Blackrock and Vanguard

[SassyLady]

If you're interested. Please don't comment until you read the article. I'm looking for feedback on the info in the article. Not about your own personal bias for or against these companies.


This is how big Corps destroy the American dream! Blackrock is buying up US homes like there is no tomorrow
BlackRock is one of a number of companies mentioned by The Wall Street Journal in a recent exposé. “Yield-chasing investors are snapping up single-family homes, competing with ordinary Americans and driving up prices,” they warned. The question is, why would institutional investors and BlackRock, which manages assets worth $5.7 trillion, be interested in overpaying for modest, single family homes?

To understand the answer, you must look at BlackRock’s partners, which include the World Economic Forum (WEF), and their extreme political and financial clout.


https://strangesounds.org/2021/07/blackrock-is-buying-up-us-homes-like-no-tomorrow-real-estate-market-housing.html

[fj1200]

If you're interested. Please don't comment until you read the article. I'm looking for feedback on the info in the article. Not about your own personal bias for or against these companies.

https://strangesounds.org/2021/07/blackrock-is-buying-up-us-homes-like-no-tomorrow-real-estate-market-housing.html

They answer their own question.


The question is, why???

Yield-chasing investors...

That link was nothing but a search for evidence in support of an already reached conclusion. And most of the Blackrock/Vanguard arguments were already discussed in your other Blackrock/Vanguard thread.

[SassyLady]

They answer their own question.


The question is, why???

Yield-chasing investors...

That link was nothing but a search for evidence in support of an already reached conclusion. And most of the Blackrock/Vanguard arguments were already discussed in your other Blackrock/Vanguard thread.

What's your point? Are they affiliated with WEF or not?

[fj1200]

What's your point? Are they affiliated with WEF or not?

Is that your entire argument? Whether they are affiliated or not? Well apparently there's a link on a webpage someplace. :rolleyes: Nevertheless, my point is that the link was pretty dumb. They have their end in mind and only seek evidence based on half truths and incorrect conclusions to validate their already decided conclusion. I'm not sure why you read that stuff. They have no understanding of how things work and are the epitome of what I call populism. They take hints of fact and attempt to draw conclusions which really aren't supported in the real world.

[revelarts]

Sassy, it seems FJ cannot ... will not... see a globalist agenda at work.

He'll take ANY motive to any action over that. People might ascribed those motives with fascist and communists ideologies.
I mean, fascist and communists might want to "take over the world". But the idea that capitalist or people with MONEY want to control the world... and not just make money doesn't seem to compute with FJ.

(It's not like there wasn't a time of feudalism or the East India Company wasn't a horror show of "capitalism" world wide.)

Seems on this issue he's like many atheist who REFUSE to see any evidence of God in the world.
and Some who have told me outright, that even if they were physical present and saw Jesus rise from the dead they still would not believe that "God Did it" or that Jesus was the son of God.

FJ just seems not to be able to accept the concept.
Seems he thinks Rich people and corporations just want money... and "free trade", period end of story.
And to him that's a good thing. As long a people are buying and selling stuff, it doesn't MATTER if one or two group ends up with everything and everyone else owns nothing. But rent like feudal peasants. they should have invested better.
Seems as If the winners are the like the winner of a Monopoly Game, fine. As long as the game operated under "free trade" it's A-OK.
Look sassy, "people will own nothing and be happy", so there ya go.

Just because BlackRock, VanGuard, Bill Gates, Big Pharma/Ag, Big Oil, & Wall St Banks basically will own it all.
and they are "on the boards of the WEF & the WHO etc. it doesn't mean they they control ANYTHING.
I mean i'm sure they don't try to influences any laws, or elections or foreign policies...
or give politicians $$$,
or ask for protective regulations,
or sit on the regulatory agencies in Federal DEPTS that regulate their industries,
or fund think tanks that write legislations given to politicians to propose that match their desires,
or give seats on their boards to friendly retired politicians from the state & federal levels,
or do the same or worse in foreign nations,
they are JUST trying to protect and grow their investments.... you know "free trade".

they don't "CONTROL" anything Sassy.
AND even though they may have joined groups, go to meetings about and are on the boards of orgs that SAY they want world government... they don't really mean it!
Or if they do, they are laughingly inept at making anything happen... except at things that make them money and at buying up the world to control assets... by using "free trade"... which is good.
So you should just stop worrying yourself about all this "CABAL" "NWO" nonsense .... and go back to sleep.
"Free Trade" is good & will RISE ALL BOATS & take care of everything.
as long as those stinkin' populist don't destroy everything.



Fj if I've mischaracterized your POV, sorry, but that's the way it comes across to me.
If it's NOT your POV, please tell me what might you'd consider evidence that the globalist have been effective ANYWHERE in progressing their stated goals.

[fj1200]

Fj if I've mischaracterized your POV, sorry, but that's the way it comes across to me.
If it's NOT your POV, please tell me what might you'd consider evidence that the globalist have been effective ANYWHERE in progressing their stated goals.

