Sounds like the words of someone who wants to sell off everything before a big price drop.
Sounds like the words of someone who wants to sell off everything before a big price drop.
The chairman and CEO of the world's largest asset manager told CNBC on Wednesday that he worries about a "silent crisis of retirement," citing global monetary policies that create disincentives for savers.
"Unquestionably, as central banks keep rates low, or negative in Europe, the savers are getting slammed," BlackRock co-founder Larry Fink said on "Squawk Box."
"Asset owners are the biggest beneficiaries of monetary policy, and this is why I think a year ago, two years ago, I talked about we needed more fiscal stimulus and maybe less monetary stimulus," he added.
"We are going to have to address what I would call the silent crisis of retirement," Fink said. "People are going to have to, unfortunately, whether they like it or not, they may have to work longer because they're not earning the same returns on their savings."
Wonder why "savers" are losing money... certainly that has nothing to do with the policies of the (((Federal Reserve))) which has been led by the likes of (((Greenspan))), (((Bernanke))), and (((Yellen))).
"Give us your money, goyim. We'll take care of it for you by crashing the economy then buying all your homes so we can rent them to niggers and further devalue your property. Enjoy your inflation and reduced spending power."
This BlackRock kike and his tribe are gloating in public for all to see and few among us realize it.
> The chairman and CEO of the world's largest asset manager told CNBC on Wednesday that he worries about a "silent crisis of retirement," citing global monetary policies that create disincentives for savers.
> "Unquestionably, as central banks keep rates low, or negative in Europe, the savers are getting slammed," BlackRock co-founder Larry Fink said on "Squawk Box."
> "Asset owners are the biggest beneficiaries of monetary policy, and this is why I think a year ago, two years ago, I talked about we needed more fiscal stimulus and maybe less monetary stimulus," he added.
> "We are going to have to address what I would call the silent crisis of retirement," Fink said. "People are going to have to, unfortunately, whether they like it or not, they may have to work longer because they're not earning the same returns on their savings."
Wonder why "savers" are losing money... certainly that has nothing to do with the policies of the (((Federal Reserve))) which has been led by the likes of (((Greenspan))), (((Bernanke))), and (((Yellen))).
"Give us your money, goyim. We'll take care of it for you by crashing the economy then buying all your homes so we can rent them to niggers and further devalue your property. Enjoy your inflation and reduced spending power."
This BlackRock kike and his tribe are gloating in public for all to see and few among us realize it.
My retirement plan is going out on a high dose of heroin or getting jailed/killed for plugging one of these greedy fuckers. Much better than rotting in a retirement home hoping you'll get a heart attack someday.
Also, inflation is basically theft of your labor in the way of fiat dilution by the Federal Reserve.
My retirement plan is going out on a high dose of heroin or getting jailed/killed for plugging one of these greedy fuckers. Much better than rotting in a retirement home hoping you'll get a heart attack someday.
Also, inflation is basically theft of your labor in the way of fiat dilution by the Federal Reserve.
>Also, inflation is basically theft of your labor in the way of fiat dilution by the Federal Reserve.
Ohhh, if it was only that... Add to the equation the theft in the pockets of people who aren't even born yet and you get the bigger picture...
>>Also, inflation is basically theft of your labor in the way of fiat dilution by the Federal Reserve.
Ohhh, if it was only that... Add to the equation the theft in the pockets of people who aren't even born yet and you get the bigger picture...
Understandably, it's an ongoing gradual process that's intergenerational. So yes, it'll affect everyone down the line. It's a metastasizing of greed in an epic proportion, and one day a reckoning is only inevitable.
Understandably, it's an ongoing gradual process that's intergenerational. So yes, it'll affect everyone down the line. It's a metastasizing of greed in an epic proportion, and one day a reckoning is only inevitable.
"Necessity does not submit to debate"
...
"Necessity does not submit to debate"
...
It's bit roundabout, but if you look at the money supply as a whole the banks own the entirety of it. Within the total money supply, portions are earmarked as belonging to the bankers, the individuals, and the government. There's a flow from the accounts of the the individuals to the account of the government to the account of the bankers. But ultimately the entire money supply belongs to the bankers.
The debt is illusionary, but so is the notion that anyone but the bankers have any money in the first place. The slavery is just mediated by these numbers in a distributed spreadsheet. For most people, you work or the government comes and removes you from your home on behalf of the bankers. That's true of the currently living and those yet to be born.
