|
https://twitter.com/JoshLekach/status/1647714670403354626?t=VvN-vF8Umn7_EYU3kutGWQ&s=19 I thought this TikToker made a surprising point but if it's true then how come there aren't any megathreads on it? Is she making poo poo up?
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2023 14:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
I dunno why there aren't any megathreads, I don't know anything about this subject or I would help put one together. Do you have any knowledge because it's a good topic. That TikToker is pretty annoying and I dont really get the dancing connection but could definitely be at the bottom of a post on this topic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2023 15:17
|
|
|
My understanding is that ownership and control are different things. Yes, boards sign off on the really big decisions by businesses, review accounts etc, but they have little say in the day to day business operations. Most board members (excluding inside directors) aren't experts in the industries they have ownership in, so they give a lot of leeway to the C-Suite to set business objectives, strategy, and budgets. They meet now and again to review and sign-off on those strategies and make sure the accounting and thinking behind them is sound. A board meeting for a company might go like: "This year, our target is to increase EBITDA by 5%, to do that, we intend to invest X million into building new product 4, which will generate Y million in its first year, we're also forecasting that existing products 1, 2, and 3 will generate Z million to hit those targets. Here's some growth charts for those products that show that we're confident in hitting the numbers." The board members ask some probing questions e.g. key risks behind those numbers like "Ok but your competitor also launched product 3 last year, do you think you'll maintain market share" and the C-suite will present evidence to show that they will, the board then signs off on the strategy. So the board isn't really controlling the organization beyond making sure they're thinking their numbers through and aren't doing whacky things like selling oranges if they make radiators or whatever, or rarely intervening where the CEO keeps making bad decisions. Blackrock and Vanguard are investment management companies, which means banks, pension funds etc that invest money with the hope to make it grow give them their money to manage. They use some crazy smart tech to work out how to allocate that money between different companies to make it grow optimally. That gives them controlling stakes in many boards, but their role is pretty much limited to what I mentioned above (though Blackrock has been encouraging companies to have ESG policies / diverse C-Suites recently, much to the ire of the right). Caveat to say that this is very much a layman's understanding. I don't have an MBA or anything. I just work in a senior role that involves explaining complex financial stuff to the public and that's how I understand it from osmosis talking to executive folks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
Blackrock and Vanguard don't loving own all the world's corporations. They're investment companies. Being on a board doesn't mean you're a secret puppeteer, that's bullshit- you'd need to actually control the board. The same is true of stock holdings generally. Vanguard's board isn't secret and isn't "the world's wealthiest families", it's right here. Vanguard is notable for being weirdly structured in that its own funds own the company, which is a way of actually diverting formal interested power downward toward its (relatively low dollar) investors. There's plenty horribly wrong with corporate finance without lending credence to random podcaster tweets mediating tiktok global conspiracy theory dance videos. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Apr 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 21:39
|
|
|
As a rule of thumb, the answer to the question "Are X the secret rulers of the world" is "no"; the world is run by pretty much the same politicians, businessmen, etc. whose names appear in the news, with varying degrees of conflict and cooperation between them, and generally doing a pretty bad job of it. I guess not everyone has exactly the same power-to-prominence ratio, but that's probably not so much a grand conspiracy as it is some powerful people being pathological attention-seekers while others aren't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2023 22:18
|
|
|
Could you please add a summary of that tiktok to the OP so people don't have to watch it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
Interesting talk, maybe we should use specific examples. Here, I'll provide a few. So, let's take a look at a few massive corporations starting with one that controls much of the food we eat: First we have Tyson Foods. They're the guys gouging chicken prices and putting out massive profit margins this year: https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/TYSON-FOODS-INC-14672/company/  AS you can see, of the ~75% of owned stock, all the major owners are financial institutions. Next, let's look at major tech company Alphabet: https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/ALPHABET-INC-24203373/company/  Some very familiar names. Finally, let's look at some foreign oil interests. Surely, European oil company Shell will have a different set of owners, right? https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/SHELL-PLC-130945922/company/  Weird, a nearly identical group of owners. Very strange. Cpt_Obvious fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Apr 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 18:35
