I’m not sure if this is what you are looking for, but I really had to dig to find this, as most of what I found glossed over what the the Great Reset is. I’m leery of the idea as it is difficult to get details and a few other personal concerns I won’t get into, as I’m really trying to stay out of these discussions. But I was curious and concerned, so I looked.
Interesting that a “platform” would be hidden in a website? Especially since there is a whole section labeled “platforms”.
My favorite kind of snow! Just in the grass!
Thanks @Alewis678 for linking. Here is another top level link
I am failing to see the leap here.
I do think that most businesses/industries are currently examining how Covid has impacted us and the lessons we have learned. Will education and the classroom ever be the same? Well, I hope not. We have been saying for years that we should not continue to teach and structure schools the same way as we did in the 60s, 70s, 80s, or 2000- but until Covid we generally have.
That does not mean there is a global conspiracy, if that is what you are inferring?
Yes, masks will be here for a while. Maybe masks will remain forever. If the cdc tells me that if I wear a mask out in public I can prevent another pandemic- I will gladly wear one everyday for the rest of my life.
Most likely I should have erased this post but honestly I have been having flashbacks to 2008.
We’re finally taking a wholistic look at our workplace as well. Brought in a consultant to help us determine what future should look like - something that would never have happened without COVID. We currently occupy 11 floors in our building. This finally gives us an opportunity to reduce that space and give the employees what we’ve been clamoring for - the option to work from home. We’re now taking about simple touchdown spaces instead of offices/cubicles. Our leadership was never believers in work from home - but the productivity speaks for itself. It’s working, even with outside challenges such as dealing with children and school, etc.
Well thanks for keeping my post. Much appreciated. My perspective is a lot of the agenda they espouse. For example, there is a big push within that reset to eliminate private property. A primary bullet point that everything will be subscription based.
While this video is from WEF, they actually took it down from their site just recently. A famous post about owning nothing and you will be happy, has backpedaled and put disclaimers on it now.
It’s fine that we disagree, and I appreciate the platform to express my viewpoints and concerns for how some of those goals might and could be achieved. My default mindset is that I don’t trust any government and must always stand vigilant to guard and defend life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
With all sincerity,
I am curious if this is synonymous for equity or is that not a driving force?
I ask that question since, as a child of the 60s, sometimes “ liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” has been defined as for “some, not all”.
I’m down with this too. But I need to figure out a solution as an eye glasses wearer.
This is certainly a view that far right conspiracy groups have been spreading.
At a high level, though…the late capitalism economies aren’t working particularly well in terms of lifting standard of living for everyone and long term care of natural resources.
We have a lot of extremes - billionaires, while the poorest suffer the consequences of climate change, for example. A realignment of incentive structures doesn’t seem out of place.
And I don’t think of Prince Charles (who launched it) as a particularly radical figure
This is a relative concept. Also, one that will only work based on the theory that everyone will strive, work and contribute to their own well being and personal success, to the best of their ability. Sure, there are things we can do collectively to help people achieve goals and opportunities that wouldn’t easily be afforded to one within their current community and circumstances. We could focus on this. I haven’t done as much research on this as some but I believe there is a fundamental disagreement with people regarding the “great reset”. I value everyone’s opinion and respect everyone’s beliefs. But they are just that, there is not a future world right and wrong handbook of truth available.
Thank you for sharing! This is key. And we all know what is eventually coming…one world order, led by the enemy. The USA may be the last powerful nation to stand in the way of this. And this is why our current leader is hated by the world in general. The powerful elitists, corporations, etc, would love to see us all dependent on the government.
Not really. I’m ok providing everyone with a basic level of care (food, shelter, healthcare), even if they aren’t bootstrapping up as hard as they can. How we treat others says more about us than them, and I accept there are people taking advantage of every system ever. Some of those people get degraded as lowlifes, some as brilliant businesspeople…it’s all about what system they are grifting.
In a utopian world, this would potentially work. This is how you see things. And that is perfectly ok. But their are also people that do not feel the same, these are the people that society would need to take from to give to others. Obviously there will be the people to take advantage of the situation. And there are many that will give despite this. We already have a system in place for this. It’s called charity. Everyone if free to contribute and those in need are free to benefit from it. Personally I feel the government shouldn’t be involved in charity. Medical care, at least in my community, is given to those regardless of income, primary care, cancer treatments, heck even teaching hospitals will discount elective care. I think their are good and bad points to this “reset” plan. I can take issue with determining what the minimal standard of living would be. Those in 3rd would countries are envious in what we in America consider poverty. Its all relative. I really think we should teach a man to fish rather than keep giving him a fish everyday with no end in sight.
[quote=“drvillarejos, post:95, topic:74971”] We already have a system in place for this. It’s called charity. Everyone if free to contribute and those in need are feel to benefit from it. Personally I feel the government shouldn’t be involved in charity.
It’s funny, I feel almost the exact opposite. Charity is an extremely inefficient way of distributing resources and susceptible to raising barriers to vulnerable subsets of the needy population.
For example: it’s hard to get charity raised and organized to help LGBTQ+ homeless youth in rural areas where the dominant religion (or political views, etc) is what drove them out of their homes in the first place.
Not to mention that wealthy people tend to give the least to charity (as a %). I’d rather have a progressive tax system and minimum standard of living applied consistently.
This probably best states the fundamental differences in the views. Some feel resources should be distributed regardless, others feel resources are earned. I feel some are, some aren’t. Its that dividing line that has people disagreeing.
This is a great example of the targeted efforts I am for.
Here lies the tricky part. What is the minimum acceptable standard of living and who should provide this? Government doesnt make money, they take it. How do we determine who to take it from? If we start setting a cap on wealth we stifle progress as a people. If you take away the dream of wealth (and by wealth I mean the by-product, the compensation for creating and maintaining something needed or wanted in society) or tax it to the point that it isn’t worth the effort, people will become complacent, then who will provide for the have nots? I’m not against provided for those without but I can’t see how it is sustainable. That’s all. We need many more people pushing the cart then those that are in it. If not, how will we get anywhere?
I don’t think this is a real concern. I’m not talking about communism - or an extreme “everyone gets exactly the same things regardless of talent or hard work” - I think we need to cut way way back on extreme wealth and raise the minimum standard.
Of course there isn’t agreement, or we would have done it already
I think there are very very real drawbacks to the underpinnings of the major economies of the world, that we are now realizing fast and hard. Short term profits for a few, with the long term consequences borne by everyone (climate change). There’s not an easy or simple solution. The free market doesn’t do well with long term planning… so, now what do we do?
Capitalism works because it appeals to natural selfish tendencies. Other attempts at wealth distribution seem to forget this. They appeal a form of idealism that doesn’t work because we are inherently selfish.
But in a selfish desire for success and wealth, it leads to increasing overall wealth and provides more opportunities for everyone. Yes, there is an imbalance. But that’s the point. It is the driving force. Without it, the drive for innovation decreases.