The Conservative Solution to... Globalists

[fj1200]

Assuming they're not incompetent technocrats.

[SassyLady]

Assuming they're not incompetent technocrats.
America First.

[fj1200]

America First.

That seems to be a platitude, not a solution.

[SassyLady]

That seems to be a platitude, not a solution.
Better than what you put forth.

[fj1200]

Better than what you put forth.

I guess... First one needs to identify the problem(s) before proposing the solution(s).

[revelarts]

Assuming they're not incompetent technocrats.

the answer is... what no one really wants to do.
And lot you won't like FJ.

a few items come to mind
-Chuck all the unconstitutional laws, rules & executive orders.
-Pare back the federal gov't by 1st ending several "depts" like education.
-Send what's left back to states & local jurisdiction.
-Review all U.N.Treaties & trade agreements ... auto kill those that put a shadow on State or Local sovereignty or jurisdiction... for a start.
-Break up U.S. monopolies in energy, banking, big Ag, big Pharma, media & tech... to start.
-Open up the auto (and other) industry to all alternative fuels & states incentivizes auto manufacture startups.
(alt fuels meaning make it LEGAL for cars etc to run off of HOMEBrew if it works)
-States Annex all water held on there lands by corporations.
-States review all land held by the "the nature conservatory"
-States freeze, review repeal all agenda 21etc plans
-States and locals gain right to review ownership of federal lands & or land use.... and lands owned by foreign entities.

i could go on but ... i'll leave it here suspecting that most folks would rather continue heading over the cliff than change direction.
And I'm fairly sure that you don't like anything that would disrupt corporate profits, ownerships or the banking system.

But remember you did ask for conservative.
Which in my mind means constitutional gov't with ALL freedoms intact, small gov't, local control, small 'c' capitalism.
My main bow to pragmatism is that monopolistic/megacorps are not conducive to small gov't or personal sovereignty and so cannot be allowed.
(the same as mega gov't (national or world) should not be allowed.)

[Evmetro]

Hang them

[Gunny]

Hang themI'm for it. Regardless their actual impact, they aren't worth what they're paid.

[fj1200]

the answer is... what no one really wants to do.
And lot you won't like FJ.

a few items come to mind
-Chuck all the unconstitutional laws, rules & executive orders.
-Pare back the federal gov't by 1st ending several "depts" like education.
-Send what's left back to states & local jurisdiction.
-Review all U.N.Treaties & trade agreements ... auto kill those that put a shadow on State or Local sovereignty or jurisdiction... for a start.
-Break up U.S. monopolies in energy, banking, big Ag, big Pharma, media & tech... to start.
-Open up the auto (and other) industry to all alternative fuels & states incentivizes auto manufacture startups.
(alt fuels meaning make it LEGAL for cars etc to run off of HOMEBrew if it works)
-States Annex all water held on there lands by corporations.
-States review all land held by the "the nature conservatory"
-States freeze, review repeal all agenda 21etc plans
-States and locals gain right to review ownership of federal lands & or land use.... and lands owned by foreign entities.

i could go on but ... i'll leave it here suspecting that most folks would rather continue heading over the cliff than change direction.
And I'm fairly sure that you don't like anything that would disrupt corporate profits, ownerships or the banking system.

But remember you did ask for conservative.
Which in my mind means constitutional gov't with ALL freedoms intact, small gov't, local control, small 'c' capitalism.
My main bow to pragmatism is that monopolistic/megacorps are not conducive to small gov't or personal sovereignty and so cannot be allowed.
(the same as mega gov't (national or world) should not be allowed.)

Some good, some bad. It seemed that you started with some good small-government, Constitutional, conservative ideas that are just good in general but then you started moving left. We have anti-trust laws and arguably no real monopolies outside of the "natural monopolies" that are generally local. When you start to break up monopolies how do you decide what monopolies are? How big are they? How much market share? etc. We used to have the Big 3 automakers and now we sort of have 3 left plus scads more foreign entries that sell, and make, cars in the US. That didn't take laws. How many cell phone companies do we need to have if we have a cell phone monopoly now? How many banks? We have 4 banks with at least 10% market share. We have 13 banks with at least 3% market share. What's the right number?

How much do you want the state to seize or control private property? Is there a particular problem that needs to be addressed? Have those problem been identified yet? Can you even have the right solution if you haven't identified the problem? That would seem to be the best starting point.

And there you go assuming things again. :slap:

[BoogyMan]

We need to reform the mandate of the Federal Reserve and get it done immediately. They have their hands in WAY too much. Their focus should be inflation instead of the expanded mandate they were given in the 1970s that has helped make the mess we find ourselves in today.


Assuming they're not incompetent technocrats.

[fj1200]

We need to reform the mandate of the Federal Reserve and get it done immediately. They have their hands in WAY too much. Their focus should be inflation instead of the expanded mandate they were given in the 1970s that has helped make the mess we find ourselves in today.

