The World Economic Forum (WEF) summit at Davos has always been a meeting of technocrats. A place where financial and industrial elites, slowly replaced by technological ones, could mix freely with political representatives to promote their interests. This year’s summit offers a window into the world that is coming.
You might remember the theme for the 2021 edition, which never took place because of COVID; it was titled “The Great Reset.” Klaus Schwab, founder and former chairman of the organization, summarized the core proposal in three initiatives: promoting a “stakeholder economy,” governing through environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics, and “harnessing the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”
When taken together, these initiatives pushed for a corporate-like reorganization of the political field, merging it with economic management. No political parties—only the system was to remain, with a well-oiled managerial class. This was a step closer to achieving what the 2016 Davos vision was for 2030, summarized in the infamous slogan, “You will own nothing and you will be happy.”
Notwithstanding the change in rhetoric that discards any kind of environmental concern or agenda, it can be argued that the program continues ahead without significant change. A key indication is this year’s main subject of discussion, artificial intelligence, and Donald Trump’s signing of the charter of the Board of Peace.
That Trump has chosen Davos as the stage on which to bring to life his new international organization should not be read lightly. The Board of Peace is not a rival to other international organizations, such as the United Nations, but a new blueprint of international sovereignty. Although presented as a multilateral organization, the Board of Peace rests firmly in the executive power of its lifetime chairman, Donald Trump.
Gaza—the humanitarian crisis invoked to justify the initiative—barely features in the organization’s design. Instead, it is handled through parallel mechanisms that reduce Palestinian governance to technical administration under external oversight. In this light, Gaza was never the objective, but the pretext.
Built on the legal footing of a UN Security Council resolution, the Board of Peace will enjoy international legitimacy as a sovereign organization not accountable to any particular state. The structure is designed as a potential financial vehicle shielded by diplomatic immunity and extraterritorial privileges, a prerogative reserved until now for a few financial entities, such as the Bank for International Settlements.
With the power to dissolve the organization at will and to appoint his successor, Trump has created a new kind of personal international entity that could rival nation-states and multilateral organizations. Its charter makes it similar to multinational corporations but with diplomatic status and sovereignty. It’s a 21st-century version of the Western colonial trading companies.
The Board of Peace’s first project will be Gaza. We have already seen what Trump envisions: “The Riviera of the Middle East.” But it is not unreasonable to think that there will be others. Could Trump’s Board of Peace purchase a territory and put it under its jurisdiction—for example, Greenland? He has already said that the U.S. should purchase it and that he already has a “framework” for negotiations.
Greenland might not be related at all to the Board of Peace, whose success and lasting impact are far from guaranteed. In fact, it could very well be stillborn. However, what it points to is that we are entering a new age in politics. Perhaps Polybius was right and we are seeing the transition from a democracy/ochlocracy to a monarchy, and Trump sits in between.
However, if that is the case, then the coming kingdom—or kingdoms—will be digitally controlled ones with a CEO at their head. What would governance look like? For that, we might turn to this year’s Davos main unstated theme: artificial intelligence.
The explosion of investment in generative artificial intelligence, especially in the U.S. but with replicas around the world, is not explainable by market logic. There is no viable use case to justify it. And perhaps that is actually the point.
After the financial bubble has exploded—which undoubtedly it will—what will remain? Thousands of power-hungry data centers, which, coupled with highly developed algorithms, make a perfect combination for large-scale, society-wide mass surveillance, control, and indoctrination. At that point, either the state or a state-sanctioned company—or a state company—will step in and take charge of the infrastructure.
Although perhaps there won’t be a difference between the public and private sectors. This merger is already happening. Palantir Technologies is already so involved with the U.S. defense establishment that it is difficult to say where one ends and the other begins. But this is also true, to a different extent, with other large technology companies in the U.S., both with regard to hardware and software.
This phenomenon is not U.S.-centric only. In China, it is the model. The government has firm control of industry, technological development, and finance. That does not mean that there are no private enterprises, but the largest player—with the most leverage and control, able to sanction others or change the rules—is the state.
This model, which is managerial and not a political one—for the state is the party and the party the state—has been optimized through technology. The rise of China over the last thirty years goes hand in hand with the rise of digital technologies. Centralization might be detrimental when decisions have to be made by human committees.
