What do you think about this ?

Yes. I don't believe you've actually read it.

Any comment on how your friend is lying and claiming the quote came from Schwab?

She can write whatever she wants. And an economics forum has every right to publish such harmless thought-provoking pieces. If insane people and fringe fundamentalists want to get all worked up over it, even better.

Hope she writes some more. Perhaps about a dystopian future where internet dwellers police her free speech...

Well he's on your side arguing the same stuff you are. Yet, he's lying.

Have you no comment or thoughts on that at all? I think you're ignoring it because you've no issue with misinformation as long as it supports your views.

If you have read the article you'd understand that 1. it is not being suggested as a goal or a desire by anyone. 2. It is not described as either good or bad. 3. it does not say that the idea of ownership is removed. It does not say that you cannot have access to a private vehicle. it does not say you will be forced to share space with anyone.

Hence, because you don't seem to understand this, it's clear you've not actually read the article. You've only read conspiracy grifters describing the article to you, to convince you there's some sort of conspiracy.

And like you're friend, you're lying about it.

So can you point out where the WEF says their goal is to remove the concept of ownership by 2030?

A direct quote that states this clearly would be nice.

If you aren't able to produce this, could you explain why not?

"Well he's on your side arguing the same stuff you are. Yet, he's lying."

Therefore what?

"2. It is not described as either good or bad"

Therefore what? It is, as you say, presented neutrally. I am describing it as bad.

"3. it does not say that the idea of ownership is removed. It does not say that you cannot have access to a private vehicle. it does not say you will be forced to share space with anyone."

These are described as norms of the society in this scenario. For instance motorways are emptied of private vehicles and people cycle or travel on public transport. Nobody owns anything, everything is rented temporarily on a subscribership basis. This is the description of how people live in the society. The "everywoman" of this story lives in insecure accommodation which businessmen use when she is not present.

"And like you're friend, you're lying about it."

I'm not friends with rando strangers and haven't lied. You've seriously got your wires crossed.

He lied. I'm asking what your opinion is on it. The fact you are completely silent and won't even acknowledge that he's lying to support your side shows that you are fine with this kind of dishonesty.

You are claiming that the article is arguing in favour for the scenario, and that this argument is enough to conclude that the WEF's goal is to bring about this scenario.

And no, they are not described as the norms of the society. It does not say that "Nobody owns anything".

It describes that people outside the city in which this woman lives are free to own whatever they like. It also does not mention anything about ownship being made illegal or prohibited. It's shown that renting is simply cheaper and more convenient.

But this is all irrelevant as it's a fictional article.

Please quote where the WEF states that their goal is to bring about this system.

Can you point out where the WEF says their goal is to remove the concept of ownership by 2030?

A direct quote that states this clearly would be nice.

If you aren't able to produce this, could you explain why not?

And you did lie. You claim to have the read the article. This isn't true. You've only read conspiracy cranks talking about the article and convincing you that it points to some conspiracy.

"If you aren't able to produce this, could you explain why not?"

Because they haven't said that. They've simply put out disturbing fictional and non-fictional material and many people regard their 'talking points', the quality of their thoughts and their enthusiasm for privacy-reducing tech as signs that they are neither good nor trustworthy.

"And you did lie. You claim to have the read the article. This isn't true."

You are as mad as a box of frogs.

Ok. So then you disagree with the claim that the WEF's goal is to remove the concept of ownership by 2030? You believe this claim is false?

And your insult isn't really very consistent when you're describing this innocuous article you didn't read as "disturbing".

Lol. The article doesn't say anything about a "slave city."

Also, you claimed that the article stated that no one would own anything. You now agree that is false.

Why do you claim the article says things it doesn't?

Why are you inventing things to be "disturbed" by?

Ok. So you are just making things up about the article and claiming it says and implies stuff it doesn't.

You are disturbed by the bits you are inventing.

And all about an article you didn't read...

Still no luck on finding that youtube video you claimed to have seen?

Or gonna own up and admit you lied?

I mean, it's pretty weird to just make up a video that doesn't exist...

More ranting.

It doesn't exist. I have looked.

You lied.

Be honest man. Why are you lying? Why are you so upset and triggered when people point out that's what you guys do all the time?

"The pursuit of happiness" is Lockean-speak for the pursuit of property and the right to hold it, so "owning nothing and being happy" is a perfect inversion of that.