|
|
|
Now lets focus on a single industry, specifically food production: We've already done Tyson but for posterity's sake: https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/TYSON-FOODS-INC-14672/company/ What about their "competitors"? Afterall, Tyson is only one company. Let's look at their two major competitors, Pepsico and Nestle. These 3 are generally considered the titans of the food industry. So first, PepsiCo: https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/PEPSICO-INC-39085159/company/  Wow! Super weird! Ok, what about Nestle:  https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/NESTLE-S-A-120787995/company/ Well IDK why they decided to include company owned stocks in the stats this time, but for the first time we can see it's NOT vanguard in first place! See! Variety! Edit: So, in conclusion, we can see that not all companies are owned by a handful of corporations. Instead, all the corporations are owned by a handful of financial institutions. Cpt_Obvious fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Apr 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
I don't think you know what ownership is. Or you may not be able to read percentages. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 20:05
|
|
|
It's all the same people even if it isn't the exact same corporations. Any sufficiently wealthy person is going to have a diverse stock portfolio and only a small percentage of the population is going to be that wealthy. It's a class dictatorship.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
I was going to make a post about how Tesla could be an exception because, despite being a trillion dollar company, it was rejected entry in the S&P 500. But, oops! https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/TESLA-INC-6344549/company/  What's interesting here is that Elon owns as large of a percentage of Tesla as Vanguard owns of Tyson. Edit: VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV I don't understand what your argument is. Whether a stock is contained in an ETF or not does not change the ownership of the stock. Cpt_Obvious fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Apr 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:It's all the same people even if it isn't the exact same corporations. Any sufficiently wealthy person is going to have a diverse stock portfolio and only a small percentage of the population is going to be that wealthy. It's a class dictatorship. That's also not...like do you not know what an ETF is? You're complaining about the existence of stocks and retirement funds. You're describing a "dictatorship" of half of the adult population.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
It’s me. I own everything. Sorry, but also quit touching my stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 22:57
|
|
|
I don't really think that eg "20% of Shell is owned by financial institutions" is quite the control statement you think it is, and that's assuming it's not the stock being owned by a financial institution's members through it.Mantis42 posted:It's all the same people even if it isn't the exact same corporations. Any sufficiently wealthy person is going to have a diverse stock portfolio and only a small percentage of the population is going to be that wealthy. It's a class dictatorship. Which is very distinct from the explicit argument put forth by thread OP and the tiktok, which postulates what amounts to a conspiracy controlling the world by dint of owning it in a fairly unified fashion. Even at the "1% of the population owns 20% of the wealth" level (which shouldn't really exist), you kinda have to move from concerted-organized-conspiracy, everything-is-controlled-by-a-tiny-number-of-people, to class interests, corporations as psuedo-AIs, and squabbling factions. One percent of the US population is three and a half million people, that's not an easy group to actively coordinate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 23:22
|
|
|
Yeah it's less coordination and more our capitalist system gave all the power to corporations that basically legally have to follow the rule of "do what is best for the shareholders in the next quarter with no moral qualms unless it cost shareholder money" and everything just naturally evolved from that horrible system. Which is still a horrible problem that will cause untold suffering for the average person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 23:24
|
|
|
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist, but it would be hard to do worse than citing a number of corporations where Vanguard has the biggest stake as examples of plutocracy. The capitalist class is tiny, but that is relative to the global population of 8 billion people. It's still a lot of people. There are common material interests across this class, and more specific ones dependent on nationality, industry, chance, etc. The overall effect is that public policy tends to favor their interests, and also the most vital particular interests of particular strands of that class, even when any of these interests conflict with that of the overwhelmingly larger working class. It's simplistic and a bit conspiratorial to think that there's a small collection of people or orgs running the whole show. The macroscopic behavior of our social systems is due to macroscopic material forces. Individuals or even particular groups in themselves don't matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 23:31
