blackrock is very close to the democratic party in the united states. some measures of blackrock’s power:

Boycotting Vanguard and BlackRock... Good Luck Stupid

I think that David Hogg’s most recent tweet asking people to boycott Vanguard and BlackRock presents a great opportunity for education. The idea of boycotting these institutions is laughable, first of all. Vanguard and BlackRock are two of America’s biggest investment institutions. And they aren’t exactly the one’s “investing.” They are managers of money. They invest in the things their customers want to invest in. That’s how banking works.

The fundamental problem here is that a kid with some kind of goal has not realized that there are parts of the world he simply doesn’t understand. That’s to be expected. Hopefully, Mr. Hogg, you read this. I don’t have a lot of interest in criticizing you. But I think that a little lesson in investing could do you some good. Your life will be much improved by the information below. It’s just good, simple, advice. And I proffer it unto you wholly divorced from my feelings about your agenda. In fact, I try to be as a-political as possible.

So here we go…

1) Your investments shouldn’t reflect your morals

Not Investing in certain sectors of the economy is not hurting anyone but yourself. So, by boycotting Vanguard or BlackRock, you’re inflicting damage on you. That’s it. How is that possible? Well, a lot of people are really anti-[stuff]. Sometimes they are anti-consumption. Some are anti-oil. Some are anti-gun. But not everyone is anti-[these things]. And the market is relentless. It moves on with or without you.

There is a principle known as the Efficient Market Hypothesis. The principle states that all information in the market is reflected in the price. No one will say this is perfectly true. But most economists will say this is true enough. And for examples, you can look almost anywhere. When news breaks about a stock, within seconds, the price will jump in one or another direction to reflect the new information. This is the problem with insider trading. Insiders get information sooner than the market. This allows them to profit from that information by buying or selling their position. If they’re smart, they will leverage themselves to take advantage of the information the market has not yet “priced in.”

More than that, this little rule also means that you can’t beat the market. No matter what your fat uncle Ben tells you about his day trading and forex class, the data compiled shows that the chance of beating the market is as good as chance. And before you point at Buffet, that’s a different case entirely. I will do a writeup in the future about the difference between you and the Oracle of Omaha.

The thing is, if you invest in your morality or even just stuff you like, you’re going to invest in some of the stupidest stocks ever. Christian teetotalers might completely avoid liquor stocks. Libertarians might avoid banks. Liberals might avoid oil. Palestinians might divest from Israeli corporations. Pilots might only invest in airlines. I know a number of people who sold their companies. They often put a huge, outsized portion of their money into the company that bought them. The problem is investing like this means that you can not profit from people who enjoy your vices or don’t like the things you love. Essentially, their relentlessness in doing the thing you hate will leave you (and everyone who agrees with you) poorer. That’s bad for you. That’s bad for your movement. You will have less money to throw at causes you dislike because you refused to be invested in causes you didn’t like. It’s counter-intuitive, but it’s true. That said, the idea of “investing in” a corporation seems widely misunderstood. You have to realize that…

2) You Aren’t Giving Money to Companies When You Invest In Them.

Companies don’t even know you invested. When you hold Apple stock, no one at Apple’s like, “thanks for the money bruh.” This only happens during an IPO. Even then it’s not public that you are the holder of the shares. During an IPO investors send their liquidity away, exchange it for shares, and the money goes into the company’s coffers (after a hefty amount is taken out by the bank for facilitating the launch).

Publicly traded stocks are a remarkable thing. They were invented back in 1602 when the “Dutch East India” company offered itself for public sale. Consider that stocks allow individuals to profit from a corporation’s dealings without taking on the liability of the company’s stupid decisions. If you own Textron, for example, and they murder a bunch of Sudanese children, the executives and the people responsible are under the gun. You had nothing to do with it. You can even hate them without irony while simultaneously being an owner in them. And even better than that, you will have succeeded in never having given them a penny.

Alas, you say, “but isn’t my purchase of the stock propping up the price?” No! It’s not. Well, I guess the better answer is that this is complicated. But simply, if markets are efficient and prices reflect all available information, your not participating doesn’t really matter. If you aren’t buying or selling, an arbitrageur or a bank or an analyst will eat up your position. That means that you will be the only one missing out when the stock goes up. Or you will be the only one not missing out when the stock goes down. Feel free my son. Unless your a market maker, you have virtually nothing to do with the price of the stock.

