FarsNews Agency: Davos Falls Short Addressing Issues Affecting People Worldwide
TEHRAN (FNA)- Joshua Tartakovsky, independent journalist, says, the speakers at World Economic Forum were not concerned with people’s socio-economic issues, such as the high cost of living, pushing them to the streets in the four corners of the world.
In an exclusive interview with FNA, Tartakovsky said, “The forum can be characterized as a sinking Titanic with each speaker trying to present his or her partial vision; but, no one realizing the bigger picture.”
Joshua Tartakovsky is an American independent journalist and filmmaker.
Below is the full text of the interview:
Q: With 1% of the world’s population controlling 99% of the world’s wealth, what do you thing the function of the World Economic Forum in Davos is?
A: It is out-of-touch to dismiss the World Economic Forum as “a luxury rich man’s club.” The forum was characterized by three defining characteristics: The high number of female leaders holding prominent positions in the neoliberal economic order, the emergence of teenage leaders as Greta Thunberg, and the focus on climate change.
The forum did not address the most burning issues affecting most people in the world today. The high cost of living, affecting large segments of the middle class in western countries, the deteriorating socio-economic standards that are pushing people to the streets of Paris, Berlin, Beirut, and Baghdad. We are meant to believe our problems are solved due to the large number of female representatives while working women are struggling. Youth are meant to be assuaged by the presence of teenage leaders while they face shortage of future jobs. Climate change may be causing a locust plague in East Africa but we are right to be skeptical of corporate solutions, as economic monopolies do not have our interests in mind as their record shows.
Q: Do you believe the interests of the Western speakers would internationally tighten the gap between the rich and poor?
A: The current Western economic order is in a structural crisis since the 1970s as sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein explained. It is getting harder to make a profit in the West because costs of production have gone up while demand for products at high prices has been going down. Similarly, while corporations have been growing they have been employing fewer people. What we are seeing now is disaster capitalism. It is not only that financial interests are seeking to create immense monopolies that will force price increases and turn us into serfs, but also that monopolies may be seeking to create immense problems so as to maintain their growth since regular venues of growth have exhausted themselves.
The forum can be characterized as a sinking Titanic with each speaker trying to present his or her partial vision; but, no one realizing the bigger picture. Nationalist leaders sought to impose protectionism to defend their national industries. Globalist leaders sought to provide corporate solutions (Al Gore) or cheaper solutions (Huawei’s Zhengfei.) Meanwhile, Hong Kong leader faces western onslaught, Lebanon faces speculations.
Q: How do you find the speeches of Donald Trump, the US President?
A: Trump presented a somewhat correct, yet skewed picture. Trump is right that he brought industries back to the US, created new jobs and attracted international investment. However, he did not lower prices. He also did not address the education and health debt crises.
On the international side, Trump positioned America as the land of the free, but did not acknowledge that the US has been bullying other countries from trading with Iran or pursuing their own trade agreements with China. Under Trump, the US has been holding the rest of the world in economic shackles. If US is as strong as Trump claimed, why is it threatened by the independent rise of other countries and how come US did not succeed in slowing down Huawei’s economic growth? Trump has been unable to force Iran to give up on its independent stances despite the sanctions, assassinations and threats. There is an inherent contradiction between Trump’s version of the US as the land of the free while he cannot accept the independent choices of other countries.