However, when those same processes can be automated not only to be faster, but to take into account vast amounts of information, then they might become more efficient. This, perhaps, is one of the reasons why China has overtaken the U.S., and how the latter aims to leap ahead through algorithmic governance.
From the other side of the ocean, U.S. technologists have learned the lesson but are applying it differently. The state is not to take over the private sector, but the private sector over the state. In order for that to be possible, two things are necessary: control over the population and control over the currency.
The first is well underway through control of mass media, social media, and education. But that, in itself, is not new. What is new is the capacity that generative AI, connected to our information stream, has not only to steer our conscious attention and create desire, but to generate the very field of conscious possibilities. A recent video shared by Yves on this platform illustrated how this is shaping young learners’ brains to be, very bluntly, almost brainless.
The second—control over the currency—could be argued to be, in a Heideggerian fashion, the ultimate goal of technological development. It is modern finance that has allowed the development of modern technology, which in turn will transform and overtake finance. Another use for vast data-center resources and algorithmic development could be large-scale implementations of central digital currencies.
Central digital currencies are not an iteration of our current form of fiat currency. The transition from one to the other would be equally significant—though perhaps far more far-reaching in its consequences—than the end of the gold standard.
Current fiat currency has an intrinsic nominal value. This value is not directly manipulable after the currency has been issued. There are other forms—mainly inflation through credit creation and further currency issuance—to manipulate its value, but each nominal unit retains its value. Central bank digital currencies, however, are not like that. Not only can their value be directly manipulated—or even canceled—they can also be programmed to function only under particular circumstances.
The implementation of central digital currencies, which are a control mechanism, requires the physical extension of hardware and software—which is well underway—as well as concrete territories of applicability. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why we are seeing a return to the “zone of influence” concept.
If this is to happen—which I think is a question of time—there will be fundamental changes in how our societies work. In a financialized society, in which an individual needs money to eat, drink, sleep, and perhaps soon to even breathe, a change in the nature of money is not a mere secondary consequence but a foundational aspect of how the system works.
This type of change, which is akin to a revolution, will displace some elites and will elevate others. Which is why we are seeing some politicians in Davos coming to terms with an inescapable reality: the system they upheld was a fraudulent design to keep some elites in power.
It was none other than Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, who said those words. He, who previously was the governor of the Bank of England, is realizing his class is being pushed aside. The financiers will be replaced by the technologists.
That is the war being fought right now in the United States. Matt Stoller, in his latest newsletter, brilliantly summarized the conflict and offered this as an update of the current status:
I want to highlight an important moment on Capitol Hill last week that could dictate the future of finance in America. On Thursday, the Senate Banking Committee abruptly canceled its meeting, known as a mark-up, to write little-noticed legislation to deregulate the financial system. And the reason is that two of the more powerful forces in D.C.—the banking lobby and the new MAGA-powered crypto world—came into conflict. The result, so far, is a stalemate.
Trump will pass, and his “Board of Peace” might go with him, but the changes he is heralding—and the technology to underwrite them—will remain. Not because they are a break from the system, but because they are its logical development.
That is what Martin Heidegger warned of when he said that the essence of technology is not to be found in it as a tool, but as “enframing.” That is, a particular set of assumptions about what the world is and how it functions, which unleashes consequential circumstances
28 comments
Comments are closed.
Adam Tooze, one of our men on the ground, reports from Davos. A total out of body experience:
https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-250-after-the-thugs
Adam Tooze is a disappointment. Brilliant historian of the Third Reich: nauseatingly smug and whiny liberal commentator.
Much better than Tooze’s impressions of a pearl-clutching insider was this piece linked in its comments by Feral Finster (who may be the same as posted under that name at FTAlphaville and possibly here).
https://indi.ca/wolves-crying-wolf-canada-denmark-etc/
The thought occurred to me that the “Board of Peace” is going to end up like most (or all?) of Trump’s real estate developments: bankrupt and only attended and used by wannabes and has l-beens. Just another bold decree from a guy with almost a 50 year long long track record of over-promising and under-delivering. Or not delivering at all.
It will be the Atlantic City of international organizations.
Your mouth to God’s ears.
