Ah yes, let’s attack our neighbors who try to save their money, and let’s ignore the bankers and politicians who created the system that incentivizes this behavior.
This whole argument of peoples pension funds being the largest shareholders in a company is bizarre. https://www.blackrock.com/institutions/en-us/insights/public-pensions-survey pensions are owning less and less of the stock markets every year, become less and less relevant. Institutions like blackrock however are growing. Consistently.
Like mate your neighbour Barry isn’t calling into the shareholders meeting to criticise the CEO for paying $0.05 an hour over minimum wage the the receptionist.
Institutions like blackrock however are growing. Consistently.
Ah yes, let’s blame blackrock who provides a service for our neighbors who want to protect their wealth and invest, and let’s ignore the bankers and politicians who created the system that incentivizes this behavior.
You keep repeating bankers and politicians but don’t seem to be going into much detail. Which politicians? Which bankers? When did your neighbours get enough money to invest through blackrock and when did they become billionaires?
What do you mean? Are you going to say politicians didn’t pass the laws that are the foundations of our financial and economic system? Which law are you curious about, then I can look up when it was passed and by who. Blackrock doesn’t gatekeep, anybody can invest with them, you don’t have to be a billionaire.
I’m here reading comments of people’s opinions, and everyone is elaborating trying to help people understand their views. You’re not. That’s why people are asking for clarity (which you’re not providing)
To be fair I stopped trying and became sarcastic when they clearly had nothing to add and just wanted to repeat whatever they’ve read in a blog somewhere
No one is pointing the finger at regular people… The problem is that the richest 10% own 93% of all stocks, and the 1% own 54%. The 1% often IS the bankers, and they did create the system, and they paid the politicians to pass it. You’re just muddying the waters.
Exactly. Stockholders are not the problem - corporate concentration of wealth and power is the problem. Attacking me for having a 401k is just crabs-in-a-bucket mentality.
No one is attacking you for your 401k… The problem is that the richest 10% own 93% of all stocks, and the 1% own 54%. Your 401k almost certainly falls into that 7% the peasants “own”. When we point a finger at “stock holders” we’re talking about the relatively small group that owns everything and would rather kill everyone than share the wealth equitably.
Honestly that’s my big fear as far as any “revolution” goes… That people won’t recognize the oligarchs separate from just the richest person they know. Like, someone with a big house in your neighborhood, is almost certainly not oligarch levels of destroy society and the world, but they’ll be accessable while Elon and the banksters won’t be.
Tbf, if that is what is meant by stockholders perhaps the specificity would do the argument good, because without it you’re lumping them in with all stock holders (like those with a 401k.) I also get the notion that you may not care about the 401k but the hexbear users might, for instance, so some infighting may take place, but oh well.
At any rate by using terms that include a wider range of people than you do intend to kill (saying things like kill all landlords or kill all stockholders etc, which could include fair landlords and 7%ers or whatever unless specified), it’s going to make those people who acknowledge those cases you “don’t mean” defensive against being killed. Basically, we need another word that only applies to the people that you find it acceptable to kill, that excludes those who you think should live despite exhibiting similar behaviors to those marked for death, if you intend to get those people on your side.
Ah yes, let’s attack our neighbors who try to save their money, and let’s ignore the bankers and politicians who created the system that incentivizes this behavior.
This whole argument of peoples pension funds being the largest shareholders in a company is bizarre. https://www.blackrock.com/institutions/en-us/insights/public-pensions-survey pensions are owning less and less of the stock markets every year, become less and less relevant. Institutions like blackrock however are growing. Consistently.
Like mate your neighbour Barry isn’t calling into the shareholders meeting to criticise the CEO for paying $0.05 an hour over minimum wage the the receptionist.
Pensions have practically vanished in the US. It’s all 401k
Ah yes, let’s blame blackrock who provides a service for our neighbors who want to protect their wealth and invest, and let’s ignore the bankers and politicians who created the system that incentivizes this behavior.
You keep repeating bankers and politicians but don’t seem to be going into much detail. Which politicians? Which bankers? When did your neighbours get enough money to invest through blackrock and when did they become billionaires?
What do you mean? Are you going to say politicians didn’t pass the laws that are the foundations of our financial and economic system? Which law are you curious about, then I can look up when it was passed and by who. Blackrock doesn’t gatekeep, anybody can invest with them, you don’t have to be a billionaire.
You’re the one making the claim bossman, burden of proof is on you
I need to give you proof that politicians created our laws? Dude…
I’m here reading comments of people’s opinions, and everyone is elaborating trying to help people understand their views. You’re not. That’s why people are asking for clarity (which you’re not providing)
To be fair I stopped trying and became sarcastic when they clearly had nothing to add and just wanted to repeat whatever they’ve read in a blog somewhere
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Can’t wait for the answer to this one, lol
Companies like Blackrock also lobby those politicians with that wealth they’re pretending and investing.
“lobbying” is just spending money in hopes of getting more favourable laws passed, which is a form of investment in the company’s future.
Lobbying is a sanitised word for bribery.
Sure, the system feeds itself.
No one is pointing the finger at regular people… The problem is that the richest 10% own 93% of all stocks, and the 1% own 54%. The 1% often IS the bankers, and they did create the system, and they paid the politicians to pass it. You’re just muddying the waters.
Yes
Exactly. Stockholders are not the problem - corporate concentration of wealth and power is the problem. Attacking me for having a 401k is just crabs-in-a-bucket mentality.
No one is attacking you for your 401k… The problem is that the richest 10% own 93% of all stocks, and the 1% own 54%. Your 401k almost certainly falls into that 7% the peasants “own”. When we point a finger at “stock holders” we’re talking about the relatively small group that owns everything and would rather kill everyone than share the wealth equitably.
Maybe you are but there’s plenty of people who are perfectly happy to attack the middle class.
Honestly that’s my big fear as far as any “revolution” goes… That people won’t recognize the oligarchs separate from just the richest person they know. Like, someone with a big house in your neighborhood, is almost certainly not oligarch levels of destroy society and the world, but they’ll be accessable while Elon and the banksters won’t be.
Tbf, if that is what is meant by stockholders perhaps the specificity would do the argument good, because without it you’re lumping them in with all stock holders (like those with a 401k.) I also get the notion that you may not care about the 401k but the hexbear users might, for instance, so some infighting may take place, but oh well.
At any rate by using terms that include a wider range of people than you do intend to kill (saying things like kill all landlords or kill all stockholders etc, which could include fair landlords and 7%ers or whatever unless specified), it’s going to make those people who acknowledge those cases you “don’t mean” defensive against being killed. Basically, we need another word that only applies to the people that you find it acceptable to kill, that excludes those who you think should live despite exhibiting similar behaviors to those marked for death, if you intend to get those people on your side.
Fair enough… Not sure what that term would be other than “oligarchs” or 1%… Although it’s really more like the richest 1% of the richest 1%
Have you read the text in the image?