A report that we look forward to reviewing every year is the Global Risks report that is published by the World Economic Forum (WEF). The 2013 issue was released earlier this year, in time for the big WEF Annual Meeting held in Davos Switzerland in January.

Ho hum, another convention of economists? Not at all. We would be hard-pressed to describe how influential this organization and its members have become around the world. Originally founded by Klaus Schwab in 1971, this organization has come to represent the absolute pinnacle of International Man. Some 2500 leaders participate in this invitation-only event from over 100 countries.

If you are a global mover and shaker, you need to be invited to the Davos meetings. It has become the highest recognition of what has popularly and also derisively come to be called the Davos Man. It comprises a self-reinforcing assembly of individuals thought to have something to contribute to “the global agenda.” After all, the WEF’s stated mission is to “improve the state of the world.” In a recent article, Mr. Schwab stated that “the need for global cooperation has never been greater.”

Of significance is the fact that the WEF is financially supported by 1000 members. Who are they? All are companies, typically very large global firms. The average revenue of these companies is in excess of $5 billion (therefore collectively representing perhaps as much as 10% of world GDP). As we have often documented, “transnational corporations” (also called multinational corporations — MNC’s) as a group, are the most powerful economic (and, yes, also geopolitical) force in the world. Their influence over governments and global organizations is not to be underestimated.

We would not be surprised if even larger, more-powerful corporate entities were to emerge in the future. Already today, the globe-spanning MNC is regarded as more reliable and credit-worthy than most sovereign nations. Indeed, some MNCs have more employees than many countries have populations.

However, the intent of our discussion of the WEF is not to examine the state of the world’s economies or its companies but rather to focus on the “soul” (for lack of a better term) of the WEF. In other words, we want to take a Biblical worldview. Just what is the WEF “spirit” all about?

Political scientist Samuel P. Huntington some time ago coined the term “Davos Man.” This was meant to characterize the typical attendee: an international “business leader” without nationality…the elite globalist. This view is not misplaced. The WEF indeed has become the pinnacle of Global Man…the International Elite. We would even consider it to be the Mecca of the Commercial Humanism…the present Global High Temple of Self-determinative Mankind.

Our comments here are not meant to mock the activities of the WEF. We think that many of its initiatives are worthy pursuits. Civil society, after all, is charged to manage its affairs upon earth in a manner of stewardship and justice. Dominion of the earth was given to man (Genesis 1:26, 28). As such, mankind is in charge. Seeking to better manage societies, countries, economies or foreign relations, in itself is not a bad thing. Where the problems arise is when mankind chooses to do so without God.

The WEF most certainly gives very little thought to any imperatives of religious faith of any kind. Its perspective is completely “materialist.” Its definition of success is economic growth and more global cooperation.

Its definition of “risk” is predominantly measured in terms of economic impact and financial loss. Risk to them is not so much the unknowing of the future, but the possibility of events and developments that could cause economic upsets in the future. All mention of religion in its policy statements and research, with the exception of one we will yet review, is only in terms of negative risks.

Of all the myriad factors impacting the future outlook of the world mentioned in the 80-page report, the main context in which religion was mentioned was in the phrase “rising religious fanaticism.” Moreover, it is stated to have been the concern only of “non-experts” that were involved in the completion of the report. While this is not entirely surprising, one would have at least expected mention of the growing influence of “geosectarianism” (the rising role of religion in geopolitical affairs). The report therefore assumes a subtly derisive stance with respect to religions.

Most assuredly, as would be expected with an organization sponsored by 1,000 leading companies from around the globe, the WEF is committed to the increase of worldly wealth. Their control of massive economic resources ensures that their voice is heard and that they and their corporations will be rewarded in the future.

The WEF clearly represents the rich, powerful and elite of the world coming together to determine the world’s future. In its collected wisdom, it purports to provide the answers and solutions to mankind’s continuing future progress.

The Bible warns of such conceits. “The rich are wise in their own eyes; one who is poor and discerning sees how deluded they are” (Proverbs 28:11). “Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight” (Isaiah 5:21). That mankind wishes to forge its own way is the spirit of the world that has always existed. The only difference today is that this takes the form of a global mankind which is unified in this self-determinative objective. Powerful globe-spanning organizations such as the WEF are at work (as well as others). In the case of the WEF, it perpetuates the common interests of commerce for mankind.

We note several interesting snippets from the latest Global Risks report. Risks from nature are said to be “X” factors. Since these factors are in the sphere of “total chance” and “unpredictability” (or as Bible believers would view, things completely under the dominion of God) they are called “X” factors. One belief stated is that the development of superhuman cognitive abilities (which, in their view, is “fast approaching the horizon of plausibility”) could destabilize the world into factions — the cognitively-enhanced and the non-enhanced.