Thank you Curro, I hope you don’t mind if I introduce some polemic in your article. Polemic, not criticism. I find your article great in part because it invites thinking (then polemic).
First point is the least important and goes with your 4th paragraph where you mention a change in WEF rhetoric which discards environmental concerns or agendas. Precisely today I was reading a WEF document published in 2024 which deals with climate change action (or inaction if you wish) at the EU level. It’s about the so-called European Green Deal, not fashionable now I admit it, but shows that there is an agenda, and that agenda seems to be that the corporate world wants to own the Green Deal or at least have a lot to say about it through so-called Public Private Partnerships. Not all WEF participants may be interested on this but at least some are. Apart from this, some in the financial world seems to be trying to instrumentalize climate change action as a way to become the owners of the best natural “assets” or “infrastructures” (as they call them) like the Amazon, Congo River Basin, coastal mangroves, boreal forests… via issuance of Amazonia Bonds, for instance. So, there is an environmental agenda.
Second point is I had trouble understanding China as a model that the US is following though in a different way with regards to AI and/or military issues. I found paragraphs 13-15 confusing to me. Don’t worry those might be my limitations with English.
It is where you talk about Central Digital Currencies when I get lost. I don’t know if you are talking about central crypto something or if it just the digital (purely digital currency i guess) thingy which I do not completely understand. Will ultimately the banks stop being the issuers of money via credit? Will all kinds of credit forms and money (within each central currency) be 100% centralized by digitalization? IMO, here you used shortcuts which need explanation Curro. May be this item merits focus in a single post.
Ignacio, CBDC is a reasonably clear but evolving concept, and, already, in 2026:
– Over 90% of central banks are exploring CBDCs.
– 64+ countries are in advanced stages (pilot, development, or launched).
– Only a few nations, like the Bahamas (Sand Dollar), Nigeria (eNaira), Jamaica (Jam-Dex), and China (digital yuan in pilot), have launched or are extensively testing CBDCs.
– Major economies, including the EU (digital euro) and UK (digital pound), are in preparation or consultation phases, with no final rollout decisions yet.
– The U.S. remains in research mode, with no concrete launch plans.
While the concept is reasonably well-understood technically, real-world implementation and buy-in from users is seriously under-discussed (some say ‘restricted’) and might benefit from Curro’s thoughts on the matter being publicised and debated further.
This site has published a fair number of articles over the years (probably well over a dozen by now) on the topic of CBDCs, including on Nigeria’s painful experience with the eNaira, which seems to have finally been abandoned (in favour of stablecoins); China’s digital yuan, and recent developments in Europe, the UK and the US. A few samples:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/03/the-world-quietly-took-another-step-toward-embracing-central-bank-digital-currencies.html
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/11/one-year-in-the-first-ever-cbdc-of-a-largish-economy-nigerias-enaira-is-a-complete-flop.html
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/03/after-nigerias-enaira-disaster-another-live-central-bank-digital-currency-jamaicas-jam-dex-founders.html
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2023/06/the-digital-euro-like-all-prospective-cbdcs-has-a-serious-marketing-problem.html
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/03/stable-coins-vs-cbdc-us-and-eu-take-divergent-paths-to-same-destination-programmable-money.html
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/08/the-new-currency-war-us-stablecoin-china-digital-yuan-rivalry-as-a-test-of-monetary-discipline.html
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/01/mbridge-a-bank-of-international-settlements-project-hyped-by-brics-fans-as-a-way-to-evade-sanctions-shut-down.html
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/08/demand-for-cash-in-euro-area-is-rebounding-as-ecb-prepares-to-launch-digital-euro.html
Perhaps post-modern monetary theory that echoes the original handmaid’s tale. Hopefully a tale to tell and not to live in.
I have a hunch, in true American fashion, that a private digital dollar will be utilized by the U.S. BlackRock’s Circle USDC comes to mind. They had a good presence at last year’s Davos
My personal belief regarding CBDC’s is this:
What would really set such currencies apart from the digitized currencies in use today? Right now the existing digitized currencies are fully fungible (Not sure what other term to use). If I transfer $1 from my account to yours, and you have 99 other dollars in your account, which of those dollars was the one that came from my account? You cannot tell- they are identical. I believe the drive for these things is something they are not telling us, and to me, the two things I am going to point to are the only things that make the fetish for CBDC’s make any sense.
