BlackRock and Vanguard are taking over and will have near-total control over the future food supply in America
Many people are still blissfully unaware of what has happened, but the global food supply has been largely taken over by the oligarchs, including financial giants BlackRock and Vanguard.
It turns out that BlackRock and Vanguard have been gradually gobbling up ownership of the means of production, and now intend to lord it over the masses by centralizing all food production technologies in the United States and enslaving everyone under their control.
To read more, click the link below.
It turns out that BlackRock and Vanguard have been gradually gobbling up ownership of the means of production, and now intend to lord it over the masses by centralizing all food production technologies in the United States and enslaving everyone under their control.
To read more, click the link below.
Vertical farming has long been desired as a means of reducing the extent of farmland required for agriculture, and the technology is finally available to grow crops efficiently at competitive prices. Aquaculture is one of the means of survivalist food creation, and greenhouse farming has been used for a couple of centuries in colder climates.
The claim that Union Pacific's notice that customers will have to budget their demand for transport is a result of supply chain issues, and UP is adding 100 locomotives and 450 new workers to try to make the restriction temporary. No evil plot, just a case of "sh*t happens."
I'm noticing the referenced source likes to induce panic and outrage, rather than simply inform. The several articles about how some medicines are derived from animal venom are a clue. This ain't objective, folks.
Market power and monopoly power are related but not the same. The Supreme Court has defined market power as "the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market,"(8) and monopoly power as "the power to control prices or exclude competition."(9) The Supreme Court has held that "[m]onopoly power under § 2 requires, of course, something greater than market power under § 1."(10) Precisely where market power becomes so great as to constitute what the law deems to be monopoly power is largely a matter of degree rather than one of kind. Clearly, however, monopoly power requires, at a minimum, a substantial degree of market power.(11) Moreover, before subjecting a firm to possible challenge under antitrust law for monopolization or attempted monopolization, the power in question is generally required to be much more than merely fleeting; that is, it must also be durable.(12)
Although monopoly power will generally result in the setting of prices above competitive levels, the desire to obtain profits that derive from a monopoly position provides a critical incentive for firms to invest and create the valuable products and processes that drive economic growth.(13) For this reason, antitrust law does not regard as illegal the mere possession of monopoly power where it is the product of superior skill, foresight, or industry.(14) Where monopoly power is acquired or maintained through anticompetitive conduct, however, antitrust law properly objects.
Section 2's requirement that single-firm conduct create or maintain, or present a dangerous probability of creating, monopoly power serves as an important screen for evaluating single-firm liability. Permitting conduct that likely creates at most an ability to exercise a minor degree of market power significantly reduces the possibility of discouraging "the competitive enthusiasm that the antitrust laws seek to promote"(15) and assures the majority of competitors that their unilateral actions will not violate section 2. It also reduces enforcement costs, including costs associated with devising and policing remedies. The costs that firms, courts, and competition authorities would incur in identifying and litigating liability, as well as devising and policing remedies for any and all conduct with the potential to have a minor negative impact on competition for short periods, would almost certainly far outweigh the benefits, particularly if the calculus includes, as it should, the loss of procompetitive activity that would inevitably be discouraged in such a system.
Following Alcoa and American Tobacco, courts typically have required a dominant market share before inferring the existence of monopoly power. The Fifth Circuit observed that "monopolization is rarely found when the defendant's share of the relevant market is below 70%."(22) Similarly, the Tenth Circuit noted that to establish "monopoly power, lower courts generally require a minimum market share of between 70% and 80%."(23) Likewise, the Third Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima facie market power"(24) and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power."(25)
It is also important to consider the share levels that have been held insufficient to allow courts to conclude that a defendant possesses monopoly power. The Eleventh Circuit held that a "market share at or less than 50% is inadequate as a matter of law to constitute monopoly power."(26) The Seventh Circuit observed that "[f]ifty percent is below any accepted benchmark for inferring monopoly power from market share."(27) A treatise agrees, contending that "it would be rare indeed to find that a firm with half of a market could individually control price over any significant period."(28)
Some courts have stated that it is possible for a defendant to possess monopoly power with a market share of less than fifty percent.(29) These courts provide for the possibility of establishing monopoly power through non-market-share evidence, such as direct evidence of an ability profitably to raise price or exclude competitors. The Department is not aware, however, of any court that has found that a defendant possessed monopoly power when its market share was less than fifty percent.(30) Thus, as a practical matter, a market share of greater than fifty percent has been necessary for courts to find the existence of monopoly power.(31)
Another point: even if the few investment firms have ownership of most of the market, control does not automatically lead to abuse. As you cite in the excellent dissertation above, the measure of trust or monopolist activity requires evidence of abuse of market power, not just the percentage of the market controlled.