For some reason I really don't think you are. I started a thread and asked for evidence. I think this thread was an offshoot of that because I asked about a Blackwater/Blackrock reference. But evidence must meet a standard and a standard that is extremely lacking in this thread in particular. The original link in this thread was complete garbage and it seems to be typical of the "evidence" presented. The problem is that you throw everything in some globalist bucket and it's really not true. Every time a particular thing starts to get discussed you end up rehashing the entire sampling of your anti-globalist screed as in the post above. It's all the same though; you've got a conclusion and here's the evidence that supports it.

[fj1200]

If you're interested. Please don't comment until you read the article. I'm looking for feedback on the info in the article. Not about your own personal bias for or against these companies.

Do you really want to know? Blackrock and Wall Street firms are buying single-family homes because they're chasing yield. Why are they chasing yield house by house (which is a logistical nightmare) rather than typical products? Rates are low. Why are rates low? Because the Fed has done an awful job for the past 20 years in managing the money supply. The reality is that they've just done an awful job; it wasn't at the direction of some star-chamber globalist committee trying to eliminate private property.

But that probably doesn't jibe with your preferred conclusion.

[SassyLady]

So, you're saying this is not happening. Forget the source because you always seem to think that just because you don't like the source the info can't be valid.


https://noqreport.com/2021/06/11/yes-blackrocks-home-buying-spree-should-concern-you/

Let’s talk about the non-conspiratorial issues in play first. This will have three instant effects on the market and the economy. First, it is already making it harder in a scarce market for homebuyers to make a purchase. Second, it is driving up prices in a self-replicating fashion; the more BlackRock and others overpay for homes, the higher home prices go up. Last but certainly not least, they’re causing a shift from home ownership to renting which degrades the economy for lower- and middle-class folks while limiting their upward financial mobility.

[fj1200]

So, you're saying this is not happening. Forget the source because you always seem to think that just because you don't like the source the info can't be valid.

:rolleyes: I specifically said Wall Street, Blackrock, etc. are buying single family homes to rent out. But of course what you choose to post greatly overstates the impact of any one company or class of buyers. It only takes a hairs worth of additional research into links that don't end in .nut.


It's intellectually dishonest to pin soaring U.S. home prices—which are up 37% over the past two years (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS)—on any one company. However, when you step back and examine the elevated demand that has come from the investor side of the market, it's clear they've attributed, at least in some degree, to soaring home prices. Investors, both big and small, gobbled up a larger market share during the pandemic. The impact of elevated investor demand also goes beyond the homes they actually bought. Even when investors are on the losing side of a bidding war, from an economic lens at least, they are still putting upward pressure on prices.As the Pandemic Housing Boom implodes (https://fortune.com/2022/05/31/is-housing-market-bubble-which-markets-overvalued-home-prices/) amid spiked mortgage rates (https://fortune.com/2022/03/23/housing-market-interest-rate-economic-shock/), it raises the question: Is the investor rush into the housing market a temporary feature of the pandemic or the start of a lasting trend?
While spiked mortgage rates are pricing out many first-time buyers (https://fortune.com/2022/06/15/mortgage-rates-spike-housing-market-real-cost-to-buy-a-home-jumps-50-percent/), it's also seeing investors pull back from the market. Surging mortgage rates change the math for investors: The added costs means many investors would take on mortgage payments that are greater than they can charge for rent.
“Investor home purchases are falling for the same reason overall home purchases are falling: Surging interest rates and high housing prices have made it more expensive to get a mortgage and buy a home,” wrote Sheharyar Bokhari, a senior economist at Redfin, in a report published this month (https://www.redfin.com/news/investor-home-purchases-q1-2022/). “While roughly three-quarters of investor purchases are made with cash, investors are still impacted by interest rates because they often take out loans to get that cash.”
https://fortune.com/2022/06/26/housing-market-and-home-price-boom-made-bigger-by-investors-and-wall-street/

But to your last... There are good sources and bad sources and the difference is does the info pan out? That source blames Blackrock but there are other investor buyers out there and not just Wall Street. So it starts with a dubious fact and then starts to go off the rails. Investors buy; sure. Push up prices; Sure. A shift; Depends on how long the trend is. A plan by globalists to eliminate private property ownership in the US? No; not based on actual evidence.

And the rest of that link? The info isn't valid so I don't like the source. It's not even good entertainment.

[revelarts]

...
I started a thread and asked for evidence. ....

I simply asked you what you would count AS evidence.
Exactly.
Give us an example or 2 of what a globalist act or accomplishment would/should look like to you.

[fj1200]

I simply asked you what you would count AS evidence.
Exactly.
Give us an example or 2 of what a globalist act or accomplishment would/should look like to you.

I don't know. Maybe when an anti-globalist or two fact checks the garbage that they read then maybe I'll have a better answer. In the meantime perhaps you could inform me of the evidence posted in the links on this thread that do stand up to scrutiny.

