378
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
378 points (97.7% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7228 readers
237 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Bud, I know it's pretty easy to jump down into conspiratorial rabbit holes whenever talking about Blackrock, vanguard, etc but let me ask you this:
Which sounds like a more solid plan? Investing in a platform that was dead in the water from the start, with no financial future. Or just donating to a bunch of politicians that are okay with your business practices?
I'm not saying they aren't causing a good bit of harm but you don't become the largest investment management firm on the planet by being that stupid
Then let's assume the people in charge want Trump back in office. Wouldn't it just make more sense to make political contributions to him and others sympathetic to his platform? That carries less reputational risk than investing in a known to fail platform.
Plus it's worth mentioning that those are assets under management ; they have to answer to their investors for every time they allocate. They can't just freely swing that around like most people think
They already make contributions that doesn't stop them from giving money in other dark ways like this as well. Just like they give money to pacs, as well as the candidates directly as well as a million other ways to keep the real amount given hard to track.
Assets under management come with management fees they can do whatever the fuck they want with that money. When they have trillions under management the fees are a lot. The more shady shit they do the more money they make for clients the more money they get in fees. Look up 2 and 20.