Do you mean their dual mandate of low inflation and maximum employment? Or since Nixon closed the gold window? I do think they've failed on some things like rates to high for the past 20 years but they've also had to deal with Congress giving money away and trump thinking he knows anything about monetary policy.

[revelarts]

Some good, some bad. It seemed that you started with some good small-government, Constitutional, conservative ideas that are just good in general but then you started moving left. We have anti-trust laws and arguably no real monopolies outside of the "natural monopolies" that are generally local. When you start to break up monopolies how do you decide what monopolies are? How big are they? How much market share? etc. We used to have the Big 3 automakers and now we sort of have 3 left plus scads more foreign entries that sell, and make, cars in the US. That didn't take laws. How many cell phone companies do we need to have if we have a cell phone monopoly now? How many banks? We have 4 banks with at least 10% market share. We have 13 banks with at least 3% market share. What's the right number?



you know what FJ, "we've" somehow figured out how to tax every last grown man and woman in the country and every biz, our property, every purchase, in some states even our food ...even down taxing waitresses tips. .
With the "right" numbers.
I think we can probably come up with someway to answer the questions you've proposed and biz will survive in a world at least as fair as the tax code.
But I've got a few Ideas, I've read of several others.
but i won't get into a debate about them with you here.

Because , Well, could you answer me one question?
Can you imagine any scenario where you'd agree that breaking up monopolies artificial & "natural" is a good thing?
If not, why are you asking me for details?




How much do you want the state to seize or control private property? Is there a particular problem that needs to be addressed? Have those problem been identified yet? Can you even have the right solution if you haven't identified the problem? That would seem to be the best starting point.

And there you go assuming things again. :slap:

When it comes to water rights, Yes i want to states & locals to have control and not Hersey company, Bill Gates, the nature conservancy, big Ag , or oil, gas or coal companies.
Or have them managed by globalist agenda plans.
Local Public resource.
Everyone's usually fine with that as long as it's Native American lands & waters. not sure why it's a problem here.
BTW there's long been a thing call "eminent domain". Generally I'm not a fan but if we're going to use it I'm not sure why large corporations lands/water are exempt.

But a lot of the lands I'm talking about are Federal lands. I'd like to see a large portion of that go back to the states.
Which could allow some back into the private hands. And NOT just to the highest bidders.
No LAND monopolies either FJ.

As far as a starting point goes Again,
Can you imagine any scenario where you'd agree that states using "eminent domain" or annexing or buying back lands (for pennies on the dollar) from big corporations for public use is a good thing?
If not, why are you asking me for details?

[fj1200]

you know what FJ, "we've" somehow figured out how to tax every last grown man and woman in the country and every biz, our property, every purchase, in some states even our food ...even down taxing waitresses tips. .
With the "right" numbers.
I think we can probably come up with someway to answer the questions you've proposed and biz will survive in a world at least as fair as the tax code.
But I've got a few Ideas, I've read of several others.
but i won't get into a debate about them with you here.

Because , Well, could you answer me one question?
Can you imagine any scenario where you'd agree that breaking up monopolies artificial & "natural" is a good thing?
If not, why are you asking me for details?

You do know that natural monopolies is an economics term don't you? That aside, breaking up monopolies is a good thing. It's just that we don't have monopolies in this country. That's why I'm asking you for details. We have anti-trust laws and mergers frequently need DOJ approval before proceeding.


When it comes to water rights, Yes i want to states & locals to have control and not Hersey company, Bill Gates, the nature conservancy, big Ag , or oil, gas or coal companies.
Or have them managed by globalist agenda plans.
Local Public resource.
Everyone's usually fine with that as long as it's Native American lands & waters. not sure why it's a problem here.
BTW there's long been a thing call "eminent domain". Generally I'm not a fan but if we're going to use it I'm not sure why large corporations lands/water are exempt.

But a lot of the lands I'm talking about are Federal lands. I'd like to see a large portion of that go back to the states.
Which could allow some back into the private hands. And NOT just to the highest bidders.
No LAND monopolies either FJ.

As far as a starting point goes Again,
Can you imagine any scenario where you'd agree that states using "eminent domain" or annexing or buying back lands (for pennies on the dollar) from big corporations for public use is a good thing?
If not, why are you asking me for details?

I ask for details because that's where the rubber hits the road. You're actually going to have to get specific here because eminent domain generally isn't just used for taking private property for any reason. And there's no "pennies on the dollar" because the Constitution requires "just compensation," i.e fair market value.

You're going to have to come up with pretty good reasons why you want to use the takings clause to seize property from private hands in my book.

[Black Diamond]

You do know that natural monopolies is an economics term don't you? That aside, breaking up monopolies is a good thing. It's just that we don't have monopolies in this country. That's why I'm asking you for details. We have anti-trust laws and mergers frequently need DOJ approval before proceeding.