The outgrowth of the principle of market efficiency is the now-ubiquitous index fund. The index fund was a theoretical fund proposed as a means of keeping businesses honest. For fund managers, the suggestion was that they could be kept accountable by measuring their earnings against an “index” of stocks held in proportion to their market capitalization. The result of such a fund over the last 100 years would be a rise of 9.9% annually. That may not sound like much. But to put it into perspective (there are people that are 100 years old, after all), $10 invested in an all-market fund 100 years ago would be worth about $125,000 today. And while $10 might have been a lot 100 years ago, it was nowhere near $125,000 today in terms of spending power parity.

Unfortunately, the index fund didn’t exist 100 years ago. Rather, it was invented on December 31, 1975. The creation of the fund was derided as un-American. Wallstreet equated it with communism. The thing is, it has been the most egalitarian investment tool ever invested. Given modern data, given the work of academics like Fama, French, Thaler, and many more, the data seems to show that the index fund is a democratizing investment tool. Sure, Blackrock can pitch people special portfolios of weird real estate. They can claim future returns of exorbitant amounts. But over time, they will not be able to return what the index returns. And that’s science.

For the first time, the index fund allows “the little guy” access to funds that return the same or more than any other person investing in the market. And that’s amazing. You or I or William Gates have the same opportunity to grow our cash as anyone else. In the same way you own the same or better phone that Bill Gates, you can now get the same returns. And all of it is thanks to a man named John “Jack” Bogle. Bogle created the first index fund. And he did it while enduring endless criticism and alienation from an industry that he loved. And today, Mr. Bogle’s company enjoys $4.2 trillion under management. It’s an astounding number to be sure. But what’s more astounding is that in an industry that regularly takes 2 to 3% from those invested monies, Bogle’s company is uniquely structured. It is owned by the people who have money in it - a mutual company.

It’s fiduciary obligation is not to make money but, rather, to save money. It’s investors, the people whose money is managed, take home as much as they can - and that’s how it should be. Investors put money into investments taking all the risks. Why, then, would that investor want the bank, which does nothing more than buy/sell/clear the transactions, to take 2 to 3%. The investor takes all the risk, the bank gets a huge portion of the reward. That’s why Bogle’s company takes only .05% every year. By the way, if you haven’t figured it out yet, Bogle’s company is known as Vanguard.

So let’s consider Hogg’s claim. Vanguard and BlackRock are two of the biggest investors in gun stocks. Vanguard and BlackRock have outsized portions of their managed monies in index funds (Vanguard has it’s own index funds and BlackRock manages the famed SPDR indices)…

3) Of course BlackRock and Vanguard are Huge Investors in Gun Stocks

When you have $434 billion and $4.2 trillion under management, much of it in all-market index funds, of course you end up being the thousand pound gorilla. And for those who are angry at the declaration, moving your money out of a low-cost mutual fund at BlackRock or Vanguard will just mean that you move it into another company with the exact same portfolio. You are no less invested in the gun industry or whatever loathsome industry you’re trying to avoid than you were the day before.

Ultimately, it’s important to look at investors like Buffet. He invests differently than you and me. While most of us are passive, he is active. I sit on the periphery of my investments. When Apple does well, I am excited because the portion of my portfolio comprising Apple goes up. When Buffet buys Apple, he ends up owning Apple. He has regularly taken positions in companies, and then actively worked to fix the portion that he saw extra value in. Basically, he does what he can to help the company make more money.

5) Investing in Companies is the Best Way to Change Those Companies

The problem is that when you invest in companies, you do it to make a profit. You’re just like Buffet in that way. And if you do ascribe to the principles of the efficient market, than you will have a weird dilemma on your hands. Advocating your morality will mean advocating that certain companies cease to exist. So I prefer to take the opposite position. Rather than advocating that companies cease to exist at shareholder meetings, you can simultaneously take advantage of the vice by investing, while taking contrarian positions against the company. If your gripes are meritorious, then you will easily whether the downfall of the company or industry. But, if your protests have the opposite affect of driving people to the business or the industry, you simultaneously are able to take the money of people doing the thing you hate. Yes sir, the index fund allows you to drink their milkshake. You can drink it up. Their money is your money because… well… you’re an investor and you get to benefit from the profits of the corporation without having to take a position on the morality of the company’s proceedings.

Yes, friends, the index fund is the only thing that will allow you to both have your cake and also eat it. Because while eating the cake of self-righteous protest, you can ingratiate yourself with the moneys spent by those whom you disagree with. All this while taking no responsibility or culpability in the actions of the nefarious company you hate. And that’s why America is a great country.

And that’s also why Vanguard is a great company. The truth is that Vanguard wiil likely be responsible for more social mobility than any other company in the history of the United states because of, as Bogle says, “The Relentless Rules of Humble Arithmetic.” Citizens in other countries are perplexed by the ability of American’s to freely invest as we do. And our incredible access to investments with unmatched returns is the relentless work of unsung financial academics.