It's bit roundabout, but if you look at the money supply as a whole the banks own the entirety of it. Within the total money supply, portions are earmarked as belonging to the bankers, the individuals, and the government. There's a flow from the accounts of the the individuals to the account of the government to the account of the bankers. But ultimately the entire money supply belongs to the bankers.
The debt is illusionary, but so is the notion that anyone but the bankers have any money in the first place. The slavery is just mediated by these numbers in a distributed spreadsheet. For most people, you work or the government comes and removes you from your home on behalf of the bankers. That's true of the currently living and those yet to be born.
So what he's saying is get a homestead, build a garden, collect water, raise animals, educate your children off the grid, don't pay taxes
So what he's saying is get a homestead, build a garden, collect water, raise animals, educate your children off the grid, don't pay taxes
I suppose that Finkelrubensilvercohengoldbergshekelstein is a jew? Americans have to work longer so that he can 'work' less.
I suppose that Finkelrubensilvercohengoldbergshekelstein is a jew? Americans have to work longer so that he can 'work' less.
Look at these central bank guys being dicks, lowering interest rates so savers can't make any money
-- The Central Bank Guys
> Look at these central bank guys being dicks, lowering interest rates so savers can't make any money
-- The Central Bank Guys
I'm OK with doing finish carpentry until the day I die.
I'm OK with doing finish carpentry until the day I die.
We all are. Thanks, and fuck you.
We all are. Thanks, and fuck you.
Buy me dinner first.
Buy me dinner first.
I'm all in on AMC.
We are going to short squeeze the tribe running Citadel until their insides are on the outside.
Oy vey!
I'm all in on AMC.
We are going to short squeeze the tribe running Citadel until their insides are on the outside.
Oy vey!
People need to look for the jew in everything. Don't just accept something because it hurts your enemy, or because it sounds good. The jews are fucking expert at this. For example, destroying union and corporate pension funds to create Roth IRAs, 401(k) plans, and the like was a massive jew job on the American people. It diverted billions of dollars into the stock market where investment bankers and portfolio management companies could skim off the top for doing absolutely nothing, not to mention all the massive bubbles it inflated. That's why they're after public employee pension funds now. You can't possibly be stupid enough to think the people running the money printing presses on overdrive are concerned about how public pensions are costing taxpayers money. No. They want that money forced to go through their investment firms. They tried to get the Social Security trust fund diverted to them just two years before the crash, too.
Red jew, blue jew, still jews.
People need to look for the jew in everything. Don't just accept something because it hurts your enemy, or because it sounds good. The jews are fucking expert at this. For example, destroying union and corporate pension funds to create Roth IRAs, 401(k) plans, and the like was a massive jew job on the American people. It diverted billions of dollars into the stock market where investment bankers and portfolio management companies could skim off the top for doing absolutely nothing, not to mention all the massive bubbles it inflated. That's why they're after public employee pension funds now. You can't possibly be stupid enough to think the people running the money printing presses on overdrive are concerned about how public pensions are costing taxpayers money. No. They want that money forced to go through their investment firms. They tried to get the Social Security trust fund diverted to them just two years before the crash, too.
Red jew, blue jew, still jews.
I guess you could look at pension funds as people taking care of each other. You work during your working years, and the rest of the union takes care of you in retirement. If a guy or a family owned the corp, it was almost feudal. Given that corps these days are primarily controlled by bankers, I'm not sure that you'd want to be owed by a pension. These corps aren't in it for the long enough term to make keeping their promises make sense.
Social security is a government-mediated pension, but there was never a "fund." In order for there to be one, the whole thing would have had to run for a generation amassing resources without paying out. That would've been a good idea, but it was created in a time of crisis with the point being to pay out immediately. So all it is is a transfer mechanism. Which I suppose could work except that the resource transfer is mediated by the money supply, which the bankers constantly inflate, and the payins and payouts are dictated by the government which they control.
I guess you could look at pension funds as people taking care of each other. You work during your working years, and the rest of the union takes care of you in retirement. If a guy or a family owned the corp, it was almost feudal. Given that corps these days are primarily controlled by bankers, I'm not sure that you'd want to be owed by a pension. These corps aren't in it for the long enough term to make keeping their promises make sense.
Social security is a government-mediated pension, but there was never a "fund." In order for there to be one, the whole thing would have had to run for a generation amassing resources without paying out. That would've been a good idea, but it was created in a time of crisis with the point being to pay out immediately. So all it is is a transfer mechanism. Which I suppose could work except that the resource transfer is mediated by the money supply, which the bankers constantly inflate, and the payins and payouts are dictated by the government which they control.
