HILL: The Great Reset
If you haven’t heard about The Great Reset yet, you will.
Joe Biden’s “Build Back Better” slogan, of which no one knew the meaning or purpose, is a direct lift from The Great Reset Manifesto, let’s call it, concocted by the dreamy-eyed elites of the world who attend annual ritzy, star-studded winter retreats in Davos, Switzerland under the auspices of the World Economic Forum.
“In short” the wealthy elites of the world proclaim to the rest of the world, “we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”
To save the world, these elites demand “the world must act … to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions; …every country… must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed”.
In other words, these elites demand that the entire world embrace socialism; impose much higher wealth taxes, which they will avoid paying, that’s a given; promulgate onerous regulations on banking and industry; and pass massive Green New Deals, which would “only” cost U.S. taxpayers and consumers $93 trillion to implement.
Liberal socialists never say anything about cutting government spending, lowering government regulatory burdens on business and people, getting rid of archaic government programs that have been proven ineffective, or removing legal barriers for people who want to start a business and provide a better life for their family.
Liberal socialists simply believe a lot more government is good. Conservatives don’t. It is pretty much that simple.
Every command issued by Great Reset/One World Government proponents strikes at the core of American individualism. American individualism and self-initiative led to the creation of such ground-breaking innovations as the IPhone, Amazon and Google, nothing close to which has ever been invented under socialist or communist regimes. Wait until the Great Reset dries up American innovation; Millennials and liberals will then see the adverse side of too much governmental control of our economy, then they will be ready for more free market capitalism.
Americans should understandably feel a little queasy when they hear Prince Charles or Canadian PM Justin Trudeau gush about how the COVID pandemic provides the “perfect opportunity” to change everything. Only totalitarians at heart think a pandemic or crisis is “a great time to impose their will on the world.” Hitler took power during the post-WWI economic depression in Germany to “restore the Fatherland,” to name perhaps the worst case in recent history.
Our Love-Hate Relationship with Gimmicks
When Jennifer Egan’s novel “A Visit from the Goon Squad” won the Pulitzer Prize, in 2011, much fuss was made over its penultimate chapter, which presents the diary of a twelve-year-old girl in the form of a seventy-six-page PowerPoint presentation. Despite the nearly universal acclaim that the novel had received, critics had trouble deciding whether the PowerPoint was a dazzling, avant-garde innovation or, as one reviewer described it, “a wacky literary gimmick,” a cheap trick that diminished the over-all value of the novel. In an interview with Egan, the novelist Heidi Julavits confessed to dreading the chapter before she read it, and then experiencing a happy relief once she had. “I live in fear of the gimmicky story that fails to rise above its gimmick,” she said. “But within a few pages I totally forgot about the PowerPoint presentation, that’s how ungimmicky your gimmick was.”
The word “gimmick” is believed to come from “gimac,” an anagram of “magic.” The word was likely first used by magicians, gamblers, and swindlers in the nineteen-twenties to refer to the props they wielded to attract, and to misdirect, attention—and sometimes, according to “The Wise-Crack Dictionary,” from 1926, to turn “a fair game crooked.” From such duplicitous beginnings, the idea of gimmickry soon spread. In Vladimir Nabokov’s novel “Invitation to a Beheading,” from 1935, a mother distracts her imprisoned son from counting the hours to his execution by describing the “marvelous gimmicks” of her childhood. The most shocking, she explains, was a trick mirror. When “shapeless, mottled, pockmarked, knobby things” were placed in front of the mirror, it would reflect perfectly sensible forms: flowers, fields, ships, people. When confronted with a human face or hand, the mirror would reflect a jumble of broken images. As the son listens to his mother describe her gimmick, he sees her eyes spark with terror and pity, “as if something real, unquestionable (in this world, where everything was subject to question), had passed through, as if a corner of this horrible life had curled up, and there was a glimpse of the lining.” Behind the mirror lurks something monstrous—an idea of art as device, an object whose representational powers can distort and devalue just as easily as they can estrange and enchant.
Stakeholder vs. Shareholder Capitalism: What Is Ideal Today?
At Morningstar, we’re proud that our research teams not only operate
independently but that our analysts are encouraged to explore ideas and
raise contrarian viewpoints. The enemy of any research organization is
groupthink. A research organization needs to hire people who aren’t
afraid of challenging the status quo and who are always thinking about
how to foster a culture where people feel comfortable speaking up and
encouraging us all to think harder and sharper.
And we debate just about everything. Is the market overvalued? Should private equity be allowed into retirement plans? What categories are most suited to active investors? How much should an annuity cost? And I’d say one of the hottest areas of debate these days is ESG. Does ESG help or hurt investing performance? What ESG risks are truly material to cash flows? What should be included in a “globe rating,” and on and on.
Within the field of sustainable investing and with it evolving so rapidly, there is really no facet that we don’t debate. And today, we’ve asked a group of researchers from across Morningstar to represent opposing sides of a particular ESG argument. But we didn’t have to look far for one that’s taken centerstage in 2020.
Conscious Capitalism: Giving All Stakeholders a Seat at the Table
Karl Khoury and Russell Diez-Canseco were on separate journeys to bring more meaning to their personal and professional lives when their paths crossed in 2014. Now, the two businessmen are linked by the common goal of conscious capitalism.
Khoury is co-founder and partner at Arborview Capital, a Maryland-based environmental impact investment firm, and Diez-Canseco is president and CEO at Vital Farms, an ethical food company producing egg and butter products from a network of more than 200 family farms. Arborview Capital is an investor in Vital Farms, and Khoury sits on the board of directors.
“This isn’t about eggs and butter. This is about an operating system and an ethos,” Diez-Canseco said about Vital Farms. “We are wired to operate differently. We have different outcomes for all stakeholders than other companies that produce the commodities that we happen to produce.”
Khoury and Diez-Canseco spoke with Katherine Klein, vice dean for the Wharton Social Impact Initiative, during a recent episode of the Dollars and Change podcast. (Listen to the podcast at the top of this page; find more episodes here.)
Both had considerable success in following traditional paths after business school and were far down the career road when they decided something was missing. In 2008, Khoury partnered with Wharton alum Joe Lipscomb to create Arborview and invest exclusively in companies that are helping to build a more sustainable economy.