I ask for details because that's where the rubber hits the road. You're actually going to have to get specific here because eminent domain generally isn't just used for taking private property for any reason. And there's no "pennies on the dollar" because the Constitution requires "just compensation," i.e fair market value.

You're going to have to come up with pretty good reasons why you want to use the takings clause to seize property from private hands in my book.

Why did they allow xm and Sirius radio to merge?

[revelarts]

Why did they allow xm and Sirius radio to merge?
exactly

then there's this

https://i.redd.it/nb11lryl6ca01.png




"Top shareholders of:
Time Warner: 1. Vanguard Group 2. Blackrock 3. Statestreet
Comcast: 1. Blackrock 2. Vanguard group 4. Statestreet
Disney: 1. Vanguard Group 2. Blackrock 3. Statestreet
News Corp: 2. Vanguard 3. Blackrock 6. Statestreet

The truth is that power is much more concentrated than most people even realize. Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street, and a handful of other financial holding companies own controlling shares in all major media companies.

Oh but it gets much worse. What are some of the biggest corporations in other industries you can think of? Have a look at the top shareholders in Microsoft, Pfizer, Exxon, Coca Cola, It’s the same three financial companies! Together, these companies often own 20-50% of almost every major publicly traded corporation in America."



How much is too much? i'm thinking this is too much.

[revelarts]

...BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street Global Advisors (“State Street”) recently issued their voting policy updates for 2022, as well as guidance about their 2022 priorities for their portfolio companies. On January 18, 2022, BlackRock’s CEO issued his annual “Letter to CEOs” (available here), following closely on the heels of State Street’s CEO, who issued his annual letter to public company directors on January 12.
These pronouncements from the “Big Three” asset managers reflect a number of common themes, including an emphasis on climate and the transition to a Net Zero economy, diversity at the board level and throughout the workforce, and effective human capital management. Links to the BlackRock and Vanguard voting policies for 2022 are below. State Street’s voting policy updates span several documents that provide guidance on areas that State Street views as focal points for the coming year. Links to these documents are also below.
https://www.gibsondunn.com/blackrock-vanguard-and-state-street-update-corporate-governance-and-esg-policies-and-priorities-for-2022/

..........
Suddenly Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street not only have the assets but the power of ESG mandates, which make them a growing threat to shareholder democracy, critics say
A handful of super-charged fund managers control $34 trillion of assets and most of the ESG inflows, giving them 'carte blanche' to shape corporate policies.
Wednesday, July 28, 2021 – 6:35 PM by Oisin Breen
John Rekenthaler: I am concerned about the amount of power the [biggest fund managers] wield, even if they wield that power well.
The embrace of ESG by an ETF power bloc of BlackRock, Vanguard Group, Fidelity Investments, Capital Group and State Street may augur a dark future where they hold the power to sway shareholder votes, according to RIAs, fund trackers, hedge funds and ESG advocates alike.
Vincent Deluard: Shareholder democracy will not work as intended.
The rising chorus of critics say the elite exchange-traded-fund producers from Boston, New York, Philly and Los Angeles pose a rising threat to "shareholder democracy" -- albeit because the power has been thrust upon them.
Investors and advisors have not only funneled their assets to the ETF elite for the past decade but also made them all powerful by giving carte blanche to deploy Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) filters that would freeze out scores of companies....
https://riabiz.com/a/2021/7/28/suddenly-vanguard-blackrock-state-street-not-only-have-the-assets-but-the-power-of-esg-mandates-which-make-them-a-growing-threat-to-shareholder-democracy-critics-say

.........
Hidden power of the Big Three? Passive index funds, re-concentration of corporate ownership, and new financial risk
Since 2008, a massive shift has occurred from active toward passive investment strategies. The passive index fund industry is dominated by BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, which we call the “Big Three.” We comprehensively map the ownership of the Big Three in the United States and find that together they constitute the largest shareholder in 88 percent of the S&P 500 firms. In contrast to active funds, the Big Three hold relatively illiquid and permanent ownership positions. This has led to opposing views on incentives and possibilities to actively exert shareholder power. Some argue passive investors have little shareholder power because they cannot “exit,” while others point out this gives them stronger incentives to actively influence corporations. Through an analysis of proxy vote records we find that the Big Three do utilize coordinated voting strategies and hence follow a centralized corporate governance strategy. However, they generally vote with management, except at director (re-)elections. Moreover, the Big Three may exert “hidden power” through two channels: First, via private engagements with management of invested companies; and second, because company executives could be prone to internalizing the objectives of the Big Three. We discuss how this development entails new forms of financial risk....
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-and-politics/article/hidden-power-of-the-big-three-passive-index-funds-reconcentration-of-corporate-ownership-and-new-financial-risk/30AD689509AAD62F5B677E916C28C4B6