Where can I find proxy voting record information?
A mutual fund’s proxy voting record is available from the fund and on the SEC’s website. A mutual fund must make the information disclosed in its most recently filed Form N-PX available to shareholders either on the fund’s website or upon request by calling a specified toll-free (or collect) telephone number. Many mutual funds make this information available on their websites. If a mutual fund makes its proxy voting record available to shareholders upon request, the fund must send the information to shareholders, without charge, within three business days of receipt of a request. You can find out how a mutual fund provides its proxy voting record to shareholders by reading its annual or semi-annual report to shareholders, or its statement of additional information, which is part of its registration statement.
Because a fund’s Form N-PX filing with the SEC is publicly available, you can find proxy voting record information for a mutual fund by searching the SEC’s EDGAR database. You can also find a mutual fund’s semi-annual and annual reports to shareholders, registration statement, and other SEC filings by searching the database.
What information must be disclosed?
A mutual fund must disclose the following information on Form N-PX for each matter relating to a portfolio security considered at a shareholder meeting and on which the fund is entitled to vote:
the name of the issuer of the portfolio security;
the exchange ticker symbol of the portfolio security;
the Committee on Uniform Security Identification Procedures (“CUSIP”) number for the portfolio security;
the shareholder meeting date;
a brief identification of the matter voted on;
whether the matter was proposed by the issuer or a security holder;
whether the fund cast its vote on the matter;
how the fund cast its vote (for example, for or against the proposal, or abstain; for or withhold regarding election of directors); and
whether the fund cast its vote for or against management.
Use of that word seemed to be a fad that came and went and I never heard anyone voice the word while growing up in Dothan, Alabama.
Nevertheless, I just that dictionary definition remains in several sources I just checked out on the internet. Here's one~~
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/fink
Comic books were doing such stuff way back then.
Liked a TV show called "Have Gun Will Travel starring Richard Boone playing a character called Paladin. Bought a comic book by the same name.
Comic books were soon sanitized back then, each time Paladin shot a bad guy, his victim would always grab a body part and cry "Help!" each and every time.
She hardly watched the show but loved that song.
I was close to fully grown at the time.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?vi...
Our constitution is an eloquent document safeguarding our natural rights only the founding fathers didn’t include financial freedom. We should have an amendment that government cannot apply laws to financially/regulatory punish or reward a citizen differently.
This would do away with lobbyist, special interest, enforce a flat tax. I think our biggest problem is corruption and this one amendment would negate laws that take from one group and give to another.
Financial freedom, being necessary for the wellbeing of free people, shall not be infringed by the government. The government shall not pass any laws that imposes financial befits to a particular sector of a population or entity at the expense of another. The government shall not impose laws that disincentivizes success of citizens. The government shall not issue fiat currency, all currency must be backed by tangible assists.
I’m not a lawyer but this is where I’d start. Simple is best, this would reinstate the gold standard or another assets, issue currency based on public land for god sakes, we already own it. Force a flat tax, everyone pays the same percentage based on total income. An amendment like this would secure our country for the foreseeable future, our biggest problem is financial coercion.
2) This kind of money has too much power over the free world. I smell something nefarious, it’s like rotted eggs and onions…
but it will be ugly
think 1776
we MUST make sure those responsible are held to account
NEO-Feudalism is a pretty accurate descriptor.
I really am shocked at how easily the Occupy Wall Street crowd was segued into this mindset.
Suddenly BIG CORPORATE is going to SAVE US ALL.
Anymore I refer to them as the “Synthetic” Left.
Gates is quoted as saying he thinks the world population should be reduced.
Mass starvation like Stalin did to the Ukraine should be coming soon.
David Mark Rubenstein is an American billionaire businessman. A former government official and lawyer, he is a co-founder and co-chairman of the private equity firm The Carlyle Group, a global private equity investment company based in Washington, D.C.
If we are willing to pay more for food, we could patronize the small farmer again, which I think would be a better idea than giving these huge companies control over us. We can buy eggs from walmart cheap, or go to a small farmer and pay 3x as much but get a better product and no corporate control.