So sure, protest your gun manufacturers. Protest your local politicians. Protest whomever you want and whatever you want. But realize that boycotting Vanguard or BlackRock or any other low-rate index fund management company hurts no one but yourself.

:

:

::

:

:

:

:

:

:

By James Meadway who hosts the weekly economics podcast Macrodose and is director of the Progressive Economy Forum. Previously, he was economic adviser to the shadow chancellor, and chief economist at the New Economics Foundation. Originally published at OpenDemocracy.

The working assumption, for governments and central banks across the world, is that at some point soon everything will get back to ‘normal’ – our economies will return to either pre-pandemic or, sometimes, even pre-2008 crash levels.

These beliefs are reinforced by media economics commentary and across political parties.

But what if they’re wrong? The world’s largest asset manager, overseeing $10trn in assets across the globe, thinks we are, instead, entering a period of increased risk and uncertainty, defined by unavoidable recession and much higher inflation.

BlackRock – a well-connected, influential and hugely profitable pillar of global capitalism – made the predictions in its ‘2023 Global Investment Outlook’ report.

It states: “The Great Moderation, the four-decade period of largely stable activity and inflation, is behind us.”

Instead, BlackRock forecasts a new regime with a “brutal trade-off” – falling living standards for the many becoming profits for the few.

This reality, of a world undergoing fundamental transformations and disrupting our settled modes of existence, has so far barely entered the economic mainstream.

For BlackRock to break with this consensus might, potentially, be one of the first signs of a broader shift in how major institutions in the Western economies view the world.

Systemic chaos

Annual food inflation in the UK rose to 13.3% – an all-time high – last month, according to trade body the British Retail Consortium, ahead of the official government figures out later this month.

This situation – though slightly worse in the UK due to a flawed Brexit deal and the falling value of the pound (critical as a major food importer) – is common across the globe. Even as wholesale energy prices have dropped from their summer 2022 peak, the price of food everywhere is soaring. United Nations’ forecasts show a major risk of widespread famine in the Global South over the next year, with harvests continuing to underperform.

This global spike in prices over the past 18 months was initially described by the economic establishment as “transitory”. Then, as inflation continued remorselessly upwards, familiar explanations reappeared: notably, excessive worker power (but real wages in the Global North are still falling) and excessive printing of money through quantitative easing (but we’ve been running QE since 2009).

The economic profession as a whole, and institutions such as the major central banks, have typically written down the obvious evidence of global instability as temporary factors, rather than something more systemic.

This means we’re trapped with central banks that still think pushing up interest rates to induce a recession is a smart way to bring down inflation. We have governments committed to holding down wages and salaries while allowing profits to explode.

But BlackRock believes the world is now “shaped by supply that involves brutal trade-offs” – in other words, the world economy is less effective at supplying goods and services than it was.

The after-effects of the pandemic have caused supply chain problems, as we all know, but they also think an ageing population means fewer workers, pushing up the cost of labour; that “geopolitical tensions” will disrupt global supply chains; and that the shift to net-zero carbon emissions will involve “demand and supply mismatches”.

Put all this together, and BlackRock thinks inflation will come down to the 2% level we’ve been used to only if central banks are prepared to ‘crush’ their economies into a severe recession. Since that’s unlikely, inflation will stay much higher than we are used to – combined with a miserable recession over the next year or so.

Massive profits for the lucky few

But BlackRock’s predictions don’t cover everything.

Its report misses the longer-term effects of Covid – both in terms of the impact on healthcare and, as we’re currently seeing, continuing waves of infection. It also misses, critically, the wider ecological impacts of climate change, biodiversity loss and resource depletion.

It is possible to imagine a world where peace returns rapidly to Ukraine, and the subsequent disruptions to global food and fertiliser trade are reduced. It is not possible to imagine a world where climate change and ecological destruction are thrown into reverse – indeed, some of the effects felt today, notably, biodiversity loss, are irreversible.

This twofold combination has led ecologist Nicholas Beuret to describe a “climate supercycle” of food shortages and rising prices running well into the future. (A recent episode of my podcast ‘Macrodose’ examines the coming food shortages for UK farmers.)

And, finally, BlackRock misses the extreme profits that shortages over the last year have generated for a select few multinationals, such as those supplying oil and gas.

It’s the last part that’s critical. A more unstable world affects everyone, but it will affect everyone differently.

