What people generally want from their government is reliable services at not too high a tax burden, and to be left to live their lives in peace. This is what has traditionally been considered to be "good governance". History is filled with examples of failures to do this, either partial or complete. A partial failure is fascist Italy in the 1930s. Mussolini did make the trains run on time (and remember, this was the Italian railroad) so "reliable service" seems covered. Unfortunately the Fascist Party wasn't very interested in that whole "be left to live their lives in peace" thing.
Complete failure of governance is on display today in Venezuela and other places.
So why do I claim that the Global Elite don't want to provide good governance? We have data, and it's fresh. The elites just gathered in Davos, Switzerland to discuss all things governance related. The World Economic Forum published their annual Global Risks Report. It's available at the link, but here is the distilled Likeliness vs. Impact chart:
They are telling us here that they are entirely uninterested in good governance. Take a look at the unimportant stuff in the lower left hand quadrant (low likelihood/low impact). It's here that we find things like:
- Financial failure
- Unemployment
- Critical Infrastructure Failure
- Fiscal Crisis
- Unmanageable Inflation
- Terrorist Attack
In short, that quadrant contains what everybody considers to be the proper scope of government. Preventing these is pretty close to the definition of good governance.
Now look at the most important quadrant, the upper right (high Likelihood/High Impact). Let me blow this up for you:
Governments have absolutely no control over most of these - extreme weather, natural disasters, etc. And those here that governments do have some control over (water crisis and biodiversity loss) are actually excellent examples of how governance is failing today. Example: California Governor Jerry Brown cancelled water projects in the 1970s and 80s that has led directly to the current California water crisis. The recent mass brushfires in Australia are directly attributable to government policies that prohibited the clearing of dead brush "in the interest of promoting biodiversity". No doubt the wallabies are thankful for these policies burning their habitat to cinders.
But consider what the items here do allow - you can vastly expand the reach and power of government with "Climate Action" policies. Where is power, wealth will naturally follow. A promise to control the weather (stopping extreme weather events) can justify more taxes, more regulations, and a clamp down on resistance to the above. I mean, you don't want your protest to cause tornados, amirite?
What is on display here is the Global Elites walking away from any semblance of good governance, in favor of graft and corruption. Now admittedly, good governance is hard, or more people would do it. But an elite that so likes to preen about their moral superiority might scruple to hide the naked power grab better.
So why should the rest of us give these jokers the time of day?
At one time, leaders had this concept of "noblesse oblige" which basically boils down to 'the top must take care of the bottom.' Rulers must rule wisely.
ReplyDeleteThe current global elite do not follow the tents of noblesse oblige.
Why?
Because they are selfish. It's all about them, right now, what they can get, right now. There's no forethought for tomorrow or past tomorrow. It's all about them, right now.
It's so bad that lack of noblesse oblige is one of the main tenets of business school. Get what you want now, what is good for your outlook. Not what is good for the company now, or what is good for the company (and its employees) in the future.
A lack of responsibility has pervaded the global elite and filtered down to corporate elite.
This is how you get the NFL pissing off half its audience by not airing some commercials while airing other commercials (like Bloomberg) during their final event.
It's how you get career politicians who are no longer subjects of the people but outright tyrannical overlords.
It's how you get church officials who throw away the teachings and tenets of their faith for popularism in order to put cash in their pockets now, not for the future.
It's how you get military leaders who totally reject and destroy the structure that elevated them because the mil-leader is feathering their post-retirement nest in either business or as a foreign adviser to the system they just destroyed.
It's how you get a president who increases his net worth 30 times while as a president.
Noblesse oblige, on the other hand, is shown in presidents who sacrifice their money and time in order to lead, not rule, lead their district or state or nation. Oh, like President Trump. Who leads. Not Rules like the jackwagon before him.
In the late 1700's, there was, thanks to years of great harvest, a movement towards less tyranny. When bad harvests came around, bad times came for the tyrannical leaders (France in the 1790s, America in the 1770s are great examples, but you see the same thing amongst the smaller principalities and dukedoms in 'Germany' and in Spain, what would become Italy, pretty much everywhere.
Hey, global elite. You want more Trump and Johnson and Farange and ignorant deplorables showing up at your doorstep with pitchforks and guns and such? This is how you get it.