At least he didn't sing (PIERRE VERDY/AFP via Getty Images)
Thousands of the world’s global elite are convening in Davos this morning for their most important annual get-together: the meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF). Alongside heads of state from all over the world, the CEOs of Amazon, BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase, Pfizer and Moderna will gather, as will the President of the European Commission, the IMF’s Managing Director, the secretary general of Nato, the chiefs of the FBI and MI6, the publisher of The New York Times, and, of course, the event’s infamous host — founder and chairman of the WEF, Klaus Schwab. As many as 5,000 soldiers may be deployed for their protection.
Given the almost cartoonishly elitist nature of this jamboree, it seems only natural that the organisation has become the subject of all sorts of conspiracy theories regarding its supposed malicious intent and secret agendas connected to the notion of the “Great Reset”. In truth, there is nothing conspiratorial about the WEF, to the extent that conspiracies imply secrecy. On the contrary, the WEF — unlike, say, the Bilderberg — is very open about its agenda: you can even follow the live-streamed sessions online.
Founded in 1971 by Schwab himself, the WEF is “committed to improving the state of the world through public-private cooperation”, also known as multistakeholder governance. The idea is that global decision-making should not be left to governments and nation-states — as in the post-war multilateralist framework enshrined in the United Nations — but should involve a whole range of non-government stakeholders: civil society bodies, academic experts, media personalities and, most important, multinational corporations. In its own words, the WEF’s project is “to redefine the international system as constituting a wider, multifaceted system of global cooperation in which intergovernmental legal frameworks and institutions are embedded as a core, but not the sole and sometimes not the most crucial, component”.
While this may sound fairly benign, it neatly encapsulates the basic philosophy of globalism: insulating policy from democracy by transferring the decision-making process from the national and international level, where citizens theoretically are able to exercise some degree of influence over policy, to the supranational level, by placing a self-selected group of unelected, unaccountable “stakeholders” — mainly corporations — in charge of global decisions concerning everything from energy and food production to the media and public health. The underlying undemocratic philosophy is the same one underpinning the philanthrocapitalist approach of people such Bill Gates, himself a long-time partner of the WEF: that non-governmental social and business organisations are best suited to solve the world’s problems than governments and multilateral institutions.
Even though the WEF has increasingly focused its agenda on fashionable topics such as environmental protection and social entrepreneurship, there is little doubt as to which interests Schwab’s brainchild is actually promoting and empowering: the WEF is itself mostly funded by around 1,000 member companies — typically global enterprises with multi-billion dollar turnovers, which include some of the world’s biggest corporations in oil (Saudi Aramco, Shell, Chevron, BP), food (Unilever, The Coca-Cola Company, Nestlé), technology (Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple) and pharmaceuticals (AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna). The composition of the WEF’s board is also very revealing, including Laurence D. Fink, CEO of Blackrock, David M. Rubenstein, co-chairman of the Carlyle Group, and Mark Schneider, CEO of Nestlé. There’s no need to resort to conspiracy theories to posit that the WEF’s agenda is much more likely to be tailored to suit the interests of its funders and board members — the world’s ultra-wealthy and corporate elites — rather than to “improving the state of the world”, as the organisation claims.
Perhaps the most symbolic example of the WEF’s globalist push is the controversial strategic partnership agreement the organisation signed with the UN in 2019, which many view as having drawn the UN into the WEF’s logic of public-private cooperation. According to an open letter signed by more than 400 civil society organisations and 40 international networks, the agreement represents a “disturbing corporate capture of the UN, which moved the world dangerously towards a privatised global governance”. The provisions of the strategic partnership, they note, “effectively provide that corporate leaders will become ‘whisper advisors’ to the heads of UN system departments, using their private access to advocate market-based profit-making ‘solutions’ to global problems while undermining real solutions embedded in public interest and transparent democratic procedures”.
This corporate takeover of the global agenda, aided and abetted by the WEF, became particularly apparent during the Covid-19 pandemic. Global health policy and “epidemic preparedness” have long been a focus of the WEF. In 2017, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) — an initiative aimed at securing vaccine supplies for global emergencies and pandemics, funded by government and private donors, including Gates — was launched in Davos. Then, in October 2019, just two months before the official start of the outbreak in Wuhan, the WEF co-sponsored an exercise called Event 201, which simulated “an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic”. In the event of a pandemic, the organisers noted, national governments, international organisations and the private sector should provide ample resources for the manufacturing and distribution of large quantities of vaccines through “robust forms of public-private cooperation”.
