Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

BlackRock’s woke capitalist vision is failing: here’s why

Published

2 years ago

13 minute read

Larry Fink, New York Times DealBook 2022.  Thos Robinson/Getty Images for The New York Times

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Corbett shows how public outrage at the unelected political power of asset managers has led to an investor backlash, with politicians and legislators taking steps against the “forcing of behaviors” which BlackRock CEO Larry Fink once trumpeted as his mission

The always engaging James Corbett has produced some of the most informative guides to the power of BlackRock – who together with second-placed Vanguard Group own a combined 15 trillion U.S. dollars of assets under management. 

In this report I relate how Corbett argues for a fightback against BlackRock and the asset management giants like them, who use their power to shape the world regardless of public consent. His views are more than corroborated by the news which followed the release of his video. 

Corbett’s September 21 presentation, “How to Defeat BlackRock,” followed up by his excellent, “How BlackRock Conquered the World,” begins with some very encouraging news about the fortunes of the global investment giants – and what can be done to stop them. Happily, this process is already underway. 

Corbett shows how public outrage at the unelected political power of asset managers has led to an investor backlash, with politicians and legislators taking steps against the “forcing of behaviors” which BlackRock CEO Larry Fink once trumpeted as his mission.   

According to Corbett, and a growing number of other sources, this pressure looks likely to force asset management giants like BlackRock out of the behavior business altogether.

READ: How Vanguard and BlackRock took control of the global economy 

A faltering global agenda 

The first piece of good news is that the brand of ESG (environmental, social and governance) is so toxic that not even BlackRock’s CEO wants to use it any more. 

BlackRock, under the leadership of Larry Fink, has used its immense wealth for years to compel companies to adopt the ESG agenda, becoming the driving force of “woke” capitalism. Yet leveraging financial power to force social and political change in this way has led to a backlash – from the general public, from lawmakers – and from the financial sector itself. 

Last December, the North Carolina State Treasurer Dale R. Folwell called for Fink’s resignation, threatening to withdraw over $14 billion in state funds from the  investment firm. As The Daily Mail reported, Folwell said:

Fink is in ‘pursuit of a political agenda… A focus on ESG is not a focus on returns and potentially could force us to violate our own fiduciary duty.’

Though his company, BlackRock, has continued to rate businesses on the same criteria, it has removed almost every mention of the term from its communications.   

Speaking in Aspen, Colorado, Fink admitted that the decision of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to withdraw $2 billion in state assets managed by BlackRock had hurt the company. The ESG agenda advanced by BlackRock is so beleaguered, even its former champion will not speak its name. 

The power of public opinion 

What this shows, as Corbett argues, is a further piece of good news: that public opinion still matters. It is public knowledge of the unelected political meddling of BlackRock and others which has led to outrage – and to action. 

As a result of extensive coverage – mainly from independent media – of the nefarious influence of his company, Larry Fink has faced sustained criticism for over a year. This in turn has led to the kind of legal and financial consequences which have made people like Fink think again. 

READ: How Larry Fink uses ESG and AI to control the world’s money  

This also shows why so much money is invested in propaganda, censorship and “narrative control.” Governments and corporations are afraid of a well-informed public, because such a public is very likely to demand they are held to account.  

The case of BlackRock not only shows that what is in your mind can indeed matter, but also that the goliaths of globalism do not always win.  

This is one reason for the ongoing information war, and the growing censorship-industrial complex. An informed citizenry has the power to hold the powerful to account. Taken together, public outrage can also move markets – and the money men who watch them.  

I investigated some of the claims Corbett made about the financial world’s mounting unease with the involvement of BlackRock, Vanguard and other firms in pushing unelected political and social change. I found more cause for celebration than even Corbett himself would admit at the time. 

Passive investments, legal actions 

In further good news, mounting legal troubles have accompanied the practice of companies like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street to leverage their enormous asset piles into social and political compliance engineering.  

According to a June 2023 report from RIAbiz, an online journal for registered investment advisers (RIAs), BlackRock and Vanguard’s “fooling around” with ESG targets has left them exposed to prosecution.  