For all the ponderous human intelligence supposedly behind this report, its occasional banality is therefore all the more pronounced. Consider that the report dedicates a section to the possibility of the discovery of alien life. The report is optimistic that there is life elsewhere in the universe. Quoting the report: “It will tell us that the origin of life is ‘easy’ — that anyplace in the universe life can emerge, it will emerge. […] The discovery of even simple life would […] challenge many assumptions which underpin human philosophy and religion.” This is the only other mention of religion in the report.

There need be little doubt that the WEF represents worldliness and hubris at its height. They seem to be sure that God is subject to having His assumptions challenged. As such, it excels at representing the interests of the world of Mammon.

What we see today is that the vernacular of commerce has become the common language of a new Babel. Business leaders from more than 100 countries can get together at venues such as the WEF to “talk shop” and fully understand each other. It is one more indicator of the season of the world. Bible-believing Christians will find this “sign of the times” yet one more confirmation.

The Bible states that there are two spheres — that of God and Mammon. These two “economies” are in direct opposition. It is as two magnets with the same poles that repel each other. The Kingdom of God has love as its common currency. Why? Love is the only motivational system that is said to never fail. “Love never fails” (1 Corinthians 13:8). Mammon, in contrast, has gain and self-interest as its motivational system. Such things as the “love of money,” profits and gain are its incentives.

Though Mammon and the Kingdom of God can never come together, it is true that Christianity often teaches that Mammon and God can work hand in hand. We have called this the final ecumenism where all the religions of the world will agree that their paths and purposes all lead to prosperity on earth. (In Christian circles, prosperity theology may likely be a step in that direction.)

The Apostle John isolated the key motivations defining the world. “For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world” (1 John 2:16).

Expressed in more familiar terms, the world today is defined by the quest for fleshly satiation and consumerism; power, influence and celebrity; and self-determination which is the ability to determine what one will say and do. If any one or more of these impulses has commanded our attention and striving, we are not walking with the Lord. To do so is to be a devotee of Mammon.

In reality, according to the Bible, all the wealth of the world that goads the ungodly to the competitive striving for wealth, power and self-determination is only a fleeting distraction, not even offering the semblance of real wealth. Jesus Christ said this: “If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches” (Luke 16:11).

What are the true riches? Only those which last eternally. In short, heavenly rewards and eternal salvation. That is not to say that Christians cannot work in business or commerce. However, they serve a different master. The Apostle Paul lays out our objectives in this way: “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving” (Colossians 3:23- 24).

In the world’s perspective, earth becomes the eternal home. Real riches are not to be found in heaven. This same Jesus who said, “I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings” (Luke 16:9) is not expected to return to gather up His faithful. Instead of “using worldly wealth” to translate into heavenly treasures, the stockpiling and hoarding of temporal wealth has become the purpose of human life on the earth that shall pass away.

Recently, we have noted a number of articles by economists and financial observers which comment upon the deteriorating state of “values” and “virtues.” We found this more than interesting.

Why?

As we have often observed, economists and policymakers do not like to define their arts in moralistic terms. For several reasons, they would like their views and prescriptions to be interpreted amorally…i.e. not involving morality. It certainly is rare to find any mention of “morality” in the Wall Street literature. Where it is allowed to speak of values, the term “virtue” or some other abstract idea devoid of moralistic content is usually used. Those who do raise the issue of “values” or “virtue” therefore do not make any references to a universal standard of morality. Were they to do so, their “scientific” pedigree and card-carrying humanism would surely be discredited. How so? Because the term “morality” is seen to imply an absolutist, non-negotiable Truth that requires a belief in the existence of God.

As such, this concept of morality is too constraining and intolerant for the liberal mind. Rather, the efficacy of amoral policies is defined solely in terms of materialism and human happiness. If overall wealth (however loosely and imperfectly defined) and economic growth go up, this is “good” and if they trend down, this is “bad.” Whether or not people will agree with this premise, it remains that the aggregate behavior of our modern societies does conform to this new definition of what is right and wrong.

Therefore, we think it of note that there is so much recent discussion of “lack of virtues” and “social debasement.” What is most interesting is that an appeal is made to a sense of “virtue” but only in total isolation from any standard of morality or reference to God. This is an astounding leap of non-logic for people who like to consider themselves “wise.” Nevertheless, some very important points are made in these discourses on “virtue.” We next make reference to a number of these comments.

Populist Perceptions on Non-Morality Malfunction

James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, in an article entitled “What Happened to Virtue,” queries: “The old fashioned ideas of hard work and self-reliance are made out to be anachronistic. […] It must be asked, where did the ideas of virtue originally come from and what role do they play in humanity?” He complains: “In the modern era, it would seem as if classic virtues (basic ideas of right and wrong) have lost their appeal. In their place has been a concentrated effort to promote those actions once thought of as deserving of moral condemnation.”