So, it is safe to say that when the Covid pandemic broke out, the WEF was well-positioned to take a central role in the pandemic response. It was at the 2020 gathering in Davos, on January 21-24 — a few weeks after the novel coronavirus had been identified in China — that CEPI met with the CEO of Moderna, Stéphane Bancel, to establish plans for a Covid-19 vaccine, in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the US. Later in the year, CEPI was instrumental in setting up Covid-19 Vaccines Global Access (Covax), in partnership with the WHO, and in providing funding for several Covid vaccines.
These public-private and corporate-centred coalitions — all with ties to the WEF, and beyond the reach of democratic accountability — played a crucial role in promoting a vaccine-centric and profit-driven response to the pandemic, and then in overseeing the vaccine rollout. In other words, the pandemic brought into stark relief the consequences of the WEF’s decades-long globalist push. Again, it would be wrong to view this as a conspiracy, since the WEF has always been very candid about its objectives: this is simply the inevitable result of a “multistakeholderist” approach in which private and “philanthropic” interests are given greater voice in global affairs than most governments.
What is troubling, however, is that the WEF is now promoting the same top-down corporate-driven approach in a wide range of other domains, from energy to food to global surveillance policies — with equally dramatic consequences. There is a reason governments often seem so willing to go along with these policies, even in the face of widespread societal opposition: which is that the WEF’s strategy, over the years, hasn’t just been to shift power away from governments — but also to infiltrate the latter.
The WEF has largely achieved this through a programme known as the Young Global Leaders (YGL) initiative, aimed at training future global leaders. Launched in 1992 (when it was called Global Leaders for Tomorrow), the initiative has spawned many globalist-aligned heads of states, cabinet ministers and business leaders. Tony Blair, for instance, was a participant in the first event, while Gordon Brown attended in 1993. In fact, its early intake was packed with other future leaders, including Angela Merkel, Victor Orbán, Nicholas Sarkozy, Guy Verhofstadt and José Maria Aznar.
In 2017, Schwab admitted to having used the Young Global Leaders to “penetrate the cabinets” of several governments, adding that as of 2017, “more than half” of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet had been members of the programme. More recently, following Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s proposal to drastically cut nitrogen emissions in line with WEF-inspired “green” policies, sparking large protests in the country, critics drew attention to the fact that, in addition to Rutte himself having close ties to the WEF, his Minister of Social Affairs and Employment was elected WEF Young Global Leader in 2008, while his Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Sigrid Kaag is a contributor to the WEF’s agenda. In December 2021, the Dutch government published its past correspondence with representatives of the World Economic Forum, showing extensive interaction between the WEF and the Dutch government.
Elsewhere, the former Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe — who last year was forced to resign following a popular uprising against his decision to ban fertilisers and pesticides in favour of organic, “climate-friendly” alternatives — was also a devoted member and Agenda Contributor of the WEF. In 2018, he published an article on the organisation’s website titled: “This is How I Will Make My Country Rich by 2025”. (Following the protests, the WEF swiftly removed the article from its website.) Once again, it seems clear that the WEF’s role in forming and selecting members of the world’s political elites is not a conspiracy, but rather a very public policy — and one which Schwab is happy to boast about.
Ultimately, there is no denying that the WEF wields immense power, which has cemented the rule of the transnational capitalist class to a degree never before seen in history. But it is important to recognise that its power is simply a manifestation of the power of the “superclass” it represents — a tiny group amounting, according to researchers, to no more than 6,000 or 7,000 people, or 0.0001% of the world’s population, and yet more powerful than any social class the world has ever known. Samuel Huntington, who is credited with inventing the term “Davos man”, argued that members of this global elite “have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elite’s global operations”. It was only a matter of time before these aspiring cosmocrats developed a tool through which to fully exercise their dominion over the lower classes — and the WEF proved to be the perfect vehicle to do so.