........
How a Company Called BlackRock Shapes Your News, Your Life, Our Future
Five giant corporations now control most of what we see and read. The smallest number of media companies are now reaching the largest number of people in U.S. history, and the strongest critical analysis I can find is not in mainstream media, but in the student newspaper at Vassar. Which gives you some idea of the pickle we are in.
Who controls the corporations who control our news? A helpful index was just compiled—not by mainstream media, but by Harvard researchers exploring media’s future....
Since 2008’s shakeup, more and more investors have focused on passive funds rather than picking and choosing particular stocks. This is an unprecedented shift, one that might even threaten capitalism....
This has “moved the country toward a peculiar kind of financial oligarchy,” decreasing competition because “mega-asset managers control large stakes in multiple competitors in the same industry.”
An investigative reporter I worked with used to mutter “oligarchy” when suspicious. The word is now appropriate....
https://commonreader.wustl.edu/how-a-company-called-blackrock-shapes-your-news-your-life-our-future/


This crap needs breaking up.

[revelarts]

(http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=1005782#post1005782)Why did they allow xm and Sirius radio to merge?

exactly

then there's this

https://i.redd.it/nb11lryl6ca01.png




"Top shareholders of:
Time Warner: 1. Vanguard Group 2. Blackrock 3. Statestreet
Comcast: 1. Blackrock 2. Vanguard group 4. Statestreet
Disney: 1. Vanguard Group 2. Blackrock 3. Statestreet
News Corp: 2. Vanguard 3. Blackrock 6. Statestreet

The truth is that power is much more concentrated than most people even realize. Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street, and a handful of other financial holding companies own controlling shares in all major media companies.

Oh but it gets much worse. What are some of the biggest corporations in other industries you can think of? Have a look at the top shareholders in Microsoft, Pfizer, Exxon, Coca Cola, It’s the same three financial companies! Together, these companies often own 20-50% of almost every major publicly traded corporation in America."



How much is too much? i'm thinking this is too much.

...
....

[fj1200]

Why did they allow xm and Sirius radio to merge?

Without refreshing my memory I can think of three reasons (but really only two rational reasons) why.

1. There are scads of other media outlets that compete with satellite radio.
2. One of them was going out of business anyway.
3. Further the globalist hegemony.

[Black Diamond]

Without refreshing my memory I can think of three reasons (but really only two rational reasons) why.

1. There are scads of other media outlets that compete with satellite radio.
2. One of them was going out of business anyway.
3. Further the globalist hegemony.

The third reason made me laugh so you get points for that.
I think there are close enough substitutes now. But I don't think there then. If you wanted digital radio you had to choose them.

[fj1200]

"Top shareholders of:
Time Warner: 1. Vanguard Group 2. Blackrock 3. Statestreet
Comcast: 1. Blackrock 2. Vanguard group 4. Statestreet
Disney: 1. Vanguard Group 2. Blackrock 3. Statestreet
News Corp: 2. Vanguard 3. Blackrock 6. Statestreet

The truth is that power is much more concentrated than most people even realize. Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street, and a handful of other financial holding companies own controlling shares in all major media companies.

Oh but it gets much worse. What are some of the biggest corporations in other industries you can think of? Have a look at the top shareholders in Microsoft, Pfizer, Exxon, Coca Cola, It’s the same three financial companies! Together, these companies often own 20-50% of almost every major publicly traded corporation in America."



How much is too much? i'm thinking this is too much.


Facts not in evidence. They're not exactly financial holding companies. They're fund companies that act as investment advisor for millions of small investors, individuals, companies, pension funds public and private, etc. and larger investors. But that aside, how are you going to break them up?

And that last bold? Seems to be straight up false. The ownership by the top three seem to top out around 15%

[fj1200]

The third reason made me laugh so you get points for that.
I think there are close enough substitutes now. But I don't think there then. If you wanted digital radio you had to choose them.

:cool: That's why I think #2 was the real answer. But there was always the radio in your car.

[fj1200]

https://i.redd.it/nb11lryl6ca01.png



I count six major news outlets if you had in CBS owned by Viacom. How many do you want?

[revelarts]

Facts not in evidence. They're not exactly financial holding companies. They're fund companies that act as investment advisor for millions of small investors, individuals, companies, pension funds public and private, etc. and larger investors.

But that aside, how are you going to break them up?

In a way that would cause you the least discomfort FJ.

[fj1200]

In a way that would cause you the least discomfort FJ.

Your seeming inability to understand what you're proposing causes me discomfort.

Any comment on the seemingly false numbers in your link?

[SassyLady]

Who makes the decisions of where Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street invest?

You might not think they "own" the companies listed but someone in those 3 companies are deciding where the monies go. Which results in a concentration of power down to 3 major companies weilding economic power worldwide.

[SassyLady]

Your seeming inability to understand what you're proposing causes me discomfort.

Any comment on the seemingly false numbers in your link?
Have you proven the numbers are false or are you just proclaiming your opinion.

[fj1200]

Who makes the decisions of where Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street invest?