For most of us, on the wrong side of food price hikes and extreme weather, the future is not great. But for the lucky few, shortages have been turned, through price rises, into massive profits

BlackRock, the global financial giant, wields unprecedented influence across various administrations. A deep dive into their intricate web of connections reveals a staggering level of sway over policy decisions. Did you know? #BlackRock #FinancialPowerhouse #InfluenceUnveiled

https://walkinverse.substack.com/p/did-you-know-e5d

Blackrock got caught with it's pants down this week, makes for a very good read!

“Campaign financing. Yup, you can buy your candidates. Obviously we have a system in place. First, there’s the senators. These guys are f**ing cheap. You got 10 grand? You can buy a senator.”

“It doesn’t matter who wins. They’re in my pocket at this point. I could give you $500k right now, no questions asked. Are you gonna do what needs to be done. Yeah, of course. Why not? Everyone does it”.

So we're all familiar with the diversity and gender quotas being forced on companies through ESG, by BlackRock and State Street. We all know it's supposedly in the name of Diversity/Inclusion/Equity. However, when it comes to gender quotas specifically, I suspect it's also another facet of the New World Order depopulation agenda.

Women who work outside the home tend to seek out jobs in certain fields. Careers which are considered male dominated are that way because women often don't want them. It's the reason you don't see women garbage collectors ever.

Now if those careers that women aren't interested in are forced to have a 50/50 split between men and women to comply with ESG, the companies involved seem to have two options. 1) They can either incentivize women to apply for the position by offering much higher pay than they normally would - impractical, and possibly illegal. 2) They can stop hiring men untill the gender divide is even. Regardless of the strategy used to maintain a 50/50 gender split, it will result in few men working.

What does this have to do with depopulation? Glad you asked.

Men being denied employment to maintain quotas will have a direct impact on their romantic and sexual relationships. Women tend to prefer dating men who make more money than them. If gender quotas are keeping men unemployed, those men are going to be seen as less sexually desirable on average, meaning less opportunities for relationships or reproduction. And the population declines.

By John Parker

BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager and a company that has big interests in Raytheon, Lockheed, Dupont, and Haliburton, companies responsible for destroying Indigenous lands, climate change, supplying weapons of mass destruction for U.S. endless wars, and helping to push World War III. Now BlackRock is in a close partnership with Kiev, managing billions of dollars in investments to tear away any last shred of Ukraine’s economic sovereignty, while it pretends to be acting in defense of the Ukrainian people’s interests.

BlackRock Recruiter Who ‘Decides People’s Fate’ Says ‘War is Good For Business’ Undercover Footage

The O’Keefe Media Group has published a new story focusing on perhaps James O’Keefe’s most powerful investigative subject to date, BlackRock Inc.

In the footage, a BlackRock Recruiter named Serge Varlay describes how BlackRock is able to ”run the world” in about 7 minutes of riveting undercover footage. The footage was captured over the course of several meetings in New York by one of OMG News’ rockstar undercover journalists.

BlackRock Inc is the world’s largest asset management company that’s gained more notoriety as of late due to its large acquisitions. Varlay says it's easier for BlackRock to do things when “people aren’t thinking about it” and the asset giant “doesn’t want to be anywhere on the radar. This story is a peek into why.

οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἔπαλξις πλούτου πρὸς κόρον ἀνδρὶ λακτίσαντι μέγαν Δίκας βωμὸν εἰς ἀφάνειαν*

- Aeschylus

Riches are no defence for a man who has insolently trampled underfoot the altar of Justice until it disappears.*

Larry Fink, chairman and CEO of BlackRock. The main instigator behind the ESG fad with his much derided annual ‘CEO’s Letter.’

April 6, 2023 - Rail workers protesting the raising of the pension age occupied the French headquarters of investment company Blackrock, saying that the money for workers’ pensions could easily be found if Blackrock and other corporations were taxed properly. [video]

🇫🇷🔥 PARIS Riot police units were "entrapped" by protesters near Place d'Italie in #Paris.

Anyway, OP is completely wrong.

The Ohio article is from 2019. It was revised and treating an ectopic pregnancy is completely legal.

The Missouri bill was revised. It has not passed and banned ectopic pregnancies.

Finally idk where op got their sources for the last picture, because Guttmacher, the most pro choice research organization, says that all the trigger laws include exceptions.

Try using recent and relevant sources and maybe people will take you more seriously.

This is gonna be a doozy response so sorry in advanced.