Thomas Fazi is an UnHerd columnist and translator. His latest book is The Covid Consensus, co-authored with Toby Green.
battleforeurope 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeSome interesting points about spending but I would also raise another issue, our tax code is massively complex, almost impossible to understand and no longer really fit for purpose. It needs drastic, if not revolutionary, reform. Given that it currently stands at 21000 pages and is growing all the time then there will never be a better time to do this. With a government holding an 80 seat seat majority, it depends on whether we have the PM and ministers with the political will, fortitude and stubbornness to see it through. I would look at the tax code that is considered by most to be the most effective and efficient in the world and at 276 pages, is probably one of the shortest, that of Hong Kong. Use it as a template if you will but so something to rid us of this burden. Making our tax code simpler will make it easier and much, much cheaper to implement, to administer and everyone will be able to understand it. On the other side, do the same with public spending. In order for tax to be effective it much be spent properly. I disagree with the author about nuclear power stations, we should be investing in them, not only to rebuild our capability in knowledge and engineering but because they provide a constant source of power that we will not be able to do without. Advances and research in molten salt reactors and small reactor assemblies mean that we could secure our future energy needs without destroying our landscape and potentially become a net energy exporter again.
Furlough principled that social security could be delivered remotely through tax codes. This would save on bricks and mortar jobcentre costs and the costs of remunerating thousands of non-job psycho-babbling work coaches and their unemployable backroom bureaucrats. In the event of mass unemployment post covid-19 social security must not be allowed to again become the welfare cheque of the unemployable work coaches of the benefit office, an invitation to the industrial scale scamming of the treasury by the third sector or a work programme slave market.
I agree with you that taking 276 pages as a template is a much more promising way forward than trying to reform 21000 pages. It is so vast it is beyond reform.
Why have a tax code at all?
Why not zero income tax, in fact no tax at all except on purchases. Then you can have low or zero taxes on essentials and higher taxes on luxury goods. Combine that with transparency; e.g. want better roads, low emission vehicles? Wack up fuel taxes and show the public how much is actually going on transportation.
Of course it will never happen as all governments use tax as a political weapon and want less democratisation and transparency.
I agree on the obscene cost of nuclear where big plants are concerned, let alone having Chinese involvement.
But investing in small reactors with Rolls-Royce or the molten salt designs of Moltex Energy is different.
Home grown solutions like these are an investment in UK technology and jobs, as well as being far cheaper and quicker to build.
I noticed, Peter that when you advised against “stupid” things like building nuclear power stations you were talking about the the large one at Hinkley Point and also Chinese power stations in Britain. But how about the small RR modular power stations? We can’t rely on on wind and solar because they are inherently intermittent and there is no as yet proven large-scale storage technology to smooth out intermittent renewable energy. Home grown nuclear technology would be a useful addition, in my opinion, to our energy mix, as well as creating high value jobs especially in the North.
I thought that was a pretty bizarre off-hand comment. I really don’t see how we can avoid expanding nuclear power, if we are to take seriously net zero (whether we should or not is another question…) The point that seems to have to be made to green enthusiasts over and over again, the wind don’t always blow and the sun don’t always shine…
‘As long as we’re not doing really stupid stuff, like building nuclear power stations..’
Actually this is just about the first sensible thing any government has done in my lifetime.
Meanwhile, my understanding is that a lot of people – well, the middle classes who can work from home – have saved a lot of money during lockdown. All we need to do is to open up so that this money can once again be spent on absurdly overpriced coffees and other assorted nonsense.
“All we need to do is to open up so that this money can once again be spent on absurdly overpriced coffees and other assorted nonsense.”
All good points, but I’d rather the rich invested their money in things that really matter, like modular nuclear reactors and the Skylon spaceplane, not silly little trinkets.
An excellent idea, but would you really trust HMG with ‘modular nuclear reactors’ given our truly abysmal record on civil nuclear power, since its inception in 1957?
As for the ‘Skylon’, it will probably go the same way as the unfortunate R 101 or the DH 106: Comet, to name but two, of HMG’s aeronautical fiascos.
I believe the “unfortunate R101” was subject to a bit of a cover-up.
