Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

666

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.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (18).
[–] • 1 pt (edited )

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.

[–] • 0 pt

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.