There will be lots of talk of "green shoots" of recovery, of Obama's energy policies as if he invented wind energy (much like Gore inventing the internets), of stimulus packages ushering in a new era (never mind that they are basically about turning private profligacy and debt into public debt).

Don't expect too much talk of income redistribution, of inequality = inefficiency, or even of much more effective global financial governance.  That is all for the anti-globalisation crowd, and globalisation can't be questioned.

So really, these conferences are more about the questions you can't ask rather than the ones you can:

Questions you can't ask

1. Don't mention the (Iraq) war - it was invented by someone else long gone into history

2. Should business leaders who got huge bonuses in the good times now be required to pay them back as they were demonstrably created by fraudulently inflated assets accounting

3. Should business taxes be increased in a coordinated global way to pay off public deficits?

4. Should carbon fuels be subjected to escalating taxes on a geometric scale to price them progressively out of the energy market?

5. Should Globalisation only be permitted within a globalised political governance structure to prevent tax competition/avoidance/evasion, and a regulatory race to the bottom?

6. Should international law mandate the progressive reduction of Gini indices worldwide to ensure a more sustainable and equitable allocation of scarce resources?

So I wonder if CNN would be open to a counter-offer: ET will prep any CNN correspondent for a hard-hitting one hour interview on economics and/or energy with any Davos summit participant (hell, or any other "leader" for that matter), complete with facts, questions and follow-ups to likely waffles.

That should be good for a scoop or two (or at least some nice video footage of one of these characters exposed as out of their depth).

"Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut

Follow up:

"In the many cases where the insertion has passed the crucial 'chin barrier', have any progress been made in identifying and implementing effective extraction procedures?"

If your question is used your blog will be referenced on-air, and we'll send you a clip of the interview for use on your blog. Even if your question doesn't get chosen for air, you'll have the chance to be on the shortlist of all the questions submitted, as selected by the CNN editorial team, and featured on the CNN site, containing a link back to your blog.

It's almost as if they still think we need them to legitimise us.

Therefore, I predict that we will not like the evasive answer.

Nowadays there is lots of talk of "restoring trust in the market" by drowning banks in government money.

But in a market, the only way to ensure trust is to make buyers know what they are buying and from whom. How is this possible in the financial market without strict regulation and transparency rules?

the best hope for the question is to be thought-provoking in itself. (Metatone)

...It's not a question that advances our agenda, but it gives us a chance to see what they're thinking about. (Helen)

a) I'm not sure about the "agenda"; I thought there was no clearly framed agenda.

b) "To find out what they're thinking about" is what I also think is more interesting than the good questions aimed at obtaining precise answers, since

the reality is that the respondents in question are rhetorically so highly experienced (not to mention meticulously trained) that they can effortlessly slide right by any one question, however pointed or pertinent. (dvx)

Therefore, I would try to keep the question as vague as possible with the hope of inadvertent revelations, something like,

It has been said that after this crisis/recession/depression, the economy will be no more as it was before.  
With the hope that it will crash no more, what do we have to expect of the "day-after-the-crisis-economy"?*

Maybe also:
"What role are competing political systems going to play therein? "
(Will it be "politics first", or "economy first"?)

* IMO it's better to not use the question to criticise but to demonstrate that they're trusted to find a solution because we want them to share it with us.

So something along the lines of

Since business leaders, right-wing economists and leading pundits have played a major role in pumping up the bubble that caused this crash, why precisely are we supposed to go to them for advice?

It just needs to be cut in half, so as to fit within a soundbite.

Or we could go with "how many Madoffs do you think are attending this summit?" Or "how many people at this summit have been involved in business transactions that would have been considered outright fraud fifty years ago?" Just to watch them squirm...

- Jake

640 kiloton should be enough for anybody

At this point I must confess to continue to believe that there is general progress in human history. We shall always be ruled by thieves - the most socially respectable of them organising events like Davos -, but thieves who learn (or have no other alternative but) to steal a bit less from others.

Still, a question must be suggested. Hmmmm. Lets pick something divisive, even poisonous:
- Now that the american consumer is strongly absent from markets, who should acquire the best fruits of industrial innovation?

The Davos club is the G8, the Trilateral, the holders of white man's burden of guiding mankind plus their samurai friends who work so well and gave up their military independence ... hmm ... who in our side hasn't gave up their military independence .. ah, yes, the french have there own nukes ... lets just ignore them ... well, any those denominations - in winter holidays.
Therefore, it is serious fun to invite them to think that the wealthy classes of the uninvited member countries should be the prime recipients of the de-localised mass consumption society.

only one question?

You need more than a couple of them.

One to show them how sutpid they are (ok say a couple of them).

another one to blow their heads off.

a couple of questions to be nasty with them.

a couple of them to destroy their paradigm.

And a couple of them to propose good policy...

You can not make it with one....:)

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

why are we still listening to the people that, collectively, drove us headlong into the current crisis?

"Why are we..." is a question we should reply to or our fellow bloggers, partners, family, therapists, counsellors etc. - not him/them.

What answer is to be expected? Something like,

I don't know why you're listening.
[Silly guy is asking me why he's listening to me!]
Maybe because you have no better recipe (?)
Maybe because you aren't clever enough to make it to Davos (?)
Maybe because you know that even the genius isn't immune to error due to bad luck.
Next question, please...

(Sorry about being nasty but I tried to put myself in his/her/their place.)