Having an interest in the history of British Aviation I used to visit the Public Records office in the mid 1970s to view Air Ministry documents. I was suprised to find that drawings and documents concerning the R101 were closed until well into the 21st Century. Suprising for outdated airship technology of the 1920s.
I came accross a possible clue as to why couple of years ago when I read Neville Shute’s autobiography The Slide Rule. As well as being a novelist he worked in aeronautics and had intimate knowledge of the R101 project. The airship suffered from a major structural design flaw and should never have been sent out on its maiden overseas flight. Political pressure from the government of the time overcame caution ““ it was the pet project of the Labour Secretary of State for Air Christopher Birdwood Thomson. Ironically, he was a passenger on that flight and was killed in the crash.
The moral is: beware of projects which have a close link to a politician’s career ambitions. They have to be seen to work, and quickly.
A year later we were equally supine over the invasion of Cyprus.
Your concluding sentence is remarkably apposite with regard to the various vaccines coming our way. And no, I am not an anti-vaxxer. Indeed, I happen to believe that mass vaccination programmes are one of the few things that the state should be doing.
Didn’t Neville Shute work on the rival R100?
It is ludicrous that the files on the R 101 are still closed, unlike those on the much later DH:106 Comet explosions. What is there to hide, after all these years?
If it were something as controversial as say, the Hindenburg disaster, one might understand?
Yes, he did work on the R100 ““ a privately financed project. The Slide Rule provides a telling comparison of public-funded versus private-funded projects. The former have money to burn and can afford failures while the latter, working on limited funds, are often pressed to find ingenious solutions to major problems because failure can mean financial disaster.
I don’t think the R101 documents are still closed. I tried to access them back in the mid-70s. If memory serves they were closed until about 2010. According to Shute the design flaw was insufficient lateral strength ““ the airship folded and collapsed when turning. Thomson was warned of the danger but pressed for the flight to go ahead. Perhaps his reputation depended on it.
That’s good to hear that the R101 facts are now in the public domain. The comparison between the two is interesting.
Off course we shouldn’t forget the USA had an even worse record with the destruction of both the USS Akron and USS Macon, in 1933 & 1935 respectively.
The anomaly was the Hindenburg, particularly after the outstanding record of the Graf Zeppelin.
He wrote a novel in which the protagonists were passengers on a doomed airliner. I can’t remember the title but it probably had something to do with his experiences on the R100.
Thank you, I had forgotten that. All I can recall now is the apocalyptic ‘On the Beach’.
I wouldn’t trust our government but I do trust Rolls-Royce which has a solid track record in small nuclear power plants for our nuclear submarines
That is very reassuring, thank you.
Depends on how much private industry gets involved.
As for Skylon, I think Alan Bond has enough experience with government to attempt to keep to as much of the private sector as possible.
To be fair in 1957 the Government had to take on technology that was in it’s infancy and along with other Governments sort out the basics.
Those basics are sorted now and the building of smaller reactors is now routine.
I was thinking about what happened post Calder Hall, particularly in relation to how the French handled things so much better than us.
By all means, let’s endlessly hector people on the need for green energy while NOT building the one emission-free source.
Recent events have exposed industrial scale institutionalised corruption of so many ‘worthy’ institutions and of course the perfected ‘yes minister’ immunity to liability for any of it plus how one institution will never call out the other – Obvious that the rules we live under from tax to town planning are insanely and deliberately over complicated – Obvious that non of the main parties throughout the UK have the slightest self interest or intention of actually doing anything about it except make it worse – To actually seize the opportunity of the freedom of a proper Brexit and and prevent the otherwise permanent authoritarianism facilitated by the virus a completely new party would be needed – The incompetence of the establishment regarding the virus and the Brexit (plus the illegals) give an opportunity for a Nigel Farage party to sweep the board again and give us a new hope of real freedom and prosperity.
Well, call it poverty if you prefer, but it’s coming for you all the same.
Excellent article. ‘right on the money’
Entered the the Covid-19 stretch with a load of funny money and fabricated debts and will probably exit the Covid-19 stretch with even more funny money and fabricated debts, hope Rishi Sunak can work that neo-liberal conundrum out of the finances and make money real again.
Money will never be ‘real again’. At least, not until we have Paper Money Collapse and have to start again.