This argument is a equivocation fallacy because the official medical term that this claim is based on—”maternal mortality”—actually includes deaths from abortion, so it is patently misleading to claim that the rate of abortion deaths is much lower than the rate of “maternal mortality” which is the death of woman at delivery, during pregnancy or soon after delivery. The MM number has actually dropped by 38% worldwide due to advances in medicine. The main cause of MM was infections and bleeding to death (hemorrhages). https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/maternal-mortality 

94% of MM occur in low income areas (areas meaning cities, countries, states, etc) it’s broad. But generally, the poorer an area the more likely it is they have higher MM rates. It is said most can be prevented by proper medical tools, sanitation and medical procedures. 

Moreover, there is little to no accurate accounting of abortion deaths exists. Some studies show that 4% of all maternal mortality is due to abortion while others show 8%. It’s almost impossible to compare and any articles you see comparing or making this claim are being intellectually dishonest. Also, any woman who dies within one year of giving birth is automatically considered a maternal death for record-keeping purposes. That might skew some statistics huh? There isn’t strict record keeping when it comes to deaths caused by abortions. 

HOWEVER, there was a recent study done (a breakthrough study) on premature death in women who have had abortions. Both abortion and miscarriage are linked to elevated mortality rates, but the effect is more strongly associated with induced abortions. They found that legal abortion contributes to a fifty percent increased risk of premature death in women. AND they found that a SAFE delivery is also linked with a reduction in mortality risks associated with abortion or miscarriage alone. study here xx

You can read the risks of abortion here and let me know if legal abortion is safe.

Risks of abortion

I also wanted to briefly mention why the United States, despite being a first world country with some of the best medicine and medical equipment in the world has high MM or high birth PTSD, high postpartum depression, etc.

The United States birthing practices are outdated and work, not for the mother, but for the profits. Most c-sections are unnecessary. Most inductions are unnecessary and most medical interventions during birth are not necessary. Medical interventions are what lead to birth trauma and higher rates of MM. 

Home birth is safer than hospital birth. A study of 2,000 births, half of which were at home, found that there were 30 birth injuries among babies born in hospital and none at home, 52 babies born in hospital required resuscitation against 14 born at home and six hospital babies suffered neurological damage compared to one at home. 

-Dr. Lewis E. Mehl, University of Wisconsin. 10,101 6/j.eclimm.2019.07.005

-https://mana.org/healthcare-policy/homebirth-study-fact-sheet

A well-trained midwife can actually provide almost 90% of the health and medical support and services pregnant women and new mothers and their babies need, along with serving as advocates on other women’s health and rights issues and increase a positive birthing experience by 60%- women who have a midwife or doula experience little to no anxiety during labor, have a greater postpartum recovery, over 60% end up not tearing and c-section rates plummet as well as unnecessary medical interventions which increase chances to breastfeeding, decrease lower costs, and reduce labor induction.

A substantial increase in coverage of midwife-delivered interventions could avert 41% of maternal deaths, 39% of neonatal deaths, and 26% of stillbirths, equating to 2·2 million deaths averted per year by 2035. -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7758876/

“"If you scaled up midwives, you would avert over 80 percent of maternal deaths,” Kennedy said.“- http://c-hit.org/2018/10/30/midwives-could-be-key-to-reversing-maternal-mortality-trends/ In Connecticut, there are 211 licensed nurse-midwives, compared to 945 licensed OB/GYNs, according to state Department of Health records. Almost every state has low numbers of midwives, some states are even way behind by having homebirths still be illegal and midwives not being able to preform deliveries despite being medically qualified.

You can check my pro birth or health tag to read about the medical malpractices done to pregnant women and how that relates to birth trauma, postpartum depression rates, mm rates, etc. 

While advanced medical procedures and equipment are important for emergencies, unnecessary medical interventions have just as harmful impacts and consequences. 

You have probably met someone who was conceived in rape. You cannot look at someone and tell how good or bad their parents are. I wasn’t conceived in rape but I do have two abusive parents which makes me “worse” than those who were conceived in rape because they have just one. Most people consider me a good person. The vast majority of people who were conceived in rape or have an otherwise abusive parent are beautiful and amazing people. Stop dehumanizing them to further your pro-abortion agenda.

You have probably met someone with an “invisible” disability. I have Asperger’s and most people are not able to tell that I am disabled right away. No matter how high-functioning or low-functioning a disabled person is, disabled people are not burdens for existing as they are. Stop dehumanizing them to further your pro-abortion agenda.

You have probably met someone who grew up in poverty. You have probably met someone who was abused by their parents. You have probably met someone who was in foster care (though babies put up for adoption don’t end up in foster care). Plenty of these people are happy to be alive. Stop saying that they’re better off dead to further your pro-abortion agenda.

Stop dehumanizing people for things they can’t control to further your pro-abortion agenda.