Sort of. It doesn't have to be InBev that is doing the shorting. These corporations are owned by larger corporations.
When working on such a macro scale, it can be profitable to liquidate a given asset (like InBev) in order to get the public to throw money into the market, or pull money out.
Think of it like InBev going to one of their bank friends and saying "hey we're having some branding issues/etc. and cannot maintain profitability over the next 10 years. Want to help us liquidate?"
The bank will say "sure! we can create a national ad campaign smearing bud light/InBev and it will get the public to sell their stock. We will short sell prior to this so as to capitalize on the price action."
Bing bang boom. Money in pocket.
You have to ask yourself, "if this major multi-national corp is going down, where is the money going?" It's not going to small independent companies. It's being siphoned into the hands of even fewer corps.
Dude, that's deep. I have to admit it didn't occur to me. I just assigned it to incompetence.
I just assigned it to incompetence.
I used to do the same. But, over the years, I began to realize that they are playing much larger games. It's brilliant because they get us, the public, to believe that they "made an oopsie". It works so well because we want to believe that we're "sticking it to the man" and "showing them who is boss". Yet, in spite of all the "pwnage", these corps only get bigger, and power continues to consolidate into the hands of fewer people.
The market is basically a big open-air casino. And the big dogs know exactly how to rig the slots.
...and do you remember when InBev bought AB...how the higher ups at AB said AB is an American institution and they would never sell, then they sold when the offer was raised $1/share?
In this instance though don't you think they're doing their short sell -> crash in a way that angers people in a broader sense than they would like? People are cluing into (((trans))) and the who behind it. This will certainly work in the short sell -> crash -> buy -> profit sense and suckers do exist. But the cultural (troons, faggots, etc) side that they've not been working on for mere months or years but actual centuries as taken a bigger hit, don't you think?
I had a similar epiphany. They want us to chalk this up to incompetence, an "oopsie, someone made a decision that their bosses wouldn't have approved of and we had no idea, OOPSIE!"
Yeah, I'm sure the bosses of the person who hired a freakish troon for the tune of MILLIONS OF DOLLARS were completely unaware of the stunt. They just throw massive spokesperson deals around without anyone really knowing. /s
"All publicity is good publicity". That's really how they view this shit. This is long-game. They're setting themselves up for a "redemption story" IMO. They come up with the stunt, then a few plans for what to do afterward. They enact the stunt, and then observe the public's reaction. In this case, they dipped their toes into the pond of faggotry, and pulled their foot out minus a few toes. If the stunt had gone over well, all of these assholes who are saying "We didn't approve this!" would be taking credit for being sooooo progressive.
Now, they have to enact their plan for "If people fucking hate our stunt". Step 1: blame someone, claim that the real decision-makers were circumvented. Step 2: Apologize. Step 3: Try to win back the image of the "working man's beer" (this is probably a very complex, multi-faceted plan).
Getting really conspiratorial: Whenever a company makes a move like this, I always wonder if it's a sort of "Litmus test" to see how the general population reacts- they can use this to gauge how accepting general population is of their bullshit. With social media, gathering the data on how people react is trivial. So, could one of Budweiser's parent companies (one of the massive conglomerations that owns EVERYTHING) have used their Budweiser brand as a test to see how far they could push faggotry with their other corporations? Government involvement can't be ruled out, either, as I'm sure glowfags and such are very interested in this kind of data.
That actually speaks well of you. Thinking like an evil little jew shit-stain is hard for people that aren't accustomed to it. To get the gears of your mind to turn like a jew's is work because it does not come naturally for honest White Men.
Sort of. It doesn't have to be InBev that is doing the shorting. These corporations are owned by larger corporations.
vanguard and blackrock are at the top but there are quite a few layers between in many cases.
(post is archived)