1. Traceability of individual currency units. This would allow them to track movements and better map associations- in real time. I think this would greatly strengthen the panopticon.
2. The ability to turn specific currency units on and off, or to delete them- remotely. Our overlords have form, and this would give them the ability to punish individuals, organizations, and entire nations. No middle-man like banks, or SWIFT needed, and it could possibly be done covertly or unexpectedly, as opposed to going through a political process of sanctioning or lawfare that would give the target(s) a warning and allow them to prepare.
Maybe I am nuts, but these are the possibilities I see. What on Earth could motivate this drive toward CBDC’s? I think people all assume it is about further authoritarian control, but nobody has ever spelled out what that actually is, from what I have seen/read, so these are my foily thoughts on the matter. I would love to hear what others think is the real motivation behind all of this.
The german economist Richard Werner has a very interesting take on the issuing of CBDCs: https://youtu.be/tNCaplC_xAQ?si=lKkizYZavbZjl5oj
Thank you
You’re not nuts and that’s what it’s about.
There are many kinds of artificial intelligence besides the genAI this article describes, and the article doesn’t address a core use of AI: war. Putin of Russia said he considered AI as strategically equally as important as nuclear weapons. If your adversary has drone swarms and you don’t, you’re in trouble. If humans become unimportant or of secondary importance as frontline combat soldiers in peer conflicts – a serious possibility being gamed out right now – then a nation without a strong AI-driven robot capability is effectively helpless, as if pre-disarmed in any conflict against a robot army.
Recent reports show the massive impact of automated weapons in Ukraine. Humans often hardly see each other, there is a no-go zone for miles past the line-of-contact on either side. Things like staging assaults, storing larger things like vehicles, and moving around are all difficult with the drones overhead at any time, including with excellent night vision. The side with the better tech and greater production is consistently succeeding.
Even if war-related spending was the only ‘market’ for AI, there is a massive world-wide weapons market that would drive plenty of investment. I feel like the surveillance and social control aren’t lighting the same fire under people as the prospect of being severely overmatched by Russia or China in a war. And of course all that ‘innovation’ will go into social control as the author describes.
Thank you Curro! A lot to absorb here, I’ll be reading it more than a couple times.
But leaning into the Carney truth bomb angle, this is no longer the World Economics Forum, that would have to be a meeting which has the core BRICS members actively participating. This is a meeting of the Western Elite [Family Blog] Ups. These are the very people who have run the West into the ground. Their legacy is more Greenland like self destruction and the furtherance of the wreckage of the West. They have more planned. Lucky us!
Re. the M.Carney quote… didn’t he watch the original terminator movie? He and his class had plenty of warning(s) from the 1970s + 80s cyberpunk fiction. The old ‘steel’ power structures live in hope in that movie they, and Sarah Connor, and her son John, will beat the new digital/data technology. Who has the upper hand right now ..and where the hell is Sarah Conner? Even in the Blade Runner 1 and 2 fictions defeating tyranny, ( funny how that word rhymes with Tyrell) relies on mid tier insider enforcers( Dekard, and K) to turn when their own emotional/sexual maturity developed beyond ‘the dominant alienated systemic response’. Will the managerial class, if not already being in part automated or dumbed, perhaps both, rebel? My view is this class is being seduced by a nepotistic tribal sense of fundamentalism/religious belonging, without any real love of God or outsiders, and getting the rewards by not ‘running’.
…as an afterthought, your readers might like to watch a very relevant movie from 1970, which is a little dated in terms of scripting and pace, but it deals with Tech + AI + Surveillance + Nuclear …
“Colossus: The Forbin Project” …
staring the irresistibly suave Eric Braden. I suggest it as a movie review here….
It seemed a little over the top then, but given a recent powers willingness to use lethal military force to get it’s way, it’s right on the money…as the saying goes.
“Notwithstanding the change in rhetoric that discards any kind of environmental concern or agenda…”
If needed, they’ll use that for ill.
Mikel…too right!