You might not think they "own" the companies listed but someone in those 3 companies are deciding where the monies go. Which results in a concentration of power down to 3 major companies weilding economic power worldwide.

You should also not think that they "own" the companies because they don't. They are called investment advisors. Individuals and entities are more than able to remove their dollars from those funds. And you think that they have far more economic power than they do.

[SassyLady]

You should also not think that they "own" the companies because they don't. They are called investment advisors. Individuals and entities are more than able to remove their dollars from those funds. And you think that they have far more economic power than they do.
Who are their largest investors? And, once again .. who decides where the monies get invested? Say I give a million dollars to Blackrock to invest for me. Who in the company, Blackrock, decides where it is invested?

[fj1200]

Have you proven the numbers are false or are you just proclaiming your opinion.

I looked up the largest stock ownership positions of each of the companies listed and at most they seemed to top out at 15% and many were significantly below. And those ownership positions are spread out over a not small number of individual funds within each IA.

Don't you ever fact check this stuff?

[fj1200]

Who are their largest investors? And, once again .. who decides where the monies get invested? Say I give a million dollars to Blackrock to invest for me. Who in the company, Blackrock, decides where it is invested?

Fund managers. It's not a mystery.

[fj1200]

Together, these companies often own 20-50% of almost every major publicly traded corporation in America."



Have you proven the numbers are false or are you just proclaiming your opinion.

Was my math wrong?

[revelarts]

You should also not think that they "own" the companies because they don't. They are called investment advisors. Individuals and entities are more than able to remove their dollars from those funds. And you think that they have far more economic power than they do.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FggKRjIWQAU9bXL?format=jpg&name=small

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/08/pam-chan-blackrock-esg-how-leaders-think-innovate/

Seems like to me Blackrock is pushing/promoting/expects "Environmental, Social, and Governance" moves from businesses.
So says Balckrock investment Chief.


But hey I'm sure the expectations of the 1000 pound gorilla corporation BlackRock has no influence on the way corporations act.
I'ts just "the market"

[fj1200]

Seems like to me Blackrock is pushing/promoting/expects "Environmental, Social, and Governance" moves from businesses.
So says Balckrock investment Chief.


But hey I'm sure the expectations of the 1000 pound gorilla corporation BlackRock has no influence on the way corporations act.
I'ts just "the market"

They apparently believe that will lead to superior returns. What is your solution? An answer that also takes into account your apparent positions that we do not have enough banks and media outlets and that Blackrock, State Street, and Vanguard apparently do not control 50% of the companies referenced in posts above. :)

[SassyLady]

They apparently believe that will lead to superior returns. What is your solution? An answer that also takes into account your apparent positions that we do not have enough banks and media outlets and that Blackrock, State Street, and Vanguard apparently do not control 50% of the companies referenced in posts above. :)

There are plenty of pension plan managers who are distancing themselves from that gorilla because it's using investor's money to force businesses to follow the ESG parameters.

That's pressure from one man's ideology using other people's money. Not investing in a company that doesn't follow ESG could be construed as controlling. Or threatening to cut off funding due to not implementing ESG is another control facet.

I think Fink should inform his investors which companies he's dumping due to not adhering to ESGs.

I know I don't want my money being used to further some ideologue. There are plenty of companies out there making a profit without the ESG mandate.

[fj1200]

There are plenty of pension plan managers who are distancing themselves from that gorilla because it's using investor's money to force businesses to follow the ESG parameters.

That's pressure from one man's ideology using other people's money. Not investing in a company that doesn't follow ESG could be construed as controlling. Or threatening to cut off funding due to not implementing ESG is another control facet.

I think Fink should inform his investors which companies he's dumping due to not adhering to ESGs.

I know I don't want my money being used to further some ideologue. There are plenty of companies out there making a profit without the ESG mandate.

Certainly within their rights.

[revelarts]

Larry Fink, BlackRock Chairman & CEO, and Bill Gates, Founder of Breakthrough Energy, discussed how companies will need to shift to accelerate the transition to a net zero economy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhg51CuLRa0


"market driven"?

[revelarts]

https://time.com/collection/great-reset/5900748/klaus-schwab-capitalism/

A Better Economy Is Possible. But We Need to Reimagine Capitalism to Do It

"...Reacting to increasing pressure from climate activists and younger generations, BlackRock asked the CEOs of companies it invested in to more explicitly pursue environmental, social and governance goals. These decisions may hurt short-term profits for itself as shareholder, but it maximizes long-term returns in a world where people increasingly revolt against a system they perceive as unfair."....

[fj1200]

^Was there a solution in there?

[revelarts]

^Was there a solution in there?

So there's an admission there^ that there is a real problem with BlackRock and etc.? right?
Ok great.

As far as solutions to the problem, we've mentioned it before. it's breaking up the monopolistic control.
busting black rock and others in the 100,000 pieces, that can never rejoin.