He makes many valid observations in regards to the ideal of virtue having diminished, and cites examples of such corrupted behaviors in the economic realm. We agree with his observations and share his sense of concern.

Yet, amazingly, he argues that virtue comes from nature. He cites the cardinal virtues defined by Thomas Aquinas — prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude — and says “These virtues, it is held, stem from nature and are discoverable through reason alone; a spiritual authority is not needed for their confirmation.”

While, on the one hand, it is rare that any economist today would write about “virtue” and such classical things as “morals” (and so we at least like to be encouraging of such discourse) he is unable to provide any real anchor and motive for virtue.

None of the cardinal virtues mentioned by Aquinas “stem from nature.” Evolution has no need for such concepts nor is it able to evolve such non-physical values. Values are not propagated through chromosomes. The very fact that Mr. Miller displays a sense of “justice” proves that there exists a “spiritual authority,” this being the God of Creation.

Mr. Miller closes his essay with this comment: “There isn’t a shred of decency in how governments or central banks operate. Their functions run antithetical to the basic virtues of mankind. If we as a species are to use our reason and free will to better our lives, the institutionalized violence the state embodies must be rejected.”

We would certainly agree with the first part of this comment. However, this comment implies another key observation: A society that no longer regards virtue will be given over to its public institutions that will not strive to maintain virtue. The opposite would be true as well. If democratic societies insist upon virtue, they will foster institutions that maintain such values.

To develop this connection further, we next turn to a report written by Dylan Grice of Société Générale entitled Memo to Central Banks: You’re Debasing More Than our Currency. He asserts that monetary devaluation undermines trust and that social cohesion is undermined as a result. As such, social devaluation goes hand-in-hand with monetary corruption. He calls these the Great Disorders. He then cites historical examples.

He links, for example, the great monetary debasement of the late Roman Empire with “social debasement.” He suggests that during such times of monetary upheaval, “scapegoating” and social infighting increase.

We reproduce two graphs (please see Mr. Grice’s report supporting this link: #1. Declining silver content of a Roman denarius; and #2. Turnover of Roman Emperors during the Third Century Crisis. Mr. Grice suggests that this “debased” social environment of Rome contributed to the persecution of Christians.

He also links the increasing incidence of witch trials in 17th century New England to rising inflation and similar “social debasement” phenomena taking place in France as leading to the terror of the French Revolution in the 19thcentury. We are not sure of all these connections exactly; however, it is true that monetary corruption must have an impact on the values of all society. It is not a victimless crime.

Other economists/anthropologists have also made the connection between deteriorating societal morality and monetary debasement. A number of writers have observed how a deterioration in “public personality” (another euphemism that avoids the word “morality” in the academic literature) coincided with the monetary dishonesties of the German Weimar era that took place between 1919 and 1933.

As people could no longer trust the value of money (this being a major avenue of communication between people), a sense of hopelessness and truthlessness set in. Morality was affected all around. For example, teenage pregnancies rose.

It is arguable which precedes the other: Moral deterioration of monetary policies or that of society at large? Whatever the case, they go hand-in-hand for most of the slippery downward slide. One cannot occur without the other. Therein lies the grave state of Western societies today…certainly that of North America.

Given these historical examples, one can only conclude by the state of central banking corruption today that Western society must be fast heading to the very bottom of debasement possibilities. Incredible immorality and ungodliness prevails. A state of hopelessness and truthlessness has only just begun in this writer’s opinion.

In the meantime, the lawlessness of monetary institutions continues to be guided by a belief in the boundless achievement possible through humanism and that there is no such thing as a “wrong” which requires atonement or consequence. All efforts that seek to escape the consequences of wrongs (sins), or depend upon the belief that errors, whether moral or physical, have no impact, will soon discover that virtue and truth are being debased.

Ungodliness Works Consequences

Quoting from the Feature Article of the August 2012 EVR, “We live in a dangerous world where prices abound without values; and costs are only measured in prices. In such a world the price becomes the value and values are separated from real costs. What that means is that the common denominator of what is right becomes the price.”

It only follows that views and actions based upon such definitions of price and godlessness are ungodly. That surely will be seen to be an intolerant statement. But, why should anyone who does not accept the existence of God be offended by being called “ungodly?”

They choose a godless belief system that requires a higher level of faith and factual malleability than that of any simpleton Christian (this being the Christian of popular conception today). In return, the Bible is no less complimentary of those who deny the existence of God, saying: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1).

However, the Bible goes further in this verse and clearly outlines the consequences of such “godlessness,” saying “They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good” (Psalm 14:1).

As such, it should be no surprise that by Biblical standards, societies are devolving into greater godlessness.