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

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.

Related Topics:#BlackRockCEOLarryFink #FrankWright #HowToDefeatBlackRock #LifeSiteNews #WokeCapitalism

Up Next

Empty Shelves: The Noxious Politics Behind a Canadian School Board’s Massive Book Purge

Don't Miss

Hush Money: The Untold Dangers and Delusions of Central Bank Digital Currency

Todayville

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

Trump says tariffs on China will remain until trade imbalance is corrected

Business / 4 hours ago

Jury verdict against oil industry worries critics, could drive up energy costs

Courageous Discourse / 5 hours ago

Europe Had 127,350 Cases of Measles in 2024

Business

Trump says tariffs on China will remain until trade imbalance is corrected

Published on April 6, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Trump said Sunday he won’t make a tariff deal with China unless its $1 trillion trade surplus with the U.S. is balanced. Speaking aboard Air Force One, he called the deficit “not sustainable” and said tariffs are already driving a wave of investment back to America.

Key Details:

Trump told reporters the U.S. has “a $1 trillion trade deficit with China,” adding, “hundreds of billions of dollars a year we lose to China, and unless we solve that problem, I’m not going to make a deal.” He insisted any agreement must begin with fixing that imbalance.
The president said tariffs are generating “levels that we’ve never seen before” of private investment, claiming $7 trillion has already been committed in areas like auto manufacturing and chip production, with companies returning to places like North Carolina, Detroit, and Illinois.
On Truth Social Sunday night, Trump wrote: “The only way this problem can be cured is with TARIFFS… a beautiful thing to behold.” He accused President Biden of allowing trade surpluses to grow and pledged, “We are going to reverse it, and reverse it QUICKLY.”

Diving Deeper:

President Donald Trump reaffirmed his tough trade stance on Sunday, telling reporters that he won’t negotiate any new deal with China unless the massive trade deficit is addressed. “We have a $1 trillion trade deficit with China. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year we lose to China, and unless we solve that problem, I’m not going to make a deal,” Trump said while aboard Air Force One.

He emphasized that while some countries have deficits in the billions, China’s trade advantage over the U.S. exceeds a trillion dollars and remains the most severe. “We have a tremendous deficit problem with China… I want that solved,” he said. “A deficit is a loss. We’re going to have surpluses, or we’re, at worst, going to be breaking even.”

Trump touted the impact of tariffs already in place, pointing to an estimated $7 trillion in committed investments flowing into the U.S. economy. He highlighted growth in the automotive and semiconductor sectors in particular, and said companies are now bringing operations back to American soil—citing North Carolina, Detroit, and Illinois as examples.

He also claimed world leaders in Europe and Asia are eager to strike deals with the U.S., but he’s holding firm. “They’re dying to make a deal,” he said, “but as long as there are deficits, I’m not going to do that.”

Trump projected that tariffs would add another $1 trillion to federal revenues by next year and help re-establish the U.S. as the world’s top economic power. “Our country has gotten a lot stronger,” Trump said. “Eventually it’ll be a country like no other… the most dominant country, economically, in the world, which is what it should be.”

Later Sunday night, Trump doubled down in a Truth Social post, writing, “We have massive Financial Deficits with China, the European Union, and many others. The only way this problem can be cured is with TARIFFS, which are now bringing Tens of Billions of Dollars into the U.S.A.” He added that trade surpluses have grown under Joe Biden and vowed to reverse them “QUICKLY.”

Business

Jury verdict against oil industry worries critics, could drive up energy costs

Published on April 6, 2025

Todayville

Offshore drilling rig Development Driller III at the Deepwater Horizon site May, 2010. Petty Officer 3rd Class Patrick Kelley, U.S. Coast Guard photo

From The Center Square

By Casey Harper

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

A $744 million jury verdict in Louisiana is at the center of a coordinated legal effort to force oil companies to pay billions of dollars to ameliorate the erosion of land in Louisiana, offset climate change and more.

Proponents say the payments are overdue, but critics say the lawsuits will hike energy costs for all Americans and are wrongly supplanting the state and federal regulatory framework already in place.

In the Louisiana case in question, Plaquemines Parish sued Chevron alleging that oil exploration off the coast decades ago led to the erosion of Louisiana’s coastline.

A jury ruled Friday that Chevron must pay $744 million in damages.

The Louisiana case is just one of dozens of environmental cases around the country that could have a dramatic – and costly – impact on American energy consumers.

While each environmental case has its own legal nuances and differing arguments, the lawsuits are usually backed by one of a handful of the same law firms that have partnered with local and state governments. In Louisiana, attorney John Carmouche has led the charge.

“If somebody causes harm, fix it,” Carmouche said to open his arguments.

Environmental arguments of this nature have struggled to succeed in federal courts, but they hope for better luck in state courts, as the Louisiana case was.

Those damages for exploration come as President Donald Trump is urging greater domestic oil production in the U.S. to help lower energy costs for Americans.

Daniel Erspamer, CEO of the Pelican Institute, told The Center Square that the Louisiana case could go to the U.S. Supreme Court, as Chevron is expected to appeal.

“So the issue at play here is a question about coastal erosion, about legal liability and about the proper role of the courts versus state government or federal government in enforcing regulation and statute,” Erspamer said.

Another question in the case is whether companies can be held accountable for actions they carried out before regulations were passed restricting them.

“There are now well more than 40 different lawsuits targeting over 200 different companies,” Erspamer said.

The funds would purportedly be used for coastal restoration and a kind of environmental credit system, though critics say safeguards are not in place to make sure the money would actually be used as stated.

While coastal erosion cases appear restricted to Louisiana, similar cases have popped up around the U.S. in the last 10 to 15 years.

Following a similar pattern, local and state governments have partnered with law firms to sue oil producers for large sums to help offset what they say are the effects of climate change, as The Center Square previously reported.

For instance, in Pennsylvania, Bucks County sued a handful of energy companies, calling for large abatement payments to offset the effects of climate change.

“There are all kinds of problems with traceability, causation and allocability,” George Mason University Professor Donald Kochan told The Center Square, pointing out the difficulty of proving specific companies are to blame when emissions occur all over the globe, with China emitting far more than the U.S.

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

Those cases are in earlier stages and face more significant legal hurdles because of questions about whether plaintiffs can justify the cases on federal common law because it is difficult to prove than any one individual has been substantively and directly harmed by climate change.

On top of that, plaintiffs must also prove that emissions released by the particular oil companies are responsible for the damage done, which is complicated by the fact that emissions all over the world affect the environment, the majority of which originate outside the U.S.

“It’s not that far afield from the same kinds of lawsuits we’ve seen in California and New York and other places that more are on the emissions and global warming side rather than the sort of dredging and exploration side,” Erspamer said.

But environmental companies argue that oil companies must fork out huge settlements to pay for environmental repairs.

For now, the Louisiana ruling is a shot across the bow in the legal war against energy companies in the U.S.

Whether the appeal is successful or other lawsuits have the same impact remains to be seen.