It's not a solution you like, but you seem to simply want the train to run off the "[COLOR=#3E3E3E]Environmental, Social, and Governance" net zero cliff.
While waving a false banner that says "free trade"

[fj1200]

So there's an admission there^ that there is a real problem with BlackRock and etc.? right?
Ok great.

As far as solutions to the problem, we've mentioned it before. it's breaking up the monopolistic control.
busting black rock and others in the 100,000 pieces, that can never rejoin.

It's not a solution you like, but you seem to simply want the train to run off the "[COLOR=#3E3E3E]Environmental, Social, and Governance" net zero cliff.
While waving a false banner that says "free trade"

Actually this thread is about solutions, conservative ones. There's another thread where you get to prove your case.

As to your solution of breaking up "monopolistic control;" I've asked before how many <fill in the blank> do you want? I've pointed out before that a quoted statistic of "20 to 50%" appears to not be true; was I incorrect?

As an aside, what if individual investors desire to invest per ESG?

[fj1200]

The truth is that power is much more concentrated than most people even realize. Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street, and a handful of other financial holding companies own controlling shares in all major media companies.

Oh but it gets much worse. What are some of the biggest corporations in other industries you can think of? Have a look at the top shareholders in Microsoft, Pfizer, Exxon, Coca Cola, It’s the same three financial companies! Together, these companies often own 20-50% of almost every major publicly traded corporation in America."



How much is too much? i'm thinking this is too much.

...
....

True or not?

[revelarts]

[/FONT][/COLOR][/INDENT][/I][/FONT][/COLOR]


Was my math wrong?


I'll need to review the data on that.
But still, they are leading the trend and pushing the

[fj1200]

I'll need to review the data on that.

How's the data review coming?

[fj1200]

"Top shareholders of:
Time Warner: 1. Vanguard Group 2. Blackrock 3. Statestreet
Comcast: 1. Blackrock 2. Vanguard group 4. Statestreet
Disney: 1. Vanguard Group 2. Blackrock 3. Statestreet
News Corp: 2. Vanguard 3. Blackrock 6. Statestreet

The truth is that power is much more concentrated than most people even realize. Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street, and a handful of other financial holding companies own controlling shares in all major media companies.

Oh but it gets much worse. What are some of the biggest corporations in other industries you can think of? Have a look at the top shareholders in Microsoft, Pfizer, Exxon, Coca Cola, It’s the same three financial companies! Together, these companies often own 20-50% of almost every major publicly traded corporation in America."



How much is too much? i'm thinking this is too much.


And that last bold? Seems to be straight up false. The ownership by the top three seem to top out around 15%

Oops. I was supposed to present another one.

[fj1200]

exactly

then there's this

https://i.redd.it/nb11lryl6ca01.png




How much is too much? i'm thinking this is too much.


I count six major news outlets if you had in CBS owned by Viacom. How many do you want?

In re: monopolies vs oligopolies. This doesn't count the literal thousands of other news outlets; some big, some small, some good, some bad.

EDIT: I also recall a similar graphic representing personal goods, etc. Same question; how many do you want?

[fj1200]

the answer is... what no one really wants to do.
And lot you won't like FJ.

a few items come to mind
-Chuck all the unconstitutional laws, rules & executive orders.
-Pare back the federal gov't by 1st ending several "depts" like education.
-Send what's left back to states & local jurisdiction.
-Review all U.N.Treaties & trade agreements ... auto kill those that put a shadow on State or Local sovereignty or jurisdiction... for a start.
-Break up U.S. monopolies in energy, banking, big Ag, big Pharma, media & tech... to start.
-Open up the auto (and other) industry to all alternative fuels & states incentivizes auto manufacture startups.
(alt fuels meaning make it LEGAL for cars etc to run off of HOMEBrew if it works)
-States Annex all water held on there lands by corporations.
-States review all land held by the "the nature conservatory"
-States freeze, review repeal all agenda 21etc plans
-States and locals gain right to review ownership of federal lands & or land use.... and lands owned by foreign entities.

i could go on but ... i'll leave it here suspecting that most folks would rather continue heading over the cliff than change direction.
And I'm fairly sure that you don't like anything that would disrupt corporate profits, ownerships or the banking system.

But remember you did ask for conservative.
Which in my mind means constitutional gov't with ALL freedoms intact, small gov't, local control, small 'c' capitalism.
My main bow to pragmatism is that monopolistic/megacorps are not conducive to small gov't or personal sovereignty and so cannot be allowed.
(the same as mega gov't (national or world) should not be allowed.)


Some good, some bad. It seemed that you started with some good small-government, Constitutional, conservative ideas that are just good in general but then you started moving left. We have anti-trust laws and arguably no real monopolies outside of the "natural monopolies" that are generally local. When you start to break up monopolies how do you decide what monopolies are? How big are they? How much market share? etc. We used to have the Big 3 automakers and now we sort of have 3 left plus scads more foreign entries that sell, and make, cars in the US. That didn't take laws. How many cell phone companies do we need to have if we have a cell phone monopoly now? How many banks? We have 4 banks with at least 10% market share. We have 13 banks with at least 3% market share. What's the right number?

