this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
355 points (97.6% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7109 readers
544 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Blackrock may have deep pockets but they're not that idiotic.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

They are corrupt and if they want to help Trump get into office so their shady investments can continue then it wouldn't cost them even pocket change to pump up trump stocks. It's such a small amount of money to them they probably assigned an intern to the account.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Bud, I know it's pretty easy to jump down into conspiratorial rabbit holes whenever talking about Blackrock, vanguard, etc but let me ask you this:

Which sounds like a more solid plan? Investing in a platform that was dead in the water from the start, with no financial future. Or just donating to a bunch of politicians that are okay with your business practices?

I'm not saying they aren't causing a good bit of harm but you don't become the largest investment management firm on the planet by being that stupid

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I mean, the more solid plan is to back the president that cut taxes for the rich, as opposed to a president whose promised to increase taxes for the rich.

So I don’t think a straight value proposition analysis applies to entities whose assets under management exceed the GDP of most countries and who are already deeply involved in the politics in the form of lobbying.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Then let's assume the people in charge want Trump back in office. Wouldn't it just make more sense to make political contributions to him and others sympathetic to his platform? That carries less reputational risk than investing in a known to fail platform.

Plus it's worth mentioning that those are assets under management ; they have to answer to their investors for every time they allocate. They can't just freely swing that around like most people think

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

They already make contributions that doesn't stop them from giving money in other dark ways like this as well. Just like they give money to pacs, as well as the candidates directly as well as a million other ways to keep the real amount given hard to track.

Assets under management come with management fees they can do whatever the fuck they want with that money. When they have trillions under management the fees are a lot. The more shady shit they do the more money they make for clients the more money they get in fees. Look up 2 and 20.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Maybe so, but they’re also on the opposite side of the aisle. The company that owns Sweet Baby Inc. and deliberately pushes inappropriate levels of DEI via bribery-with-extra-steps probably isn’t about to aid or endorse a Republican, especially one who’s that brazen about the shitty things he does.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

what the fuck kind of gamergate 2 horseshit 😂