If you “remodel capitalism,” then it’s not capitalism any longer. And it’s not capitalism to blame for govt’s excesses.
Keynesianism is the counter-intuitive idea that the best way to deal with mounting debt is to keep on borrowing.
I believe it also suggests that govt spending be dialed back when the economy is strong, not doubling down on even more spending that ultimately creates even more debt. Has this philosophy ever worked anywhere? At some point, the debt must be addressed. It is true in the home, it is true in every business, yet govt somehow believes itself exempt from this reality.
Homes and businesses cannot issue their own currency – well not legally anyway, so yes they are different from those entities with very different responsibilities.
Again, debt has to be addressed at some point. And the ability to endlessly issue your own currency eventually makes that currency worthless.
But the existing 2.1tn debt is really a 1.2-1.3tn debt since we own (via the APF/BoE) 845 bn of our own debt, which that markets have hardly blinked an eye at (since many developed nations have been indulging in their own form of debt monetisation.
This was a weak piece by Peter. “Austerity” to describe measures to bring deficits under control is an encouragement to reckless spending. One seldom hears “extravagance” used to describe measures to greatly expand deficits for dubious spending purposes. Now, of course, would be no time for Sunak to balance the budget, but it is surely misleading to say that the problem is a lack of demand, and fiscal policy should encourage spending. A lot of the falloff in economic activity is due to government shutdowns, either in the UK or abroad. It is a quite different situation than at the time of the financial crisis.
Osborne’s stint as Chancellor of the Exchequer saw the downgrading of the RPI for upratings in favour of the CPI, something that seemed to be done only for budgetary reasons, with no inherent logic. The promising initiative to replace the RPI with an RPIJ was quickly abandoned, while that duckbilled platypus of an index, the CPIH, was promoted. It was encouraging to see that Sunak refused, for the moment at least, to step any further down the path of error that Osborne started the UK on, declining to make the RPI a carbon copy in its movement to the CPIH as it had been widely anticipated he might do. Hopefully, for him and the Johnson government this will be just the start of a major policy reset. No country has had its economy suffer more from housing booms and busts than Britain’s. The UK must keep housing prices in its inflation measures, although there are legitimate differences of opinion on the best way to do so.
Peter
You absolutely wrong about nuclear power.
We desperately need our aging and soon to close nuclear power stations to be renewed.
Wind power is erratic and unreliable, as I type this at 22.50, wind power is providing 6% of our electrical requirement. Nuclear is at 19%.
Gas is our main provider at 48% – even coal is at 2%
As, both Nuclear & Coal are being phased out what is going to replace the 21%?
This is before the attempt to “Green” our environment with electric cars & home hearing, which is estimated to treble electrical power requirements.
Peter, you no doubt have more resources than I do, how about an article showing how we are going to power society, with our existing knowledge and technology? But, please no magic batteries – which have not been invented, or indeed magic cables that will charge cars on our streets.
I’m sure that Sunak has now worked out that the government cannot run out of money because it has never had any. It gets what it wants from us, and we are the ones who will ultimately run out of money. If people are spending as claimed, it is because there is no point in saving, and as most now believe, the government will provide. The economy is like a giant plate spinning act, more and more plates are being added but the spinner is getting exhausted.
Your mistaken. All money comes from the government either through direct creation and spending or the bank licences to allow credit/debit creation when creating loans (and of course destruction of credit/debit when loans are repaid). Tax is used to control inflation amongst other things. Spending always comes first, a sovereign government cannot run out of money, although if it continues printing when the economy is purring along utilizing available recourse’s there would be inflation implications – but we’re very far from that position at the moment
“a sovereign government cannot run out of money”.
I suppose it depends on your definition of “run out”. I think the people of former middle ranking countries such as Greece, Venezuela, Argentina, Zimbabwe, etc, might disagree and think your comments somewhat semantic.
Also, to be pedantic, not “…all money comes from the government”. Trading commodities/currencies such as gold (safer than ‘government’ money at the moment), cryptocurrencies and local community currencies and trading systems certainly don’t emanate from government – and the way European states are blowing our money, people may well start to turn towards these alternatives.