How much do you want the state to seize or control private property? Is there a particular problem that needs to be addressed? Have those problem been identified yet? Can you even have the right solution if you haven't identified the problem? That would seem to be the best starting point.

And there you go assuming things again. :slap:


you know what FJ, "we've" somehow figured out how to tax every last grown man and woman in the country and every biz, our property, every purchase, in some states even our food ...even down taxing waitresses tips. .
With the "right" numbers.
I think we can probably come up with someway to answer the questions you've proposed and biz will survive in a world at least as fair as the tax code.
But I've got a few Ideas, I've read of several others.
but i won't get into a debate about them with you here.

Because , Well, could you answer me one question?
Can you imagine any scenario where you'd agree that breaking up monopolies artificial & "natural" is a good thing?
If not, why are you asking me for details?




When it comes to water rights, Yes i want to states & locals to have control and not Hersey company, Bill Gates, the nature conservancy, big Ag , or oil, gas or coal companies.
Or have them managed by globalist agenda plans.
Local Public resource.
Everyone's usually fine with that as long as it's Native American lands & waters. not sure why it's a problem here.
BTW there's long been a thing call "eminent domain". Generally I'm not a fan but if we're going to use it I'm not sure why large corporations lands/water are exempt.

But a lot of the lands I'm talking about are Federal lands. I'd like to see a large portion of that go back to the states.
Which could allow some back into the private hands. And NOT just to the highest bidders.
No LAND monopolies either FJ.

As far as a starting point goes Again,
Can you imagine any scenario where you'd agree that states using "eminent domain" or annexing or buying back lands (for pennies on the dollar) from big corporations for public use is a good thing?
If not, why are you asking me for details?


You do know that natural monopolies is an economics term don't you? That aside, breaking up monopolies is a good thing. It's just that we don't have monopolies in this country. That's why I'm asking you for details. We have anti-trust laws and mergers frequently need DOJ approval before proceeding.



I ask for details because that's where the rubber hits the road. You're actually going to have to get specific here because eminent domain generally isn't just used for taking private property for any reason. And there's no "pennies on the dollar" because the Constitution requires "just compensation," i.e fair market value.

You're going to have to come up with pretty good reasons why you want to use the takings clause to seize property from private hands in my book.

In re: questionable logic.

[revelarts]

In re: questionable logic.
No questionable logic here, you just have questions about details.

[fj1200]

No questionable logic here, you just have questions about details.

I think you need to read more closely. I ask questions to clarify solutions when detail and/or logic is inconsistent.

[revelarts]

I think you need to read more closely. I ask questions to clarify solutions when detail and/or logic is inconsistent.

Could you just make it plan for me.
Please quote a short passage where my logic is faulty in your view.
Or post your correction to my inconsistent logic.

If you'd like me to use better logic, or see your logical point, you need to be very clear what the logical mistakes or logical fallacies are.
We're all subject to them. We all have blind spots. Please point them out.
At this point i do not see the logic problem you seem to see so clearly.

[fj1200]

Could you just make it plan for me.
Please quote a short passage where my logic is faulty in your view.
Or post your correction to my inconsistent logic.

If you'd like me to use better logic, or see your logical point, you need to be very clear what the logical mistakes or logical fallacies are.
We're all subject to them. We all have blind spots. Please point them out.
At this point i do not see the logic problem you seem to see so clearly.

Why?

You say, "break up monopolies."

I say, "there isn't really any monopolies."

You say, "we figure out how to tax people."

I think to myself, "ummm..."

And you throw this into the mix....


...
but i won't get into a debate about them with you here.
...

I can agree that monopolies are bad. But we really don't have any and the ones we actually have are highly regulated. I can agree that oligopolies are bad but you haven't defined market concentration. The first thing in finding a solution is correctly identifying the problem.

[Gunny]

Going back to the thread title ... quit paying them. Seems to me most global institutions are supported by a nice, healthy check from Uncle Sam so they can shit on us.

[SassyLady]

Going back to the thread title ... quit paying them. Seems to me most global institutions are supported by a nice, healthy check from Uncle Sam so they can shit on us.
They already hate us so let's stop the money and they can still hate us.

[SassyLady]

Why?

You say, "break up monopolies."

I say, "there isn't really any monopolies."

You say, "we figure out how to tax people."

I think to myself, "ummm..."

And you throw this into the mix....



I can agree that monopolies are bad. But we really don't have any and the ones we actually have are highly regulated. I can agree that oligopolies are bad but you haven't defined market concentration. The first thing in finding a solution is correctly identifying the problem.
Isn't Microsoft still a monopoly?

[Gunny]

They already hate us so let's stop the money and they can still hate us.Again, "globalist" is not really defined. Rather, it's used loosely and freely with evolving definitions to suit one's arguments.

