Topic: World financial Crisis start with blackrock soon (Read 504 times)

The war in Ukraine was definitely unleashed by Russia, while the US, on the contrary, warned Ukraine and the whole world about the Kremlin's aggressive plans. But Putin, like Hitler before him, failed to launch another military blitzkrieg with Ukraine, and so the war has been going on for almost three years. Russia wanted to get a tasty morsel in the form of Ukraine with its developed industry, rich natural resources and educated, hard-working people. But it turned out that the Ukrainians also know how to fight, and fight competently and savvy, which the Kremlin has already seen more than once, taking painful blows where it did not expect.

Yes, with the hands of the Ukrainians, the US is weakening its probable enemy, but this is exclusively the merit of the Kremlin, which stupidly attacked Ukraine and expected to conquer it in a few days. The war can be stopped any day if Russia withdraws its troops from Ukraine. But it does not want to do this and this is its choice.

Returning to the topic, I should say that I see no reason why BlackRock, with capital of over 11 trillion dollars, could suffer a financial collapse. These are all unsubstantiated fantasies.

Yeah, most times these financial cruises are memo's by some big players to displaced or dismantle upcoming threats to their superiority. Their quest for being at the top makes them take harsh decisions to maintain position. Most times they're never human enough to consider the lowly people it would affect when such crises ensures which brings about lots of hardship when such occurs.

But like you suggested, we should be prepared for anything and project ourselves at all costs so as tho provide recovery or survivor strategies and backup plan when such presents itself

Unfortunately the 2008 crisis confirmed what we have known for some time, that there are companies that politicians consider too big too fail, and instead of letting them fail, suffer the consequences of their mistakes and use all of that money to limit the impact of such a crash on the people that have nothing to do with it, they decided to use that money to save those companies, however with how high the debt for most countries has become, I doubt this is a move they can pull successfully anymore, so it is not clear what may happen if blackrock were to fail.

It seems we are getting off topic when it comes to politics and war in this topic. But I want to ask you, which country benefits the most from the two wars going on? On the one hand, they are selling a huge amount of weapons and making huge profits. On the other hand, they stopped their arch-rival (Russia) with just one pawn and barely lost a soldier. It can be said that the people who benefit the most from war are those who cause it and do not want it to end.

From what you say, it can be seen that you are supporting what Israel has been doing in the Middle East, even the United Nations and many countries have spoken out against their recent actions. But it is strange that there are still some people who support the terrorist acts and crimes committed by Israel.

It's laughable to say the US want war, you guys are only alleging on the assumption. If the US want war, why do they always stand with restraint, peace and self-defence? Is the US the global terrorist and the nations aiding them like Iran? Did the US tell Russia to invade Ukraine? Were they the Hamas and Hezbollah threatening the peace of Israel? Or Iran that recently fired 180 missiles into another country's soil?

For an attack, there must be defence, that is what the US is doing, so thank them for the stability the world is still enjoying today. They only fight or support a fight when it is necessary and go and read it, many countries are being banned from acquiring US weapons due to war crimes and abuses, if it's for money, why that? It's even the private firms responsible for these weapons and not the US government directly, so your allegation is baseless.

blackrock do own the underlying assets of many financial industries, but here is the deal. by collateralising it and turning them into shares, they can then sell those shares to the general public(IPO) whereby blackrock de-risks itself and pushes the risk onto the general public by having the public buy those shares.

its then the public whom then lose when some industry fails. yep blackrock took their win at the initial share release(IPO sales), and are then just sitting pretty as a platform getting trade fee's from every public sell, even when the public sell at a loss. yep when the public are making losses (public selling to public) on the shares blackrock take a fee but are not the share holders and so always gain. and the smarter part is. they can buy back the shares(at the public loss) at a huge discount, to then destroy allotments of shares to then create a lesser supply of shares to then create a demand for limited shares, causing the share price to increase

Blackrock doesn't look like they are going to crash anytime soon, the only problem with it is that they have way too much money that they are capable of investing right now and I believe we need to just focus on what type of investment they could make, at some point they will have way too much money in their hands.

