In recent times, the financial colossus known as BlackRock has increasingly become a focal point for discussions on corporate influence over the U.S. government. Here's a detailed look into why this influence might be seen as dangerous:
1. Economic Powerhouse as Policy Shaper:
BlackRock, managing assets worth trillions, effectively acts as a shadow advisor to government policies, especially in financial and economic matters. This influence isn't just about advice; it's about shaping market conditions through its sheer size and investment strategies. For instance, its involvement in managing the Federal Reserve's emergency credit facilities during crises like 2008 and 2020 positions it not just as a financial institution but as a quasi-governmental entity influencing economic policy directly.
2. Regulatory Capture and Revolving Doors:
The flow of personnel between BlackRock and government positions, often termed the "revolving door," blurs the lines between corporate and government interests. Former government officials at BlackRock can leverage their past positions for current corporate gains, while current policies might be influenced by the promise of future lucrative positions in firms like BlackRock. This cycle undermines the independence of regulatory bodies, potentially leading to policies that favor large asset managers over public interest.
3. Influence Over Monetary Policy:
BlackRock's role in advising on monetary policy, including its expertise in bond market operations, gives it an unprecedented say in how the Federal Reserve conducts its business. This involvement could skew policy towards stabilizing market conditions beneficial for large investors rather than focusing on broader economic stability or public welfare.
4. ESG and Corporate Governance:
While advocating for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria might seem progressive, critics argue it's a strategic move to align corporate governance with BlackRock's investment goals, potentially at the expense of traditional shareholder value or broader economic considerations. This shift could influence how corporations operate worldwide, not necessarily for environmental or social justice but as a means to manage risk and influence market behavior in BlackRock's favor.
5. The Housing Market and Social Implications:
BlackRock's forays into real estate, especially in snapping up residential properties, have implications beyond investment returns. This can exacerbate housing shortages, inflate prices, and impact social mobility, effectively making homeownership—a significant part of the American Dream—less attainable. Here, the influence extends not just economically but socially, reshaping community structures. This is all by design and part of the WEF's bizarre goal of, "you'll own nothing and be happy", which is the opposite of the true American dream.
6. Political Donations and Lobbying:
The significant political contributions and lobbying efforts of BlackRock illustrate its strategy to maintain influence across both sides of the political spectrum. This bipartisan approach ensures that regardless of which party is in power, BlackRock's influence remains substantial, potentially skewing policy towards financial sector interests over public ones.
7. National Security and Foreign Policy:
Given its global operations, BlackRock's influence might extend to foreign policy, where economic strategies could intersect with national security interests. Decisions influenced by such a giant could prioritize economic stability or market expansion over geopolitical strategies that might benefit the broader populace or national security.
Conclusion:
The influence of BlackRock on the U.S. government represents a complex web of economic power, regulatory involvement, and political influence. Now that we have seen how evil BlackRock has become, this influence poses dangers when corporate interests overshadow public governance. The challenge lies in balancing the expertise and efficiency that firms like BlackRock bring to economic management with the need for democratic accountability, transparency, and policies that serve the public interest rather than just the financial elite. This situation calls for a more stringent examination of corporate influence in governance, advocating for transparency, stricter anti-revolving door policies, and perhaps most importantly, a reevaluation of how economic policy is shaped in the modern, interconnected financial landscape.