|
|
|
The video in the OP does a good job at identifying certain trends in the macro-economic topology of the US, and some of it is even on display very publicly in, for example, the tech industry where buyouts and mergers seem to almost always be occurring in some sense or another - in 1997 The Simpsons was lampooning on the practice in an episode where one of the plot sublines was a Bill Gates buyout of Homer’s product simply because it was easier to use their considerable market position to buy them than it would be to compete with them - while this is of course a fictional plotline, its inspiration comes from Microsoft’s early business practice of doing just that - Consumers Software in 1991, Fox Software in 1992, Softimage, NextBase, One Tree, and Altamira in 1994, RenderMorphics in 1995 and so on and Microsoft continues this practice through today, with their sights most recently set on Activision Blizzard. Microsoft of course isn’t alone - one of the most well-known software companies in the nonprofit world is a company called Blackbaud - their signature product being a software suite called Raiser’s Edge. Some of Blackbaud’s latest acquisitions include three of its former competitors - EVERFI, Convio, and Smart Tuition, all valued in the hundreds-of-millions category. Whatever profits those companies were bringing in, are now Blackbaud’s profits. And I want to stress - absolutely none of this is remarkable in any way - it is how our system is designed to function. The capitalist success story ends in one of two happy endings: you compete and knock out the kingpin, or you become enough of a threat for them to buy you out and finance the rest of your natural life. And let’s be clear - these buyouts aren’t simply to end the competition - they also serve the purpose of acquiring a customer base and securing a revenue stream. Convio still exists at https://www.convio.com - it is now simply labeled a Blackbaud product, and the revenue from that product is now part of Blackbaud’s revenue, and their senior leadership are paid out appropriately*. This is a consolidation of wealth in action - every single tech merger or buyout that happens, happens in service of consolidating wealth and, again, I want to stress that this is normal - this is the success story - this is how our system was designed to function. So, while the video in the OP certainly touches on some salient points, I think it’s an unfortunately overbroad picture of the US’s corporate topology that lends itself to far too easily having various holes punched through it - and there’s a whole thread’s worth of stuff in relation to that to unpack from how the medium of TikTok itself shapes the message and its receipt to the use of ‘entertainment’ content disguising itself as essential economic news. All of that being said, what’s more troubling is the question of what exactly these corporations who work to consolidate profits into as few silos as possible do with all of that money. Coincidentally enough, renowned Economics Professor Richard Wolff put out a segment on this just today - the full video is linked here, and I’ve transcribed the “meat” of the argument he advances below: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlGdNJU1El8 quote:We have a government of a capitalist economic system and what that means is, that the discretionary wealth, what the corporations call profit, is in their hands. We all work to produce the profits, but they get them. We get a wage, they get all the rest of the value we produce when we work. They get the profits in their hands and that enables them to make themselves very wealthy because they take a healthy chunk of the profits we all produce for them, they take it for themselves. I’ve got some research I put together on another machine for a “labor issues” newsletter I occasionally contribute to that shows some pretty damning links between NRA (not that NRA) uses its army of lobbyists to suppress wages both at the federal and state levels if it’s something readers of the thread are interested in reading more about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2023 23:48
|
|
|
I, for one, would love to hear more of that, Necrobama. and actually the tiktok analysis thing too, whether in this thread or tech nightmares or what have you, but if you've got a topical research thing on quasi-organized wage suppression ready to go, even better
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 00:57
