The even funnier thing was that 60% of the franchise's supporters were alt-right that would fit on a Trump rally. Barely any leftist libtards. It's sorta like DC but more extreme.
I don't think Black Rock was actually left or right anyways.
Somebody, please explain me how that miserable 5-6% of shares could mean anything?
Also, who the fuck owns the rest 70 or whatever %? Why our attention is shifted to unsignificant shareholders, instead of serious ones?
More I dig that "BlackRock/Vanguard owns everything" horror stories, more I convinced that it is pure distraction from something much more important, about who really owns everything.
Tell me please, if I buy a single share in each public company - would I also be mentioned in stories as "man who owns everything"? Doesn't share size matter, not number of companies?
It doesn't matter if it was a distraction when there is plenty of evidence that they twisted pre-existing lore to conform to political correctness and gleefully lied about it.
There is no reason to do this other than to harvest the negativity caused by the resulting outrages to empower themselves.
You can't force anybody for anything with miserable 5% share. Even with 30% share you could only try. To have real power to do anything you want you need at least 51%. And even in that case you are risking to lose a lot if you force company do some shit that will significantly lower its price. There are no any sense in owning 51% of bankrupted company.
Either thare is something else, apart shares with that BlackRock/Vanguard duo, either they are kind of scrapegoats, to divert attention from something really important.
I can;t see how owner of 5% could do things that happen with companies today. Just imagine someone with 5% shares came and tell - "now we begin to produce complete garbage nobody will buy for the sake of inclusivity and diversity". Any sane person will understand that it is much better if that 5% struck the market and temporary lower share price, than to allow that idiot to completely ruin his co-owned business.
Well, I could imagine that 5% with pushing DEI crap could be used as kind of racket, like "buy my 5% for the double price, or I will shit on the conference room table at every shareholders meeting", but not what imputed to BlackRock/Vanguard.
It does not add up.
Well, I initially was well into that story, about some global funds that really owns everything, too, until I finally take a look at real numbers. In no way that tiny shares could be "owning the world". Sorry, but I need something else, much more convincing, to agree with that narrative.
And you wonder why they are pushing transgender Custodes?
nice find
guess we can kiss this franchise goodbye. was a good run.
The even funnier thing was that 60% of the franchise's supporters were alt-right that would fit on a Trump rally. Barely any leftist libtards. It's sorta like DC but more extreme.
I don't think Black Rock was actually left or right anyways.
Somebody, please explain me how that miserable 5-6% of shares could mean anything?
Also, who the fuck owns the rest 70 or whatever %? Why our attention is shifted to unsignificant shareholders, instead of serious ones?
More I dig that "BlackRock/Vanguard owns everything" horror stories, more I convinced that it is pure distraction from something much more important, about who really owns everything.
Tell me please, if I buy a single share in each public company - would I also be mentioned in stories as "man who owns everything"? Doesn't share size matter, not number of companies?
It doesn't matter if it was a distraction when there is plenty of evidence that they twisted pre-existing lore to conform to political correctness and gleefully lied about it.
There is no reason to do this other than to harvest the negativity caused by the resulting outrages to empower themselves.
You can't force anybody for anything with miserable 5% share. Even with 30% share you could only try. To have real power to do anything you want you need at least 51%. And even in that case you are risking to lose a lot if you force company do some shit that will significantly lower its price. There are no any sense in owning 51% of bankrupted company.
Either thare is something else, apart shares with that BlackRock/Vanguard duo, either they are kind of scrapegoats, to divert attention from something really important.
I can;t see how owner of 5% could do things that happen with companies today. Just imagine someone with 5% shares came and tell - "now we begin to produce complete garbage nobody will buy for the sake of inclusivity and diversity". Any sane person will understand that it is much better if that 5% struck the market and temporary lower share price, than to allow that idiot to completely ruin his co-owned business.
Well, I could imagine that 5% with pushing DEI crap could be used as kind of racket, like "buy my 5% for the double price, or I will shit on the conference room table at every shareholders meeting", but not what imputed to BlackRock/Vanguard.
It does not add up.
Well, I initially was well into that story, about some global funds that really owns everything, too, until I finally take a look at real numbers. In no way that tiny shares could be "owning the world". Sorry, but I need something else, much more convincing, to agree with that narrative.
Other similar groups can be acting and if anyone in a large corpo in the US during these days are guaranteed to follow in locksteps.