[revelarts]

I don't know. Maybe when an anti-globalist or two fact checks the garbage that they read then maybe I'll have a better answer. In the meantime perhaps you could inform me of the evidence posted in the links on this thread that do stand up to scrutiny.

I don't know.
Seems like if someone wanted to see hard evidence of a crime, that they shouldn't have a problem coming up with a few examples of what they consider evidence.

[icansayit]

AMERICAN Democrat Radical Members of Congress are beholden China, so they are willing to follow China's lead in BLACKLISTING any Bank that supports, or lends to FOSSIL fuel in any way.
SOCIALIST toward COMMUNISM.


https://qrius.com/china-owns-us-how-the-chinese-are-buying-up-america/amp/

The People’s Republic of China isn’t exactly a favorite of the American public. Since the Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak of early 2020, Americans are questioning whether or not all of that cheap plastic junk from Wal-Mart doesn’t come with a hidden cost.

It’s not just about the virus: There is also the specter of deindustrialization, which has been a social disaster for the United States, particularly the rust belt. What’s more, Tucker Carlson and others reported during the early days of the Wuhan Coronavirus outbreak that the United States was dependent on China for basic medical supplies, such as penicillin.

Carlson’s comments are incredibly important, especially when we begin drilling down further into just how reliant the United States is on China: 97 percent of all antibiotics and 80 percent of all active ingredients in American pharmaceuticals come from China. In 2017 alone, the United States imported a whopping $4.6 billion in foodstuffs from the People’s Republic of China.

The corporate press has largely been silent on this matter, which isn’t surprising: They have a long history of sympathy for the People’s Republic of China and virtually all enemies of America and liberty. But there is also a deep presence by the People’s Republic of China in the United States, both in our media and in our economy, specifically in the real estate market.

[Gunny]

I have the same problem with this I have with EVERY conspiracy theory that requires a global (no pun intended) conspiracy.

Back to the real World, I find it extremely improbable-to-next-to-impossible that the cast of millions it would take to pull off such a conspiracy could each and every one keep their mouths completely shut without so much as a single leak of anything that can be corroborated. In corrupt, Western bureaucracy as part of a society that can't wait to post anything they think will get a stir on Twitter?

Not happening.

[fj1200]

I don't know.
Seems like if someone wanted to see hard evidence of a crime, that they shouldn't have a problem coming up with a few examples of what they consider evidence.

So my being unable to state what evidence would be acceptable stands in stark contrast to the questionable conjecture as evidence that is presented here. Sounds like a boring cage match.

[revelarts]

I have the same problem with this I have with EVERY conspiracy theory that requires a global (no pun intended) conspiracy.

Back to the real World, I find it extremely improbable-to-next-to-impossible that the cast of millions it would take to pull off such a conspiracy could each and every one keep their mouths completely shut without so much as a single leak of anything that can be corroborated. In corrupt, Western bureaucracy as part of a society that can't wait to post anything they think will get a stir on Twitter?

Not happening.
They've got websites and are having public meetings called
World Government summit Gunny.
Its not a secret.
Many of them have written books where they talk about it openly.

[revelarts]

So my being unable to state what evidence would be acceptable stands in contrast to...
No your being unable to state what evidence would be acceptable to YOU,
stands in contrast to being an honest inquirer who's able to state what would be acceptable evidence.

Seems i can stand by my previous assessment, that the real answer seems to be that nothing would be acceptable evidence to you.

[fj1200]

No your being unable to state what evidence would be acceptable to YOU,
stands in contrast to being an honest inquirer who's able to state what would be acceptable evidence.

Seems i can stand by my previous assessment, that the real answer seems to be that nothing would be acceptable evidence to you.

You forgot this part of my statement and my previous assessment.


... the questionable conjecture as evidence that is presented here.

FWIW as soon as the actual crime is committed then evidence can be presented. Besides I am being an honest inquirer in asking for evidence; let's see some good evidence not populist fear mongering. Have I not countered the initial OP link with some evidence that brings doubt into the scenario? Nobody has called that out yet.

[Abbey Marie]

Is that your entire argument? Whether they are affiliated or not? Well apparently there's a link on a webpage someplace. :rolleyes: Nevertheless, my point is that the link was pretty dumb. They have their end in mind and only seek evidence based on half truths and incorrect conclusions to validate their already decided conclusion. I'm not sure why you read that stuff. They have no understanding of how things work and are the epitome of what I call populism. They take hints of fact and attempt to draw conclusions which really aren't supported in the real world.

Well there is this:

14043

Do you think that being appointed to a company’s board is without relevance or meaning?

[fj1200]

Well there is this:

Do you think that being appointed to a company’s board is without relevance or meaning?

Just as I think Yo-Yo Ma and the Queen of Jordan being on the board is also without relevance or meaning. I believe Blackrock being good at what they do is more likely the reason why rather than Blackrock is doing the bidding of the WEF.