Vivek ramaswamy

[zsn]

The idea here boys, is that Blackrock has wayyyyy too much power. Same goes for entities like the WEF

They’re all for monopolies, so long as they’re woke globalist anti-American enterprises.

Ah yes, the leftist fantasy

Why aren’t you happy with the Libertarian Utopia? So, you want government to intervene in the conduct of Free Enterprise?

[jfish26]

The idea here boys, is that Blackrock has wayyyyy too much power. Same goes for entities like the WEF

Ok.

Explain to me, in your own words, how a libertarian would address the BlackRock issue (which is not the same thing as the WEF thing).

[DCHawk1]

Choosing to invest money in things for whatever reason sure seems like free enterprise to me.

Dictating how private companies or citizens invest their money sure seems like government overreach to me.

It's a touch more complicated than that.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

The idea here boys, is that Blackrock has wayyyyy too much power. Same goes for entities like the WEF

They’re all for monopolies, so long as they’re woke globalist anti-American enterprises.

Ah yes, the leftist fantasy

Serious question.
Do either one of you post/share your political and economic thoughts and feelings on any other public forum?

[DCHawk1]

The idea here boys, is that Blackrock has wayyyyy too much power. Same goes for entities like the WEF

Ok.

Explain to me, in your own words, how a libertarian would address the BlackRock issue (which is not the same thing as the WEF thing).

A libertarian would follow Jack Bogle's own prescription, when he appeared before Congress to apologize for the monster he created: lower the barriers to start an asset management company; lower the barriers for new asset managers to compete for public pension funds; lower the barriers for entrance into the proxy advisory business; use current, on the book, laws to reduce proxy advisory conflicts of interest; enable greater access to courts for resolution of breach of fiduciary duty issues; forbid federal regulatory agencies to exceed their statutory mandates by imposing non-material, non-pecuniary reporting requirements on publicly traded companies.

[zsn]

…………lower the barriers to start an asset management company; lower the barriers for new asset managers to compete for public pension funds; lower the barriers for entrance into the proxy advisory business; …………..

What safeguards would be there when the next Bernie Madoff is discovered to have done his thing? Or, how would we prevent the next Bernie Madoff from “competing for public pension funds”?

Not trying to be snarky but legitimately curious.

[JKLivin]

They’re all for monopolies, so long as they’re woke globalist anti-American enterprises.

Ah yes, the leftist fantasy

Serious question.
Do either one of you post/share your political and economic thoughts and feelings on any other public forum?

I'm too busy to post elsewhere. Besides, you all are so kind and welcoming, why would I?

[JKLivin]

To paraphrase someone’s take on Newt (and as mentioned before) Vivek is a stupid person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like.

You just hate him because he's brown, non-Christian, and his parents are immigrants.

See what I did there?

[DCHawk1]

…………lower the barriers to start an asset management company; lower the barriers for new asset managers to compete for public pension funds; lower the barriers for entrance into the proxy advisory business; …………..

What safeguards would be there when the next Bernie Madoff is discovered to have done his thing? Or, how would we prevent the next Bernie Madoff from “competing for public pension funds”?

Not trying to be snarky but legitimately curious.

So...the Madoff case is interesting, mostly because of his connections to and manipulation of regulators, especially at the SEC. I'd argue that what made Madoff unusual was not his personal corruption (which is rampant, especially on Wall Street) but his corruption of the regulators responsible for policing behavior. By extension, keeping the SEC focused on its statutory mandate would help reduce the risk of future Madoffs.

[Shirley]

[zsn]

…………lower the barriers to start an asset management company; lower the barriers for new asset managers to compete for public pension funds; lower the barriers for entrance into the proxy advisory business; …………..

What safeguards would be there when the next Bernie Madoff is discovered to have done his thing? Or, how would we prevent the next Bernie Madoff from “competing for public pension funds”?

Not trying to be snarky but legitimately curious.

So...the Madoff case is interesting, mostly because of his connections to and manipulation of regulators, especially at the SEC. I'd argue that what made Madoff unusual was not his personal corruption (which is rampant, especially on Wall Street) but his corruption of the regulators responsible for policing behavior. By extension, keeping the SEC focused on its statutory mandate would help reduce the risk of future Madoffs.

So, future regulators could also stay bought? At least a critical mass of them? It’s a feature in the system, not a bug?

[DCHawk1]

So, future regulators could also stay bought? At least a critical mass of them? It’s a feature in the system, not a bug?

?

[japhy]

[randylahey]

They’re all for monopolies, so long as they’re woke globalist anti-American enterprises.

Ah yes, the leftist fantasy

Why aren’t you happy with the Libertarian Utopia? So, you want government to intervene in the conduct of Free Enterprise?

No. Did I say I wanted the government to intervene? No. I did not. I want people to become more aware of the world around them. Government tends to create problems, not solve them

[KUTradition]

meh

people cause problems

[randylahey]

But take for example a guy like Bill gates, who has too much time and money, and begins tinkering with everyone's lives all across the globe, researching and implementing things he doesn't have a clue about.

He's a madman. Mad Men need to be stopped

[KUTradition]

jfc

[TDub]

I will admit it makes me a little uncomfortable that he's buying up all the available farmland across the nation.

Hes a tech guy, he should stick to tech and not muddle with agriculture and medicines beyond providing funding.

Having worked on the Bill and Melinda gates foundation the overwhelming feeling there was that Melinda truly cared and was trying to help and that there was something maybe a bit more sinister behind most of Bills plays and moves.

[jfish26]

But take for example a guy like Bill gates, who has too much time and money, and begins tinkering with everyone's lives all across the globe, researching and implementing things he doesn't have a clue about.

He's a madman. Mad Men need to be stopped

In your own words, what would a libertarian do about someone the libertarian thinks has “too much time and money?”

[KUTradition]

I will admit it makes me a little uncomfortable that he's buying up all the available farmland across the nation.

Hes a tech guy, he should stick to tech and not muddle with agriculture and medicines beyond providing funding.

Having worked on the Bill and Melinda gates foundation the overwhelming feeling there was that Melinda truly cared and was trying to help and that there was something maybe a bit more sinister behind most of Bills plays and moves.

my impression is that those purchases are facilitating the gmo work being funded by the foundation (though i could be wrong), along with biofuel research

if “we’re” supposed to adapt our way through the burgeoning climate crisis, gmo’s that are drought/flood tolerant would seem like a wise pursuit (as would developing more efficient biofuels)

you and i agree on the negatives associated with industrialized, factory farming…but, new varieties of crops that tolerate new and changing climate regimes have to come from somewhere

i saw a Business Insider report stating that his purchase total is less that 0.1% of US farmland