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:I, for one, would love to hear more of that, Necrobama. As to the shallowness of the argument prevented, I would largely echo this sentiment (though probably not quite as aggressively) - Discendo Vox posted:Blackrock and Vanguard don't loving own all the world's corporations. They're investment companies. and add in the criticism that under such an over-broad argument anyone who has a retirement plan through their employer in the US is part of the ruling class which can be very easily dispelled by...looking at the balance of that employer-sponsored retirement fund. To the capitalist, you've essentially teed up the counterargument of "that's just your retirement money working for you!" which is Not Wrong - if you've got an agreement with someone that you'll give them $400/mo every year for 40 years and they'll return that to you after those 40 years at twice the amount you invested, that return has to come from somewhere - you invest money in [John Hancock/Fidelity/etc], that investment firm invests the money you (and others) have given them and then pass on some pre-negotiated % of their returns back to you. This is all true, this is how the capitalist retirement system works, and is a counterargument that any Marxist that has spent any amount of time trying to elucidate other members of the proletariat about how the system is tuned against them is ready for it and should preempt in their criticism - and with nothing more than a single TikTok video, it's impossible to discern if the presenter is A) uninformed, B) inexperienced, or C) controlled opposition whose sole job is to tee up the easy capitalist defense of the system I outlined (admittedly this is a claim that would require an extraordinary amount of evidence to seriously consider, it's a media actor archetype that Marshall McLuhan often spoke about, succinctly summed up with "Only puny secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity.") And that all speaks to part of the problem with the medium itself. At just under three minutes long, you're already stretching the expected engagement time of any particular social media post. It's something you stop to watch a bit of while you're standing in the checkout line, or waiting for your latte, or sitting on the john - a TikTok is, I would argue, unquestionably one of the worst format to attempt to convey a full and defensible idea - there's a hidden fourth option to the ones I gave above here and that neither A, B, nor C are true, but rather D) the requirements to make a fully-founded, defensible criticism are antithetical to getting your message seen on the platform. We don't know what TikTok's specific algorithm for promoting content is but there's lots of "crowdsourced" evidence (for whatever that's worth - the content creators themselves certainly seem to think it's worth something and thus tailor their content to fit) that says dancing, erratic movements, overexpressive facial expressions, and certain lengths of video seem to do best, so a content creator has to keep all of those things in mind and balance them with their message - "we shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us." Ultimately, the performative feeling that comes through as a byproduct of playing to what (a creator thinks) will boost their ranking with the algorithm takes away a degree of seriousness from the entire message. Succinctly: TikTok sucks for anything other than entertainment. It was never meant to be a tool to disseminate meaningful institutional awareness. I'm pretty well burned out for the night, so I'll probably go digging through my poo poo some time tomorrow or even over the weekend depending how the next few days shake out at the old spreadsheet factory, but "The Other NRA" (National Restaurant Association) is a great example of an org with an incredibly powerful lobbying organ that's incredibly brazen and open in its goals, so it's not super hard to put together a really solid caulk-and-string board if it's salvageable in the state it's in (our original newsletter never got published, Ask Me About How Much Market Unionism Blows!)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 02:29
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:I was going to make a post about how Tesla could be an exception because, despite being a trillion dollar company, it was rejected entry in the S&P 500. But, oops! Tesla is on the S&P 500. Perhaps you're confusing their removal from the specific S&P 500 ESG Index?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 09:24
|
|
|
A rather easier way to look at it is groups like mars, coca cola etc, own probably half the shelf of "different brands" for a bunch of products. Between coke and pepsi that's probbaly 90% of the soft drinks you see on the shelf. J&J owns a huge chunk of the personal hygiene and baby market. Whether it's quite at the point of "two companies own everything" yet, the trend is towards centralization and there are plenty of extant instances of what people might intuit as different brands being owned by the same company.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 09:57
|
|
|
i am not accusing anyone in this thread of doing it, and i’m not accusing the person in the video of doing it, but i’m always a bit wary when it comes to the whole vanguard and blackrock discourse because i’ve seen first hand that it’s used as dogwhistle to imply that jews control everything. there’s obviously criticism to be made against firms like vanguard and blackrock as with all of the capitalist system but saying that they own everything always rubs me the wrong way because at best it’s inaccurate and at worst it’s a radicalization tactic
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 10:26
|
|
|