When you have trillions of dollars, you can't just buy stocks or even bitcoin, you need to look globally, and you need to invest into everything, you can't have small piece in everything, you get a huge chunk of everything. This means when one thing crashes, you are going to get hurt. Blackrock is too big to fail, and that part is true, they have enough cash to survive as well, so anything like 2008 or 2022 will not matter to it, we are going to see it grow and keep growing because they will handle it well enough with what they have.

One could talk about BlackRock as a trigger for a new global economic crisis if they were putting investors' money, for example, into the Chinese real estate market, which is now dragging the Chinese economy down...But the good thing is that China is quite isolated, and this problem will be exacerbated only within the Chinese economy. And BlackRock is a company with a huge, well diversified portfolio. So the rumor about BlackRock and the world crisis is greatly exaggerated

Mainstream media isn't some kind of monolith that is "proven liars". It's a fabric of many sources, reporters, articles, and areas.

It's like saying "don't believe anything you read, especially if it's written in books, because they are written by proven liars ". That makes as much sense.

Critical thinking doesn't mean that you would need to fact check everything in your life all the time. It also means that you use critical thinking when picking your news sources. If you pick news sources that doesn't mainly publish rumors and nonsense, it doesn't matter if it's "mainstream" or not. In fact in many cases, popular media needs to hold higher standards and they are constantly accountable to more people watching them, so they are often fixing errors their articles if they are wrong. Then there are people who don't care, like alex jones, because their customers are conspiracy theorists. They don't need proof of any kind, more biblical level nonsense they say, more views they get.

And about that "believing in something": In most cases you actually need to believe consensus of authorities in fields you aren't expert of, because these authorities have studied the subject all their lives, that you have not.

Also i never said anything about scientific proof, but scientific consensus. Because in your picture, there are list of arguments that didn't pan out to be true, but you don't disclose who made those arguments, so i would just have to assume that those arguments were headlines caused by scientific consensus at the time, based on data that was available. And since that data often won't predict new technology that makes use of oil more efficient, for example; those predictions change if actions for the change are taken.

Not sure that that "Awake yet?" in the picture is trying to imply, but it sounds like someone would think that these were lies with some purpose, like conspiracy, and that's just lazy.

looking at the current world conditions, anything can happen and all companies can go bankrupt, especially recently there has been tension between North Korea and South Korea, as we know, both countries are pro-cryptocurrency countries.

I thought I understood what you wanted to say, but now I see I was wrong... Now I think you don't understand yourself


Can you explain your point nicely and briefly... I don't understand why you even included science in my post, what kind of scientific proof are you looking for that could explain what I wrote and the picture I posted? I think you got carried away and are looking for something that doesn't exist while adding some things that I didn't even write...

Do you understand the difference between critical thinking and not believing something?


Read my post again, it says nicely "don't believe everything you read", the addition "especially the mainstream media" is because they are proven liars, news spinners, and much more.

No it isn't, you are missing my point.

The irony of saying "We shouldn't believe everything we read" as an answer to your post where there are claims without sources of who said so. Were they on some yellow papers, or were they straw men, created by conservatives who misinterpreted some articles?

Also, do you understand the difference between critical thinking and not believing something "especially if it comes from mainstream media or politicians"? 

Because by parroting the meme where "you shouldn't believe in mainstream media ", you are pushing propaganda from countries that have only government controlled media. It's a tool for creating chaos, by creating an atmosphere where people can't trust anything, and by doing do, making you more susceptible for their own propaganda.

Trying to put every politicial and every newssite as pile of liars, they are justifying their own lying, that others aren't any better. And now they have for a while tried to include experts and scientists to that liar pile, so they can sell you any bonkers idea, because you don't trust science anymore.

Its also true that people underestimate just how useful and resourceful a nation can be in general.  The next ice age happening was thought possible I can confirm that theory in action though now forgotten.  Also commodities were predicted to run out before 2000,  due to excess population was the idea but they forgot growth of production also.  Innovations, refinement and improvement in efficiency also they just happened to find alot more oil for example.
  Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world, larger then Saudi Arabia or any other middle east country but it just aint easy to get all oil and the base product isnt as nice as they have in the middle east with sweet oil here its sour with excessive sulfur.   Add in diabolical governance and you have some starving in what could be an incredibly rich country.