For the purpose of my comment I refer to the wannabe global government organizations that have only as much power as they are given.

If they want to hate me they can get in line:rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Isn't Microsoft still a monopoly?

I was thinking about MS when I was typing my post and IIRC the problem back then was them bundling Explorer with the OS and there is no monopoly on internet explorer platforms any more. There are also other OS options too, MS, Apple, Linux, Chromebook, etc. Regardless they were subjected to anti-trust laws.

[Black Diamond]

Again, "globalist" is not really defined. Rather, it's used loosely and freely with evolving definitions to suit one's arguments.

For the purpose of my comment I refer to the wannabe global government organizations that have only as much power as they are given.

If they want to hate me they can get in line:rolleyes:

The L-word again?

[Gunny]

The L-word again??

[SassyLady]

I was thinking about MS when I was typing my post and IIRC the problem back then was them bundling Explorer with the OS and there is no monopoly on internet explorer platforms any more. There are also other OS options too, MS, Apple, Linux, Chromebook, etc. Regardless they were subjected to anti-trust laws.

Didn't the court case get thrown out or something? And I think they still dominate the market by over 75%. How have regulations helped competitors?

[Black Diamond]

?

Labels :laugh:

[fj1200]

Didn't the court case get thrown out or something? And I think they still dominate the market by over 75%. How have regulations helped competitors?

Google is your friend.

[SassyLady]

Google is your friend.

Don't use Google and I was just trying to give you something to refute.

[fj1200]

Don't use Google and I was just trying to give you something to refute.

Waste of time.

[SassyLady]

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/u-judge-rules-google-broke-185454039.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A U.S. judge ruled on Monday that Google violated antitrust law, spending billions of dollars to create an illegal monopoly and become the world's default search engine, the first big win for federal authorities taking on Big Tech's market dominance.

Interesting

[fj1200]

Meh, unless you're into globalist on globalist action.

[SassyLady]

Meh, unless you're into globalist on globalist action.

So, you don't think Google being a monopoly is anything to be worried about? How it is used to affect and effect globalist propaganda?

[fj1200]

So, you don't think Google being a monopoly is anything to be worried about? How it is used to affect and effect globalist propaganda?

The entire point of your link is that Google ("globalist") is being sued by the current administration ("globalist") that they shouldn't be allowed to act as a monopoly. I'm trying to figure out if your schtick here is serious.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimages6.fanpop.com%2Fimage%2Fphoto s%2F41200000%2FHoratio-lthoratio-caine-41251625-853-480.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=07fd583fba4612d20fde85988835e6e8c2ffbdb292680c 3cffa63ab477f6e820&ipo=images

[SassyLady]

The entire point of your link is that Google ("globalist") is being sued by the current administration ("globalist") that they shouldn't be allowed to act as a monopoly. I'm trying to figure out if your schtick here is serious.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimages6.fanpop.com%2Fimage%2Fphoto s%2F41200000%2FHoratio-lthoratio-caine-41251625-853-480.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=07fd583fba4612d20fde85988835e6e8c2ffbdb292680c 3cffa63ab477f6e820&ipo=images

:nevermind:
:believecrap:

[fj1200]

:nevermind:
:believecrap:

Perhaps if you could coherently lay out your thoughts, position, and rationale on the subject. More specifically to your earlier questions...


So, you don't think Google being a monopoly is anything to be worried about? How it is used to affect and effect globalist propaganda?

1st, No, not to be worried about but as I stated earlier we have laws against monopolies and you've provided evidence that they are being used to address Google's monopoly position. Google has a monopoly position because they have the best product not dissimilar to MS from the double-aughts. 2nd, facts not in evidence.

[SassyLady]

They have a monopoly because they buy out their competitors.

BTW ... how will the "govt" break up this monopoly?

[fj1200]

They have a monopoly because they buy out their competitors.

BTW ... how will the "govt" break up this monopoly?

Which competitors? What level of market concentration do you feel is "monopoly" level?

Umm, they're being sued the government passed a law and stuff.

[SassyLady]

Which competitors? What level of market concentration do you feel is "monopoly" level?

Umm, they're being sued the government passed a law and stuff.
But how does that break up the monopoly? What exactly will happen? They pay a fine and continue on?

[fj1200]

But how does that break up the monopoly? What exactly will happen? They pay a fine and continue on?

Read the law.

[SassyLady]

Read the law.

The law is just words. How do you think it will actually happen?

[fj1200]

The law is just words. How do you think it will actually happen?

I don't know what will actually happen but words are a good start. Beats crayons. Nevertheless, look at the law, look at precedent, look at what the government has said they want... Research is powerful.

[SassyLady]

I don't know what will actually happen but words are a good start. Beats crayons. Nevertheless, look at the law, look at precedent, look at what the government has said they want... Research is powerful.

I don't think anything will happen to Google.