watho posted:i’ve seen first hand that it’s used as dogwhistle to imply that jews control everything. there’s obviously criticism to be made against firms like vanguard and blackrock as with all of the capitalist system but saying that they own everything always rubs me the wrong way because at best it’s inaccurate and at worst it’s a radicalization tactic Yeah, this is one of the metrics by which the claim that Senator Sanders is anti-Semitic despite being Jewish himself. Again: "Only puny secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity." By making "the consolidation of wealth is a Jewish plot to control the world" a thing a group believes, it poisons the well for critical discussion of wealth consolidation by opening an escape hatch to argue against an anti-Semitic straw man despite the business landscape we see with our lyin' eyes. eta) it also provides a pathway to portray basic class solidarity among the wealthiest as a grand conspiracy when no such conspiratorial effort is required - Capitalists know what's good for Capitalism and thus good for the Capitalists themselves Necrobama fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Apr 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 11:48
|
|
|
The thing is with the conspiracy theory/Illuminati mindset is that is basically at its core is about how the world as presented 'should' be working 'better' than it is, and the problem is that the world isn't actually working the way they're told it is, because obviously the systems are supposed to work when being operated correctly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 12:19
|
|
|
She's confusing a few different concepts. Black Rock and Vanguard don't have control of those companies since those shares are not directly owned by them but are owned by their clients who they're working on behalf of for ETFs and index funds. What I think she's confusing it with is the consolidation of consumer goods, so how it looks like a store is stocked with lots of different competitive brands but half of them are actually owned by Unilever. Pretty much it's taking a thing that's happening, the markets are dominated by a few different corporations who own large portfolios of brands, but is misunderstanding how that happens since it's not Black Rock or Vanguard doing that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 13:11
|
|
|
Both kinds of things are inevitable results of how our system is designed and they somewhat parallel each other. It's easy to mix up a bunch of separate people doing the same thing because they're the same kind of people with the idea that those people are working together. If you've never been to a wedding then you go to one and everyone starts doing the electric slide you might think they had spent months planning the choreography
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 13:18
|
|
|
A lot of conspiracy thinking is like this. They recognize a thing that is happening, companies want to consolidate and hold as much of the market as they can, but misunderstand the mechanisms that are causing it and view it as a lot more simple than it is. Holding shares, having voting rights, it's all a lot more complicated than she paints it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 13:33
|
|
|
All my retirement funds are in S&P 500 because i'm a lazy piece of poo poo so you can really say I control all the companies (or at least 500 of them?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2023 15:22
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That's also not...like do you not know what an ETF is? You're complaining about the existence of stocks and retirement funds. You're describing a "dictatorship" of half of the adult population. I'd like you to elaborate on this some too if possible - I posted about my understanding of a broad outline but if you're more familiar with the structure and implications of populace-wide investment that is obviously very topical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not sure if I understand correctly but if say Vanguard is the most popular provider of retirement funds and just buying the index ends up with them having 10% of all the companies on the S&P500 - do they actually have voting share power and the ability to influence how those companies operate in a significant way? I guess it seems like Vanguard does get to cast votes - and I saw an article from 2019 indicating that individual fund managers might be the ones casting votes: https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/corp/how-we-advocate/investment-stewardship/stewardship-in-action.html https://www.inquirer.com/business/vanguard-fund-manager-voting-right-independent-shareholder-proxy-20190429.html And it seems like for some funds they actually let the investors vote directly? https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/article/empowering-everyday-investors-through-proxy-voting-choice WarpedLichen fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Apr 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2023 02:25
|
|
|
This is uh, stupid. Like very stupid. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 22:14
|
|
|