The business of managing many assets is supposed to be “passive” – a legal term which means that companies such as BlackRock are prohibited from “exercising control” of the companies whose funds they manage.   

Federal exemptions had been granted to these asset management giants, but their habit of forcing behaviors on issues such as carbon “net zero” and “diversity” has placed their capacity to do business in jeopardy.  

In May of this year, BlackRock and Vanguard saw a legal challenge emerge, and one which not only deters investors, but may also lead to their being broken up. 

As Oisin Breen reported on June 1:

Seventeen AGs moved on May 10 against BlackRock on the grounds that its climate-based activism and its pro-ethical, governance and social (ESG) stance make it an active investor, in breach of a FERC antitrust agreement.  

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is involved due to BlackRock’s – and Vanguard’s – holdings in domestic energy utilities. Breen continues:  

Separately, 13 AGs filed a motion to block Vanguard from renewing its FERC exemption. They represent mostly energy-producing states like Texas, as do the 17 now pressing to have BlackRock’s exemption revoked.

Though Breen concluded that both firms had “won a reprieve” from immediate legal censure, the message appears to have been received. 

Three months later, Fortune magazine reported: 

Finance giants BlackRock and Vanguard – once ESG’s biggest proponents – seem to be reversing course.

Hitting the bottom line  

The global business publication noted the legal complications of mixing finance with social, environmental and governance policies, saying: 

It appears these strategic shifts are being driven by a combination of public backlash and a focus on their bottom lines.

Then, on October 23, leading U.S. insurance brokerage WTW reported that BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street had all seen significant drops in their total amounts of assets under management (AUM). BlackRock’s alone fell from over 10 trillion dollars to just over 8 trillion.  

By October 31, Fortune returned with the verdict that BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street had all “turned against environment and social proposals… in a clear sign of backlash.”  

Their report noted a “precipitous” fall in the support of all three asset giants’ commitment to these agendas – with BlackRock’s funding of “ESG” measures falling by over 30 percent from 2021.  

Real world consequences   

This is the delayed result of a reality which BlackRock themselves acknowledged – and one which drove much of the public disapproval – that the ESG agenda was an economic and social wrecking ball. 

Remarkably, BlackRock itself admitted that its promotion of ESG, in the aggressive pursuit of net zero and diversity policies, had actually contributed to a severe economic downturn.  

In its “2023 Outlook,” the asset giant said these initiatives had been a major factor in ending the decades-long period of prosperity in the West known as the Great Moderation. 

READ: The End of Prosperity? How BlackRock manipulates the West’s economic downturn 

Buycotts – not boycotts  

In his video Corbett is frank about the limitations of individual consumer power. You cannot “access BlackRock directly,” as it is a management firm. You can, of course, withdraw support from the companies in which it and its fellow behemoths Vanguard and State Street have holdings. 

Yet Corbett moves from boycotts of individual corporations to the intriguing concept of “buycotts.” What he means by this is  “taking your money from the corporations and using it to build things you want to see.”  

How realistic is this solution? Already, businesses are emerging to capitalize on growing public discontent with what is done with their money – without their consent or approval.  

Changing our behaviors – for good  

The investment platform Reverberate, for example, allows users to “Rate companies highly (over 2.5 stars) if they make your life better, or lower if they make your life worse.” 

What is more, user feedback from the public will determine which shares it buys:

Our publicly-traded investment fund buys shares of companies whose average ratings are high and/or rising, and sells shares of those whose average ratings are low and/or falling. 

On their website, Reverberate says: 

This is our way of trying to align capital allocation with the interests of the general public, as estimated by us in a relatively unbiased, wide-reaching way.

The decline of the asset managers’ ESG agenda is a happy corrective to the damaging belief that nothing can be done about anything.  

It shows how well-informed public opinion can lead to genuine change, and with some of Corbett’s insights, how we can move from complaint to constructive action in making a better world. 

