Sports Calendar

And whichever repressive and corrupt potentate happens to be with him on the stage is a visionary leader with an extraordinary record of selfless and benevolent service to his nation. Journalists would jokingly imagine him eulogising a mass murderer like Pol Pot with: “You have achieved a remarkable transformation in your country’s affairs. And we at Davos know that, as the old Khmer saying has it, you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs.”

It is, of course, easy to poke fun at this beanfeast of self-satisfaction. But there is a more serious critique, which has been getting louder as the forum has become ever more over-blown.

Charge one: Davos has become so celebrity-obsessed that it can no longer manage serious debate on the issues that matter to business. Last year’s meeting went under the banner Taking Responsibility for Tough Choices, but those discussions I attended evaded any hint of the difficult trade-offs required in managing challenges such as climate change.

Discussions about Africa revolved solely round how much aid the rich world was prepared to stump up and how many political leaders could upstage each other with fanciful ideas for new taxes to fund it.

Charge two is related: that Davos has bent over backwards so far to accommodate those who attacked it in the 1990s — the anti-globalisation crowd, do-gooding NGOs and the development lobby — that it has lost focus or, worse, succumbed to intellectual confusion.

Thus business leaders feel they need to make lofty statements about taking responsibility for the ills of the world rather than pushing for the further freeing of markets that would really improve things. Delegates, swept along by the warmth and fuzziness, rank poverty the world’s No 1 problem, and the global economic growth that would help reduce it only priority No 8.

Perhaps this does not matter much. Perhaps we should simply see beyond the relentless hype and the showbiz and appreciate Davos for the top-notch networking occasion it really is. The heads of the world’s big investment banks, those latter-day global merchant princes, have got the idea. They mostly jet in, take over the nicest suites in the best hotels for client meetings, and jet out again without exposing themselves to the public hoopla.

Beyond that, any executive who really thinks Davos is an essential date in their business diary should reflect on two snapshots from last year. The first shows Carly Fiorina, superstar chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, preening herself before adoring crowds of journalists while back in Palo Alto her board is plotting to oust her.

The second depicts Unilever chairman Tony Burgmans holding forth worthily in a Davos seminar about corporate social responsibility while 3,000 miles away arch-rival AG Lafley of Procter & Gamble is putting the final touches to a multi-billion-dollar merger with Gillette that will change the face of his business.

Would the shareholders of either company have been better served if these fine individuals had stayed home to mind the shop? I think we should be told.