Musk replied to this tweet and it reminded me of this thread: https://twitter.com/TexasLindsay_/status/1665440977824231438 "Behaviors are gonna have to change and this is one thing we're asking companies. Uh you have to force behaviors. At BlackRock we are forcing behaviors." This time it's for a good cause but I find it somewhat strange that a company that owns a piece of pretty much everything we interact with claims to be able, willing, and actively "forcing behaviors" if I've understood this right. They don't even seem like a majority shareholder so it's bizarre to see them "forcing" anything but maybe they can do stuff like threaten to sell one company and support a competitor or something. I'm not rich and I don't know what options come with having lots of money so it's hard to understand how they can claim to "force" things but it's bizarre to see an unelected group of rich people with influence over every part of our society implying they use that influence to make things the way they want them to be. I feel like they can openly talk about it in this case because they're doing good things this time but I don't trust rich people in general so it's hard to believe they're not using that influence in bad ways and simply being quiet about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
I mean that's literally what money is, a store of ability to force people without money to be able to do things. Its value is predicated on its compulsive capability, if it couldn't do that then it wouldn't have value.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:Musk replied to this tweet and it reminded me of this thread: Oh, they're definitely not using their influence purely benevolently. It's just that there are other important corporations and other entities than influence various companies, etc. Also, they are naturally going to be inclined to overstate rather than understate their own positive influence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:Musk replied to this tweet and it reminded me of this thread: I've said this hundreds and hundreds of times across various channels of communication, and I'm going to say it again: Corporate Social Responsibility is a sham. Its only purpose is to provide the private entities responsible for both economic and social inequity a seemingly-legitimate platform from which to conduct their own PR greenwashing campaigns while paying themselves back through tax credits driven by the nonprofit-industrial complex. I typically use Deloitte as an example when discussing CSR, but since BlackRock is in the news for this particular clip, I'll try and whip up some data from publicly available sources on the fly. First, let's start with the publicly reported data from BlackRock's political PAC Blackrock Fund Services Group: https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/blackrock-funds-services-group/C00479246/summary/2020 So, with our data in hand, we can start to break down the notion that Blackrock is a "socially responsible" company by way of their push to create more diverse workforces. Flip on over to the "Candidate Recipients" tab and start googling some names. Kevin Brady, R-Texas received $10,000 in the 2020 election cycle. In 2022, Mr. Brady voted against the Ensuring Access to Abortion Act of 2022. In 2021, Mr. Brady voted against the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021. In 2017, Mr. Brady voted in favor of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (again). In 2016, Mr. Brady voted in favor of the Conscience Protection Act of 2016. In 2015, Mr. Brady co-sponsored the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. In 2015, Mr. Brady voted in favor of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015. I think you get the point. In conclusion, BlackRock is perfectly happy to push for more diverse workplaces, while being perfectly happy to trade societal-wide protections for the rights of that diverse workforce for politicians that will more easily facilitate finance number go up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:Musk replied to this tweet and it reminded me of this thread: It's entirely possible that a tweet from a massive open bigot reposting a video clipped by @EndWokeness from a six-year-old interview might be taking things out of context to exaggerate stuff, and you probably shouldn't take its given framing at its word. Even if the video seems to back it up at first glance, this is an incredibly untrustworthy source so it's worth thinking very closely about it. In any case, watching the clip through and ignoring the framing, it seems fairly clear that the talk about forcing behaviors is in terms of what companies need to do internally to improve on diversity themselves - that they can't just leave it up to empty aspirational talk and hope their middle managers go along with it, they have to establish clear guidelines and incentives for management and employees. Pay close attention to the wording, especially in the first half. He's not talking about forcing companies to adopt these behaviors, he's talking about asking these companies to force these behaviors on themselves, and cites as an example how BlackRock forced themselves into the desired behavior by establishing a clear expectation for managers and employees and hinting at consequences if those expectations weren't met. In other words, he never actually says that BlackRock is forcing companies to do anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2023 18:03
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:I've said this hundreds and hundreds of times across various channels of communication, and I'm going to say it again: As they show themselves on the chart, big donors tend to donate to both sides so they end up in control no matter who wins the election. Which is to say that they have no principles at all, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
it's basically this except a wider top 031124_2 fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 00:45
|
|