  Nothing is ever simple, just theories on a paper requires alot more detail to qualify it and sometimes it turns out not to be correct.  Of course we must consider all possibilities but we dont know the conclusion beforehand.

Economic crises can be happen in future because super power of that World want War and they are going towards War and it will damage the earth if War happened . When Iran took action against Israel and they left missile on Israel then market dumped and we saw that the the price of things went low. We will see the situation of countries on which War will impact.USA want to supply their weapons and they also want War because Russia attached on Ukraine,USA decided not to start that battle but they took decision to supply weapons to Ukrain.

I quiet understand you and you are very correct. But my reply was even based on crypto inclination of the company alone which I believe orchestrated the view of the OP that it will collapse the world's economy. That was to douse his tension though as no single company can be so devastating to the world's economy. Even as the world's largest asset manager, the issurance will be there and so will be strick regulation and supervisions. If at all it goes insolvent today, that doesn't mean the whole managed assets are gone, the majority might still be accounted for, which is how it will not shake the world economy as severely as thought.

I wasn't alive in the sixties or seventies, and I can only talk about 2 of those, one ozone layer and the other ice caps. First of all, ozone layer was fixed thanks to accords such as Paris one, we had so many products destroying ozone layer, and if we didn't do anything then it would have been gone, and we did put in laws regarding how to save it and it got fixed thanks to this.

Secondly, ice caps issue, the climate change denying is a great political stance for some right wingers that much is true, but the reality is we are nearing the irreversible level already, and it is not something that will destroy you in a day, but all those fires near the Mediterranean levels? All those fires in Spain, Italy, Greece, Türkiye, every single summer? All those floods, all these excessive natural disasters? All of them due to climate change, and it is going to only get worse. Won't kill you in a day if that's what they are expecting, but will gradually destroy human life with time.

As far as I know, Blackrock is managing over $11 trillion and they are the largest asset management firm in the world, while the entire world economy is estimated to be worth around $120 trillion. It can be seen that Blackrock is very big, if it collapses it will cause extreme panic but saying that its collapse will cause the world economy to collapse is not to that extent. But my question to the OP is what is his basis for predicting Blackrock will collapse when there is no sign of them having problems, they are still very prosperous.

No offense but OP often makes baseless and somewhat paranoid predictions, I don't find any of his predictions credible.

It seems that you can invest BlackRock only from $ 100 million. So this fund is not for the middle strata of society. In general, where did the middle stratum of society come from, if it did not exist at all before the 20th century? Very simply, the reason for its creation was the existence of the USSR and the fear of socialism. After the victory over the USSR, the middle stratum of society was no longer needed. Therefore, the rich, whose characteristic representative of interests are BlackRock, will stage a crisis precisely with the aim of dismantling the middle layer. According to their plan, society should return to its former structure: the super-rich and the poor. And a very small group of staff (scientists, doctors, etc.). It is very unprofitable to support the middle class - they consume a lot. They cause a lot of environmental pollution. Hence the theory of global warming and others like it. In a nutshell: the rich want and will decide who will live and who will not.

Blackrock? This company is too small to cause the world's financial collapse, mightier companies have gone insolvent in the past and the world survived them.

In simple language, I guess you meant people will suffer Bitcoin loss if Blackrock collapses. This may not necessarily happen because it wasn't the company that was established anyhow, it followed due process and by virtue, insurance that will cover people's financial security must have been in place.

According to an article I read, there are people who believe that BlackRock runs the world secretly away from the eyes of the media and the press because it owns shares in almost everything, for example, it is the largest shareholder in Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, as well as Amazon and many banks such as Deutsche Bank... and recently the Bitcoin ETF.

I am not sure where you got this information from, but in any case, I do not expect BlackRock to become insolvent anytime soon, and even if it does happen, I do not think that the collapse of one company, no matter how large, will cause the global financial collapse as you say. In the 2008 crisis, there was the collapse of a large number of companies, not just one company.