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

©2025 Poal.co

1.5K

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 )

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.

[–] • 0 pt

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?

[–] • 0 pt

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.