António Guterres: It is imperative that we reimagine, rebuilt, redesign, reinvigorate, and rebalance our worlds.