With 845 billion of QE the Gov (via the BoE and the APF) now owns almost 40% of the National debt, which we may well pay interest on, but that part of it comes straight back to the Treasury. It may have been touted as refloating the financial sector, but the legacy of the initial round of QE was the monetisation of debt, which is again being used to finance government spending during the pandemic.
I’m not sure I agree with the analysis especially around the 2008 crash and the aftermath and George Osborne’s disastrous foray into austerity.
Once Q.E. was instigated there was never going to be any problem selling gilts since we were effectively buying them up (via the secondary market admittedly) creating a floor, and allowing the expansion of the gilts market as required to finance the recovery.
In 2020 the Tories came into power via the coalition with the goal of getting rid of the deficit by 2015 (Labour’s aim was to half the deficit but provide more investment to help the economy grow).
Osborne tried out austerity for a couple of year and almost put us into a double dip recession in 2012 (it can be argued the the Olympics and associated economic activity saved us from that), but then had to ramp up spending to stop the economy grinding to a stop.
The result was that the Tory led government only managed to half the deficit, but with little of the growth that the investment that Labour had proposed would have produced. So we ended up with a smaller economy than we would have had but with the same level of debt.
I do though agree with the conclusions. With households and companies paying down debt there is less credit/debit being created by the banks and government spending to support jobs needs to continue for at least another year and maybe beyond, and supplement the job support with infrastructure spending – council house building could be a start. That said there need to come a point when the new reality is recognised and non profitable companies allowed to go to the wall.
https://m.huffingtonpost.co…
Great piece. This was interesting. Tax thresholds being used to encourage investment and hiring.
Something I’ve never understood is how those from the ‘business’ community always are the ones to insist that government must always run balanced budgets, that fiscal austerity is a good and necessary thing… while they invariably float corporate bonds and borrow funds to run their own businesses, and particularly when they find themselves in a down-turn for whatever reason. The old expression, and entirely correct expression, is that it takes money to make money. The only way a government ‘makes money’ is to either increase taxes or increase the tax base all other being equal. The latter takes money, and so again… why do the ‘fiscally conservative’ object?
Keynesianism has its place and has worked in certain circumstances, examples being Japan, pre-war USA, post-war West Germany, Britain & USA plus one might also add China into the mix. It worked where there were large pools of idle labour and low aggregate demand. The government investment helped create industries, companies and jobs. Once successful, many of the companies were either completely sold off or semi-privatised.
The situation now seems somewhat different. We had relatively high demand up to March 2020 then pulled the rug away. We have run the state finances into the ground propping up once successful companies and businesses and, through furlough, paying people not to work. We are stuck because we know that if we withdraw the subsidies the system will collapse. Keynesian economics was about rebuilding a collapsed system not wasting vast amounts propping up a successful one.
Western Europe has engaged in economic self-destruction in 2020 and it is hard to see how it will recover. In an era of ultra efficient high tech, it is hard for Government or companies to generate the number of jobs required. The future does not look bright however you cut it.
Our present global crisis is “unequivocally a crisis of demand”? But surely it is also one of supply, perhaps even more so in the days to come? With rumours of global shipping being under collapse as a result of the crisis, surely our supply problems are only just beginning? I’m sure the 250,000 or so sub-Saharan African kids who are slated to die this year by the UN due to the lock-downs will view it unequivocally as a crisis of supply.
Another worrying point, is that investment by government is seen as uncritically a good thing. I am open to persuasion, but the track record has historically been pretty abysmal. Politicians love a certain kind of fancy project, which then gain a huge amount of support from vested interests and can never be killed off, despite changing circumstances and objectives. Ah, HS2, the cavalry coming over the hill to help Cleethorpes very soon…..
We should never have been put into this nonsense position, lock down at any stage was not necessary, Sweden was the model we should have chosen. As for Sunak his approach is very mixed and he has not been at all brave in trying to fix our stupid tax system.
I think the thing that can get us out of this will be inflation and that’s what I expect to see encouraged from around the end of next year to however long it takes, coupled with great encouragement for true entrepreneurs.
I remember inflation in the 70’s happening to a society unable to react and it nearly broke us…in the eighties it wasn’t a significant problem, indeed according to most people comparing *now* to *then* the ‘Boomers’ had so good they were laughing fatcakes