Cal88 said:
calbear93 said:
movielover said:
My guess:
1. Obama / Globalists, BlackRock
2. Blinken (Obama C team), Sullivan, Susan Rice, Victoria Nuland (international), MIC
3. Hillary chirps in, State Department, Soros, Agenda 21 types
So do you have zero funds invested in any of the big funds, like BlackRock, State Street, Fidelity, or T. Rowe Price? Do you have zero investments in global companies like Apple?
Blackrock, Vanguard etc are way too big today. 20 years ago your typical fund managed a few billions and were doing just fine, you don't need to have one company run assets the size of Japan and Germany's combined GDP, trillions concentrated in just one set of hands...that's too much power. Antitrust.
Not antitrust. Not even close. You just mentioned Vanguard and added etc. That kills your anti-trust argument. Plenty of competition.
If you think they are too big, do you not have any investments in any of their funds? If so, you are just pissing in the wind complaining about them being too big. They are too big despite competition in the investment advisory field because we have moved away from company pensions to 401(k), and states have heavily underfunded pensions that, unless the pensions force companies to return short-term gain by cutting jobs and expenses and outsourcing, the pensions will go bankrupt. And company pensions dependent on liquid safe debt investments would bankrupt companies now.
No way around this. Soon, you will have Social Security investing in equity, most likely with these funds, and they will only get bigger because we are entitled group of people, and our retirement costs are expensive.