You can see Corbett’s entertaining case for countering the woke asset management giants here. 

Before Post

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Health / 4 hours ago

Canadian gov’t considers sharing census data on gender-confused children

Business / 7 hours ago

COP30 finally admits what resource workers already knew: prosperity and lower emissions must go hand in hand

Alberta / 7 hours ago

Canada’s New Green Deal

Business

COP30 finally admits what resource workers already knew: prosperity and lower emissions must go hand in hand

Published on December 16, 2025

By

From Resource Works

By Jim Rushton

What a difference a few weeks make

Finally, the Conference of the Parties to the UN climate convention (COP30) adopted a pragmatic tone that will appeal to the working class. Too bad it took thirty meetings. Pragmatism produces results, not missed targets.

We should not have been surprised. Influential figures like Bill Gates and Canadian-Venezuelan analyst Quico Toro, who have long argued that efforts to reduce CO₂ should focus more on technology and prosperity, and less on energy consumption and declining growth, have gained ground.

In the World Energy Outlook 2025, prepared by the International Energy Agency for COP30, you can see that many of the views held by the people above had already gone mainstream before the conference started.

The World Energy Outlook 2025 lays out three scenarios: Current Policies (CPS), Stated Policies (STEPS), and Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE). In WEO 2025, all three scenarios reflect longer timelines for the decline of fossil fuels than in earlier editions, and the NZE pathway explicitly states that major technological breakthroughs will be required.

Unfortunately, many potential technologies are adamantly opposed by the loudest groups within the Climate Change Movement because they are not perfect. Even some continue to oppose nuclear power, one of the few proven sources of large-scale, zero-carbon, firm electricity.

Another noteworthy standout in WEO 2025 was the strong recognition that energy security, costs, and supply chains are now the primary considerations in determining each country’s energy mix.

What all this means is we are breaking away from emotionally charged, fear-based policies and rhetoric and moving toward a practical “let’s do things better” approach.

For 30 years, the radical leadership of the environmental movement has focused on what we should stop doing and on sacrificing prosperity. Essentially, what has been going on is an attack on working people in the industrialized and developing world.

Today, workers in the developed world are so anxious that many are losing faith in democratic institutions. Meanwhile, people in the emerging and developing world see light at the end of the tunnel and are determined to industrialize.

Clearly, it is time to merge the fight to lower CO₂ emissions with prosperity. “Let’s do things better” captures the history of human progress and resonates with working people today.

What does it take for longer, healthier, safer, and more sustainable lives? It takes the pragmatism of workers. They spend their lives striving to improve workplace safety, to develop tools that enable them to perform tasks more effectively with less physical effort, to earn higher pay, to produce more food with less land, and to preserve their opportunity to continue working.

Resource workers have felt under attack and are humiliated when celebrities fly in on a helicopter to denigrate their work and make references to the virtues of small-plot gardening, or politicians who tell them to go back to school for “jobs of the future”, only to find themselves in low-paying service jobs.

As the COP30 discussion indicates, we have reached a turning point. It is time to focus on doing what needs to be done, but doing it better. It is time to stop banning activities entirely as though circumstances and technology never change. Demanding perfection hides what is possible, slows progress and, in some cases, stops it altogether.

Bill Gates’ memo to COP30 points to the turn in the road:

“We should measure success by our impact on human welfare more than our impact on the global temperature, and our success relies on putting energy, health, and agriculture at the centre of our strategies.”

Gates also makes a point that will resonate with working people: “Using more energy is a good thing because it is closely correlated with economic growth.” Ironically, a statement made by a billionaire resonates with working people more than does the message of many climate activists.

The work at the Port of Prince Rupert comes to mind, given its growing role in supplying cleaner cooking and heating fuels, when we are reminded that 2 billion people worldwide cook and/or heat their homes with highly polluting open fires (wood, charcoal, dung, agricultural waste).

Persuasion published Quico Toro’s essay on November 13, 2025, which speaks another truth.

