Years earlier, she had asked a boss if he would let his children fly on a plane with the litany of flaws and non-conformances he was urging her to “pencil-whip”: “Cindy, none of these planes are staying in America, they’re all going overseas,” he retorted, much to her horror.

    • EndRedStateSubsidies@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Black Rock basically owns the entire stock market. Even the best intentioned companies eventually have to cave to fiduciary duty to shareholders.

      • kayky@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        That’s why going public is a sign the owners no longer care about the business and only care about fleecing us as much as possible.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Black Rock owns absolutely fuck-all. It only manages the 401ks of normal people like you and me, and STOLE OUR SHAREHOLDER VOTING RIGHTS.

        • blazeknave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah these headlines always grind my gears. Even the equity they don’t steal, they leverage as if their own assets. They’re fucking mine and yours.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        No, it really doesn’t. Assets under management (not owned) 11.5 trillion, while the American stock market alone is worth around 50.

          • theneverfox@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Yes. Unambigiously.

            What would you rather have, one person with a ton of power making decisions, or abstract it out over a group and diffuse all responsibility?

            Both are bad, but one of them has a (likely not morally great) person at the top, the other has lots of robber barons sharing ownership and collectively demanding line go up

            A person isn’t usually dumb enough to fire half their workforce, because they know their bread and butter comes from that workforce. A consulting company advising the business and shareholders at the same time can easily do such stupidity for short term profits

            • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              What would you rather have, one person with a ton of power making decisions, or abstract it out over a group and diffuse all responsibility?

              That pretty much describes democracy.

              Government ideologies don’t apply in any clear way here, of course. A corporation is an oversized market stall, and the main argument is how to regulate them and if we should have them at all. But, if that’s the bit you take issue with there’s a clear parallel.

              A person isn’t usually dumb enough to fire half their workforce, because they know their bread and butter comes from that workforce. A consulting company advising the business and shareholders at the same time can easily do such stupidity for short term profits

              That can go both ways, though. Think about Twitter X, MyPillow and Chick-Fil-A. And the countless sketchy small businesses that exist.

              • theneverfox@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                No no no… It’s not democracy, it’s abstraction

                Democracy would be a worker owned business. Where the people who do the thing decide how it should be done. And it’s great, it makes sense, it’s ethical, and the decisions are made democratically by the most informed people

                Stock markets don’t work like that. At one point you had voting, but now it’s all speculation and layers of abstraction

                Do you think the shareholders know or care how the business is being run? No, they just want line go up, because they’ve got a dozen other places to shift the money to if it’s not going up fast enough

                They don’t know or care if the company is dumping chemicals into the lake until the rest of us do. They don’t know that the cars are dangerous, but it was cheaper to set aside money for damages.

                They aren’t part of the company at all - they have no responsibility for what the company does. They have no control… Except, collectively. Maybe they could join together to replace a board member or sell to lower the price negligably. And the board has a responsibility to the shareholders. And the CEO just listens to the same consultant the shareholders do

                So really, it’s no one’s fault.

                Chick fila donates to hate groups, but they also front the money for new franchise owners. Costco pays well. Arizona iced tea doesn’t raise their prices because they have no debt and the guy says he’s making enough money.

                Yes, you’re going to have shit heads and good people… But as bad as my pillow guy is I’d be shocked if he was knowingly poisoning people… That usually weighs on a person’s conscience, but not so much if they can diffuse the responsibility

                • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 hours ago

                  I’m not going to say you’re wrong, exactly. I can’t prove that. I don’t know if there’s any actual data comparing the two models, and I’m guessing you know the same history I do when it comes to the gritty days of trusts before the multinational.

                  You have to see how that argument can apply to systems of government, though. It’s out of fashion to want a “benevolent dictator”, but that’s the exact kind of thing people hoped for from Louis XIV or Mussolini. Cut through the bureaucracy, stop shifting responsibility around, give help directly where it’s needed.