He's mad that younger Americans speculate in crypto instead of stock because he can't use OPM (other people's money) to control companies from the inside out.
You set up a company. You own just enough of it to have a governing interest. You get co-investment from stooges. This company is an investment firm. With that you market to manage other people's money. You'll invest it for them. You invest the combined capital of your own, co-investors, and "customers" into another holdings company. Because your company owns a majority of that company your company is able to govern it. That holdings company also has co-investors, and customers. Now you control a huge amount of capital while having relatively little stake or initial investment. That means you can be irresponsible with it. Now your slave holdings company buys controlling interest in many American brands. Once again, you don't own the whole company. A huge amount of ownership is held by every day investors, but they don't get any governance. You do. Now you can control all the capital of this well know company, despite owning almost none of it personally, to do anything but seek the genuine interests of the other shareholders. Part of that can be re-purposing a company to pursue political causes. Part of that can also be getting them to use suppliers, vendors, consultants from firms that you genuinely to have some stake in. Now you get insane ROI's in the companies you personally have real stakes in, and the companies you pretend to own have grown stifled harming all other investors. And the "customers" you use for OPM are happy enough because you share some of your ill-gotten ROI with them (maybe).
This is because percentage of ownership != proportion of control. This impropriety can be magnified by layering. But the common theme of every layer is using OPM (other people's money). To have access to that you need an environment where people give up their money without expecting governance over anything themselves.
Never be a co-shareholder with black rock. They gut brands for all they are worth. They establish parasitic ownership. You don't want to own a company that's currently being used for a blood meal.
He's mad that younger Americans speculate in crypto instead of stock because he can't use OPM (other people's money) to control companies from the inside out.
You set up a company. You own just enough of it to have a governing interest. You get co-investment from stooges. This company is an investment firm. With that you market to manage other people's money. You'll invest it for them. You invest the combined capital of your own, co-investors, and "customers" into another holdings company. Because your company owns a majority of that company your company is able to govern it. That holdings company also has co-investors, and customers. Now you control a huge amount of capital while having relatively little stake or initial investment. That means you can be irresponsible with it. Now your slave holdings company buys controlling interest in many American brands. Once again, you don't own the whole company. A huge amount of ownership is held by every day investors, but they don't get any governance. You do. Now you can control all the capital of this well know company, despite owning almost none of it personally, to do anything but seek the genuine interests of the other shareholders. Part of that can be re-purposing a company to pursue political causes. Part of that can also be getting them to use suppliers, vendors, consultants from firms that you genuinely to have some stake in. Now you get insane ROI's in the companies you personally have real stakes in, and the companies you pretend to own have grown stifled harming all other investors. And the "customers" you use for OPM are happy enough because you share some of your ill-gotten ROI with them (maybe).
This is because percentage of ownership != proportion of control. This impropriety can be magnified by layering. But the common theme of every layer is using OPM (other people's money). To have access to that you need an environment where people give up their money without expecting governance over anything themselves.
Never be a co-shareholder with black rock. They gut brands for all they are worth. They establish parasitic ownership. You don't want to own a company that's currently being used for a blood meal.
So with $0.51 I can own 51% of a $1 company, which buys $5.10 of a $10 company on leverage, and so on, and pretty soon I control 6 million dollars for only $0.51?
So with $0.51 I can own 51% of a $1 company, which buys $5.10 of a $10 company on leverage, and so on, and pretty soon I control 6 million dollars for only $0.51?
Basically. But you need far less than 51% to have control that is disproportionate to the average. A 10 or 20 percent owner has significant say where as a 0.1% owner (your average investor) gets none.. less than 0.1%'s worth. Seeing as all other 10-20% owners can also see the advantage of buying 10-20% of other companies, even with imperfect control you are likely to get the same structure occurring.
For example. Let's say you own 40% of a company, and twelve others own 5% each. You will be able to force your way in almost all cases supposing randomized voting on the part of the others.
Basically. But you need far less than 51% to have control that is disproportionate to the average. A 10 or 20 percent owner has significant say where as a 0.1% owner (your average investor) gets none.. less than 0.1%'s worth. Seeing as all other 10-20% owners can also see the advantage of buying 10-20% of other companies, even with imperfect control you are likely to get the same structure occurring.
For example. Let's say you own 40% of a company, and twelve others own 5% each. You will be able to force your way in almost all cases supposing randomized voting on the part of the others.
(post is archived)