“COP imagines these emissions as something a country’s government can set, like the dial on a thermostat. But emissions are more like GDP: the outcome of a complex process that politicians would like to be able to control, but do not actually control.”

I am feeling more secure about the future here in Canada and BC, as governments, First Nations and the public are leaning into climate and economic pragmatism.

There will be hard discussions and uncomfortable trade-offs. Past decisions need to be re-examined in good faith. Do they meet today’s demands? Are we doing what needs to be done better? Is it the right move for today’s youth and future generations? Will we bring back the hope and opportunity of a growing middle class?

Nobody, not the Liberal government, the BC NDP government, First Nations, none of us would have predicted the world we are facing today, where our economy and sovereignty are challenged.

Today, oil, natural gas, and critical minerals, not one or two but all three, are the financial backstop Canada needs, as we rebuild the economy and secure our sovereignty.

Look West: Jobs and Prosperity for Stronger BC and Canada is as much of an admission that we are falling behind as it is a call to action. Success will take billions of dollars, the exact amount unknown.

But what we do know is that oil, gas, and critical minerals generate the most public revenue, the highest incomes, and are our most significant exports. They are Canada’s bank and comparative advantage. They will provide the cash flow needed to get it done.

Not maximizing oil production and exports is fighting with both hands tied behind our back. We all know it; now we need to focus on doing it better because circumstances have changed dramatically.

Jim Rushton is a 46-year veteran of BC’s resource and transportation sectors, with experience in union representation, economic development, and terminal management.

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Business

Canada’s recent economic growth performance has been awful

Published on December 16, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen and Milagros Palacios

Recently, Statistics Canada released a revision of its calculations of Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP) in recent years. GDP measures the total production in an economy in a given year, and per-person GDP is widely accepted by economists as one of the most useful metrics for assessing quality of life. The new estimate places Canada’s GDP for 2024 at 1.4 per cent larger than previously reported.

By the standards of these sorts of revisions—which are usually quite small—the recent update is significant. But make no mistake, the new numbers do not change the fundamental story of Canada’s economic performance, which has been one of historically weak growth and stagnant living standards for an unusually long stretch of time.

Let’s get into the numbers (all adjusted for inflation, in 2017 dollars) with some historical perspective. The new figures put Canada’s per-person GDP estimate for 2024 at $59,529. By comparison, in 2019 per-person GDP was slightly higher at $59,581. This means there has been no progress at all in Canadian living standards as measured by per-person GDP over the past five years. Even with the revision, five years of flat living standards is an extraordinary result.

This is historically anomalous. From 2000 to 2018—a period that was itself not especially strong by the standards of earlier decades—per-person GDP still grew at a compounded annual rate of just under one per cent. In the 1990s, growth was faster still at roughly 1.8 per cent annually. In both periods, living standards were rising meaningfully, even if the pace varied. The fact that they have completely stagnated for five years is alarming, even if our GDP numbers aren’t quite as bleak as we believed a few weeks ago.

Some pundits determined to view all economic data through a political lens have emphasized that under the new revisions, the overall rate of per-person growth during Justin Trudeau’s time as prime minister is now approximately the same as what occurred during Stephen Harper’s tenure.

However, this is more relevant as a political talking point than an economic insight. The historical data show that at an average annual growth rate of just 0.5 per cent, the Canadian economy’s performance under Harper was weak by long-term standards. This is something that Trudeau himself recognized when he first sought high office, criticizing the Harper government for “having the worst record on economic growth since R.B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression.”

Trudeau was right back then that Canadian economic growth during the Harper era was historically weak. As such, a revision showing that Canada’s slow growth has approximately continued for the past decade is hardly cause for celebration. It simply underscores that both governments presided over a long period of weak productivity growth and very slow improvements in living standards—and that in recent years even that sluggish growth has given way to complete stagnation.

Of course, an upward revision to recent GDP calculations is welcome news, but it must not be allowed to distract policymakers or the public from the reality of Canada’s severe long-term growth problem, which in recent years has gone from bad to worse.

Continue Reading

Trending

X