For clarity, Eco/Environmental voters (in the West anyway), were allowed to frame the laws to protect water, land and sea, from Big Biz, and the laws were tight, so Big Biz outsourced the filthy industries, and the short and long term risk to people and the other lifeforms, ( think Bopal, Union Carbide disaster in India).
To b succinct, 1960s-70s the voting Left, having done degrees with native Americans in the USA, and Indigenous in OZ, they cut loose and had to counterculture to get political change, but welfared or debted straight back into working for the man… FF to 2008, the voting Right got their wake up moment by being Anne Randed, and cut loose, Millennials not able to buy a mansion despite doing everything correctly, leaving them to either go primary, off grid, or far right (….listening to their Pied Piper, in the USA).
While this may be a hot take, I think Humanity has entered a time period where radical climate changes will occur within human generations and will derail any medium to long term plans governments may have.
Overall, I do not disagree with your take of how things could develop. However, I do think the timeframes required will run into climate driven issues that will disrupt, if not fully collapse, such plans.
Mankind can wish for whatever it wants, but the Universe is under no obligation to facilitate such wishes.
Spot. On.
In an odd bittersweet way, I miss the frenetic Ronco tv ads created by the late Ron Popeil–“…And That’s Not All!” was their signature tag line. And there will be plenty of “all” affecting us all, climate-wise, very, very soon.
NC has carried some good coverage of recent, suspicious geographical mega-moves. The “tourists” who have incinerated hundreds of thousands of square miles/hectares in Patagonia. Sabre rattling about Greenland. Both oddly adjacent to areas that will stay “cold” a few decades before they, too, go off their weather rails.
The dreary calculus I see already baked in to our future accepts social destruction, soon to be followed civilizational collapse. Extinction will be hard to avoid.
Racing out to prune our small SoCal fruit orchard before it buds out months early, I think back on an English proverb, “…there’s many a slip ‘twixt cup and lip.”
Hey, at least there was good shareholder value for a while.
Spot. On.
In an odd bittersweet way, I miss the frenetic Ronco tv ads created by the late Ron Popeil–“…And That’s Not All!” was their signature tag line. And there will be plenty of “all” affecting us all, climate-wise, very, very soon.
NC has carried good coverage of recent, suspicious geographical mega-moves. The “tourists” who have incinerated vast stretches in Patagonia. Sabre rattling about Greenland. Both oddly adjacent to areas that will stay “cold” a few decades before they, too, go off their weather rails.
The dreary calculus I see already baked in to our future accepts social chaos, soon to be followed civilizational collapse. Extinction will be hard to avoid.
Racing out to prune our small SoCal fruit orchard before it buds out months early, I think back on an English proverb, “…there’s many a slip ‘twixt cup and lip.”
Hey, at least there was good shareholder value for a while.
“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders”
– from a cartoon by Tom Toro in the New Yorker in 2012
Great piece, Curro. Depressing as all hell, but accurate.
The dystopia we’re already living in is depressing the hell out of me and damaging my health. The anxiety of the dystopia we’re heading towards makes me want to cry. I’ve had a pretty good life, but what about my kid? what kind of nightmare will she inherit?
“What is new is the capacity that generative AI, connected to our information stream, has not only to steer our conscious attention and create desire, but to generate the very field of conscious possibilities.”
I also believe that the emergence of this new technological phenomenon helps to throw into question the general interpretative framework which many of our writers and commentariat at NC use to understand our world.
The economic dimension, while extremely important, can no longer stand by itself as the foundational causal variable that will give us our deepest insight into the future.
This has been one of the big mistakes in my own thinking. I now would argue that such variables as economics, individual consciousness, religion, and ideology are of equal importance in understanding our world.
As Emmanuel Todd has argued, the conscious (economic and political), the more subconscious (religion and education), as well as the more unconscious (the family structures which determine our individual mentalities) are all of equal importance.
To prioritize one of these variables as giving the deepest understanding may be an important logical mistake.
“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders”
– from a cartoon by Tom Toro in the New Yorker in 2012
The state is not to take over the private sector, but the private sector over the state.
This happened 25 years ago, as documented by political thinker Sheldon Wolin in his long-form essay Democracy Inc published in 2010. He calls this system Inverted Totalitarianism and we have lived under it for a quarter century.
As for CBDC’s, these will become a way to quash dissent.