Now, why would Best Buy openly discriminate against white people?
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (20)
sorted by:
I didn't get that.
OK, Vanguard with BlackRick owns 16.22%. Far from 51% to have a total control over business decisions. As far as I understand, they hardly will even have any significant voice in that business with their miserable stake. All they could do is to sell their stakes and temporarily slightly lower the price of company stocks. But this will not interfere with business itself, and its profits, only create some short-lasting discomfort among owners.
Who owns the rest 83.78%? Who owns control stake? Who have majority over board of directors (or whatever top business authority in company)? Aren't top managers had specific education or belongs to specific group? Aren't entities that graduate MBAs today have some interesting mandatory course or whatever? Could MBA degree be retracted after graduating if somebody does not follow some rules, like attorney or MD degree could be retracted if a lawyer or a doctor will say or do something against narrative or consensus?
Looks like there is something else, much worse than simple proxy with small stakes everywhere, and that Vanguard/BlackRock boogiemen are just a distraction.
Also interesting that it become very common to say that BlackRock/Vanguard owns 90% of businesses, like they fully own and control them or at least have control stake. But that is not true, yes, they have stakes in 90% of businesses, but that stakes are toщ small to control that businesses. If you have 5-10% here and there you do not have control, you just have a little profit from multiple places.
I think there is something very fishy with that strange narrative about proxy funds that have insignificant stakes everywhere. They could be not only proxy for somebody money, but also proxy for narratives and distraction.
Yes but jews are major holders of the remaining abouts. So Vanguard and Blackrock are 20% but then you have JP Morgan (Jews) with another 5%. I think Schwab might be linked to Rothschilds but not sure.
Vanguard Group Inc 11.14%
Blackrock Inc. 8.99%
JP Morgan Chase & Company 4.78%
State Street Corporation 4.65%
Price (T.Rowe) Associates Inc 4.53%
Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. 2.02%
All that still 36.15%, not 51%. Not enough to control company.
Who owns the rest 63.85%?
Other factors we should consider:
The board of directors have lots of power
What percentage of shareholders actually vote on items that come to vote by shareholders? The participation rate is probably very low.
We could possibly be giving shareholder shares too much emphasis as that is probably not where the power lies. One might argue that a stock share is really no ownership in a company at all and basically fiat.
Back to the board of directors. I think that's where lots of the power is. They even have more power than the CEO even though we often focus on who a CEO is.
Shure.
Mostly they choose the board of directors and sometimes CEO and change them if they don't bring profits. It is a lever, but hardly this could be controlled by small stake.
It depends. If majority of shareholders are satisfied with how board of directors doiing business, they will be silent. And if some minority shareholder will try to replace them, they definitely will challenge that.
It could be both ways, depending on who is directors and who is CEO. Sly CEO could easily manipulate board of directors who took position of observers, or vice versa, smart directors who participate in management and planning will hold CEO in a tough grasp.
In any case, to push some woke narrative into business, at least CEO and board of directors should support that narrative, 5-10% of shares definitely not enough to push all that woke stuff if CEO and board do not support it.
Other option is a huge market manipulation to make an impression that woke businesses are better assets, so most shareholders begin to demand woke agenda, but again, that investmetns funds with a lot of tiny shares everywhere will have huge losses in both ways if they will try to inflate that woke bubble by themselves - they will have to constantly buy woke shares for overprice and will lose on selling non-woke businesses below the market. They will not be able to do that because most wealth they have is in shares and they barely have free money to play that. Selling non-woke shares and buying woke ones will end with obvious fuckup with having tons of shares of broken woke companies without any good assets left. Investment fund clients, who obviously need profits, not losses, will tear fund managers asses apart for shure.
So here we again come from investment funds to stock market owners who could manipulate market without spending any money by just faking digits in stock exchange computers to fool the traders to kickstart them into ramping up woke stocks and then sustaining that state.
Or there should those who print money come to play.
Your degree isn’t retracted. Your license to practice can be taken away. It’s different.
Yes, different, but result is the same - you can't monetize your degree, or at least left with much worse opportunities.
So, what about MBA? Could it be retracted or could holder be somehow restricted in practice on misbehaviour determined by third party?
Nope. It’s just a degree. Your MBA isn’t that important in the business world. What’s more important is the people you know, which is why it’s so important to go to the right program and be a part of the right societies when pursuing business, especially as someone who doesn’t come from an established family. Any rules regarding where you’re allowed to work are usually only related to non-compete clauses in a work contract. Occasionally you can be barred from participating in certain industries as a result of legal action but that’s rare and there are usually loopholes you can work around.
OK, got it.
So, it is more like self-reproducing circle. You have to get a connection with some top manager to become top manager connection with whom will be necessary to become top manager and so on...
So, only 2. could be used for manipulation. If personal contacts in right circles is most important, then it is the lever that could be used.
As far as I understand, if you in a good relation with that right circle, then, even you failed some business, you will always find a new job. If you are thrown out or disliked by that circle, you have a little opportunities even if you was a perfect CEO.
Is NACD a forefront of that "right circle" for top managers in USA, or it is some unimportant organisation?