In trying to track down an interview I saw about Davos 2015, my search started here.

The Socialist Party in the UK has the article Davos summit: ‘The pitchforks are coming!

At a packed Davos session a retired hedge fund manager made an interesting revelation. His former peers are planning their escapes. They’ve been buying airstrips and farms in remote locations just in case they need to make a quick getaway! Perhaps they’re heeding the advice of multi-millionaire Nick Hanauer who warned fellow oligarchs last year that “the pitchforks ARE coming!”

The interview I am looking for is with this unnamed hedge fund manager. I finally tracked down the article WEF Davos 2015 Hub Culture Interview Robert Johnson of the Institute for New Economic Thinking which featured the video below:

Robert Johnson of the Institute for New Economic Thinking feels that this Davos is quiet, people aren’t talking. And explains why, and what they should do about it.

There is also the interview Davos Economist: Elite Are Afraid of Ferguson-Style Riots.

Davos economist Robert Johnson, who made headlines this week for revealing that the wealthy are buying secret boltholes as a hedge against global instability, warned in a subsequent interview that the elite are also afraid of more riots in the mould of Ferguson, Missouri.

Along the way of my search, I found a number of other articles.

The Guardian in the UK has the article Davos 2015: world leaders ‘failing on social cohesion’, Davos 2015: overriding pessimism over growing inequality, As inequality soars, the nervous super rich are already planning their escapes. CNBC has many video in the article Davos 2015 – World Economic Forum. Many of the article themselves have links to other article.

Naked Capitalism has the article What Thomas Piketty and Larry Summers Don’t Tell You About Income Inequality by Lynn Parramore, Senior Editor at INET. Originally published at INET.  I think the article is an interview of economist Lance Taylor by Lynn Parramore. The article introduction explains the following:

In a new paper for the Institute For New Economic Thinking’s Working Group on the Political Economy of Distribution, economist Lance Taylor and his colleagues examine income inequality using new tools and models that give us a more nuanced — and frightening —picture than we’ve had before.  Their simulation models show how so-called “reasonable” modifications like modest tax increases on the wealthy and boosting low wages are not going to be enough to stem the disproportionate tide of income rushing toward the rich. Taylor’s research challenges the approaches of American policy makers, the assumptions of traditional economists, and some of the conclusions drawn by Thomas Piketty and Larry Summers. Bottom line: We’re not yet talking about the kinds of major changes needed to keep us from becoming a Downton Abbey society.

I’ll let you read the article to see what Taylor says about the causes and what can be done about it.  One thing that struck me was the following question and brief answer:

LP: In your view, is there anybody in the U.S. offering meaningful approaches to income inequality?

LT: Not in the general political debate.

In my opinion, our best hope for a politician who might offer meaningful approaches to the problem is Bernie Sanders.  In this department, he is even way ahead of Elizabeth Warren.  Elizabeth Warren certainly has an excellent understanding of the causes of the problem.  However, I believe that she is way behind Bernie Sanders in understanding economics well enough to be able to propose solutions that will have much impact.

The main indication I have that Bernie Sanders gets this is his appointment of Stephanie Kelton as the head Economist for the minority on the Senate Budget Committee.  She was sitting beside Bernie Sanders when he made an important presentation to the committee.  I’d bet my bottom dollar that she is the one who suggested the chart around which his presentation focused.  I would also be willing to bet that she is the one who prepped him on the words to speak.

See my previous post Senator Bernie Sanders presents Tcherneva’s research to Show How Reagan Helped Destroy the Middle Class for the evidence.

If Bernie Sanders and Stephanie Kelton don’t manage to change the country’s thinking on a whole lot of economic mythology, then we are in for a very long and unhappy time in America that is not going to end nicely.  Think of how well the French nobility came out in the the French Revolution. (Did you get the sarcasm of that last sentence?) (If you think that Hillary Clinton has a chance of getting a clue about getting a clue, I have only one thing to say, “Oh, puhleeze!” She probably still bows down at the altar of Larry Summers. At least Elizabeth Warren has demonstrated that she doesn’t think very highly of Larry Summers.)

Sarah Clark started a conversation on this topic with a post on her Facebook page.

My response to the question she posed was:

Don’t mistake the anti-abortionists’ highjacking of a legitimate technique for illegitimate purposes as deligitimizing the technique for legitimate purposes.

If a woman decides to have an abortion, that does not endanger me, my relatives, or society as a whole. In this case, I have no right to tell the woman what she should or shouldn’t do.

If a parent decides not to vaccinate a child, then that does threaten me, my family, and society as a whole. If the author of the article has proof, as he suggests he does, that the technique he suggests does work, then I would support it. If the technique does not work well enough, then I would suggest going back to a policy that I think we used to have. If you want to send your child to a public school, then you have to provide evidence of the required immunizations.

If you do not want to have your child vaccinated, then find some other way to provide for the child’s education.

In continuation of the conversation, Sarah posted two very useful links. Massachusetts Department Of Public Health – Immunization Exemptions and Vaccine Preventable Disease Exclusion Guidelines in School Settings and State Vaccination Exemptions for Children Entering Public Schools.

Talking Points Memo has the article Jon Stewart Skewers Netanyahu Over Accepting GOP Invite To U.S. (VIDEO).  Originally, I wasn’t going to post this because I didn’t feel that it was a very significant or pointed segment.  However, after thinking about this one part, I changed my mind.

Jon Stewart broke out in laughter on Thursday’s edition of “The Daily Show” at news that President Obama would not be meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Obama told press that he was declining to meet with Netanyahu because “general policy” said U.S. leaders don’t meet with a foreign leader too close to that country’s election, lest it appear America is meddling in another country’s affairs.

I am very disappointed in President Obama’s reaction. We all can see that figuratively Netanyahu has slapped Obama in the face. Obama’s reaction is to try to pretend that it didn’t happen. When will the President show the outrage that Netanyahu deserves? As my previous post suggested, Obama should at least declare Israel’s ambassador as persona non grata and force him to be recalled by Israel. Why the ambassador? Because he has been reported as purposely negotiating with Speaker Boner to arrange this visit without prior knowledge of our President. This is an intentional attempt to embarrass our President.

President Obama needs to read my previous post Nixon’s Madman Theory. Unless the President learns to apply this theory liberally (pun intended), then people are going to continue to walk all over him.